[Natural Order] Communism was unavoidable... and of John Maynard Keynes

I just came across the perfect phrase to describe how I view the stage where Sinic countries viewed Communism early on in the twentieth century.

Thus the extraordinary occurrences of the past two years in Russia, that vast upheaval of Society, which has overturned what seemed most stable—religion, the basis of property, the ownership of land, as well as forms of government and the hierarchy of classes—may owe more to the deep influences of expanding numbers than to Lenin or to Nicholas; and the disruptive powers of excessive national fecundity may have played a greater part in bursting the bonds of convention than either the power of ideas or the errors of autocracy (of The Economic Consequences of the Peace by John Maynard Keynes).

For at that time, it was problems, such as the rapid growth of population and the diminishing ability of states in the Sinic Orbit to be functioning governments, that bankrupted the credibility of old and past institutions. For Korea, look at none other than the Donghak Movement, which led to none other than the Sino-Japanese War (1894-95). Now, consider that Western (U.S.) support for those that had been either colonial colloborators or participants in these past

insitutions made democratic or a market economy incredibly unpopular.

But, what makes East Asia different is that Communist leaders in this part of the region were first and foremost, popular national heroes, who came to identify with Communism. This was more or less a result of the just mentioned logic and by the U.S. decision to support colonial colloborators or participants of past institutions (more or less). Though, the communism is the future thing played its role too. You see, while I'm not exactly writing part IV in this installment yet, I'm setting the argument up for how economic development, or these so called "miracles" in East Asia seem to keep happening over and over again.

Also, it has been pointed out that Mongolia is a state that does not enjoy economic development, which is geographically positioned in Northeast Asia (roughly). However, I would like to say that Mongolia was and has never been a state with Confucian institutions and I believe it is either Henry Kissinger in Diplomacy or Paul Kennedy in the Rise and Fall of Great Powers, who mentions that it is precisely those civilizations that adopted certain parts of Chinese civilization that were the ones that survived intact and independent. I would argue that Mongolia is not and has not been a state with Confucian institutions.

This is another installment in this natural order argument. Perhaps, it could become part of a lengthy paper one day... Earlier I wrote:

• [Natural Order] I'd blame Truman, but a North Korean apologist... I am not
• [Natural Order] How will we judge the Korean War in a century?
• [Natural Order] : An unnatural division and unnatural order

[Natural Order] How will we judge the Korean War in a century?

I believe some of the words from the previous post, "I'd blame Truman" to have been misconstrued to somehow mean that I am saying it would have indeed been a good thing to have had Kim Il Sung quickly unify the peninsula on his terms. By no way, did I mean that I wish Koreans in South Korea today would be better off had this been the case. I mean, it is irrefutable, that South Korea enjoys a moderately wealthy existence compared to the bizarre state that is North Korea today as North Korea recently again demonstrated by killing six civilians in South Korea by flooding a dam that was built to do just that, yes, by flooding a dam that was built to kill people

"The Peace Dam is probably the only dam in world constructed with no reservoir"("North Korea Kills Six In South Korea with Flood" : ROKdrop ).

"North Korea built dams including the Mt. Kumgang Dam to inundate Seoul," he said, but the project was foiled by South Korea building the Peace Dam. "But North Korea believes it can decisively threaten Seoul if it opens the floodgates at times of heavy rainfall," he added. ("Was N.Korea's Dam Release a Shot Across the Bow? : Chosun Ilbo).

This is not the type of government that I think should inwould even want to exist, let alone be the state of a unified Korean peninsula. let alone even an island.But, the point I was trying to make was, consider this article from the New York Times, though some are secondary sources, I doubt any would refute these facts; unless you really were like the spokepiece of North Korea, such as Kim Myong Chol, whose "work" frequently appears on Asia Times, such as "Rich lessons in North Korea's playbook." As for Stalin beling held responsible for the North Korean invasion, first consider U.S. failure to communicate its intentions and interests in the period leading up to the Korean War, then consider:

"We later learned from Khrushchev's memoirs that, far from initiating the attack, Stalin only slowly consented to Kim Il Sung's overconfident plan for a campaign that would be over before the Americans could react. Khrushchev's version has been reinforced by other Soviet witnesses in the years of glasnost."

But, most importantly, is the conclusion of this article written some 40 years after the Korean War broke out and nearly two decades from today:

What deserves our respectful attention is that Harry Truman's basic decision, with its human cost, especially to us and to the South Koreans, was right ("The Korean War, 40 Years Later; The Right Decision" : The New York Times).

What I am arguing is will this be the consensus twenty years from today (or forty years after this article was written). I mean, yes, most ordinary South Koreans enjoys such material prosperity that probably only a select few and I mean a very select few in North Korea could only begin to dream about. I am saying that had the Korean War run its course without intervention from the United States (or equivalently had Harry S. Truman not settled on a policy, the Truman Doctrine, where not winning wars, was supposed to be a success ), then Korea would most likely have been a poor, failing state for perhaps a half century or so. But, this is what I was getting at in the previous post:

While it may be the case that economists in yesteryear saw South Korean economic development as a miracle, in the heart of prosperous Northeast Asia, I would argue, it is in fact North Korea that seems to be the exceptional case and the miracle ("I'd blame Truman" : Breaking Down Borders: Korea).

Considering this, then I don't think so. I think in this alternate scenario, if you envision Korea to be like Vietnam, and especially where that economy seems to be heading, and you'd get a good idea. A unified Korea in 1950 would have suffered perhaps a famine (one and probably just one as in what happened in Communist China) and a period of dire economic mismanagement. But, then since no rival Korean state exists and after the country reconciled the fractures and fissures the nation found itself in in the aftermath of forced industrialization and colonization, the Korean state would then have been able to adopt the necessary political and economic reforms to eventually find the material prosperity and democratic institutions that South Korea enjoys today.

I am sure this will be the story of Vietnam in a generation or two, but what about those of North Korea? Millions will have been and could still be suffering under this perverse communist regime that is North Korea. In this light, can it still be argued that if the Korean War is seen from a Korean perspective and not in the perspective of the cold war, was it really a success (post-1988)? I would argue no.

[Natural Order] I'd blame Truman, but a North Korean apologist...I am not...

Recently, I found myself in the awkward position of having to argue against the United States and even argue that the United States was indeed responsible for the divison of the Korean Peninsula (I'm not arguing that the continuing division of the peninsula is the U.S.' fault). It is a position that I would not ever have dreamt of and, indeed, please note that I consider myself a proud Korean-American, where I'd like to point out that the word Korean is an adjective that modifies the noun, American. Indeed, I am American and a very proud one at that (Though, I would also say I'm a proud Korean too).

But, I would have to argue that just because South Korea finds herself to be moderately wealthy, while North Korea has turned out to be a very bizarre state - though I will argue given the place (geography) and time (history) that North Korea finds herself to be in; it doesn't seem all that bizarre. But, not just the division of the peninsula, but the perverse nature of the North Korean state does actually lie in the hands of the United States. More so, I would like to say that it would be disingenious to argue that Joseph Stalin should be held any more responsible for the Korean War than Harry S. Truman.

The division of the Korean Peninsula was agreed during the Potsdam Conference. Although the Soviet Union should not have been in a war against the Japanese since they only enterred the war when Japanese defeat was all, but assured, it was not clear where and how the Korean Peninsula would be divided -- although a similar, parallel argument can be made about the U.S. invading continental europe only after German defeat was all, but assured after the Battle of Stalingrad, it was the Soviet Union, who assented, to the U.S. demand that the Soviet Union allow U.S. soldiers to land on the Korean Peninsula.

But anyways, you see, it was the Soviet Union who assented to the U.S. demand of division of the Korean peninsula. Note, that the U.S. refused the division of Japan when the Soviet Union asked if Soviet troops could land on Hokkaido. The Soviet Union, quite aware of which the more powerful country was at that time (and who also possessed nuclear weapons), assented and actually waited for the U.S. soldiers to arrive on the peninsula.

U.S. naivete not only wrongly interfered with the natural development of East Asia, but in particular with respect to Korea, the greatest tragedy was that by the U.S. interfering in what was basically a civil war, the peninsula saw all the carnage and destruction that would've played out anyways had the U.S. not interfered, but the wardid nothing to unify the nation ("Containment"). Moreover, the perverse state that North Korea finds herself to be in is a direct result of the natural order of things being prevented from occurring. Other Sinic nations experienced similar bouts of reconciliation, but with the fruits of unification.

I believe the U.S. during that period in time chose the wrong side. It was as if the U.S. in almost a John Bolton-esque fashion held so rigidly towards ideology that the nation was blind to what was really going on. The Civil Wars in the Sinic nations in East Asia were more a natural development of land reforms and a conclusion to societal fissures that had been building up for quite some time and, while Communism promised to be the "quick way" towards modernization, the U.S. belief in this communist bloc to be a monolithic one was misguided (and costly) to say the least.

Moreover, only after the U.S. signalled to Stalin that the U.S. did not care about the Korean Peninsula did Stalin give Kim Il Sung a green lightto invade the ROK armed with Soviet Tanks. Of course, the U.S. then abruptly changed her mind - or perhaps, it was just the case that President Truman who singlehandedly decided that the U.S. did care after all. As a result of this decision or perhaps indecision and miscommunication on the part of the United States, millions of Koreans and Chinese died along with many thousands of Americans.

Most importantly though, millions of Koreans would continue and still do continue to suffer in North Korea as a result of this indecision. While it may be the case that economists in yesteryear saw South Korean economic development as a miracle, in the heart of prosperous Northeast Asia, I would argue, it is in fact North Korea that seems to be the exceptional case and the miracle. Hence, I would argue that, if blame were to be assigned, then it would not be Stalin, but Truman who should be faulted.

Of course, the nation remained divided and while in 1988 with the Seoul Olympics the U.S. did ultimately enjoy the fruitful dividends to the war on the peninsula, the nation remains divided.It is in this light that I'd humbly argue that the U.S. interfered in the natural development of things. The fissures that were built up during thetimes leading upto the Japanese Colonial Period and during this periodwere never reconciliated.And, I would also think that the perverse state that is North Korea todaywould not and could not exist had it not been for the presence of a rich and prosperous South Korea. Hence, the logic behind the U.S. interferingin the natural order of things.

What to expect from Clinton's "Summit"

And, Kim Jong Il Gets What He Wants... (Which is ? Scroll to the way bottom)

While former President Clinton goes to North Korea (as an unoffical guest, which is quite convenient for the U.S.), Kim Jong Il finally gets his one-on-one encounter with a (former, Democratic) U.S. president -- before he dies. It made all the headlines here in the U.K. as well, however I couldn't find an equivalent of the one they had at over at the Economist. I nabbed the picture below from "North Korea: Pictures from an exhibition" : The Economist.

At any rate, North Korean leader Kim Jong Il finally got the attention he so craved. While reading one of the U.K. dailies today, I came across this one part, which I thought was quite funny. These are insults that have been traded between the U.S. and the North Korean regime at one point or another:

Kim Jong-il may have been all smiles and handshakes with Bill, but just a few days ago his regime was in something of a slanging match with the other Clinton.

On a recent visit to New Delhi, Hillary, the Secretary of State, bemoaned the North Korean leadership's "constant demand for attention," before adding: "Maybe it's the mother in me or the experience that I've had with small children and unruly teenagers."

The North Koreans' response was firm. "We cannot but regard Mrs Clinton as a funny lady as she likes to utter such rhetoric, unaware of the elementary etiquette in the international community," a spokesperson said. "Sometimes she looks like a primary schoolgirl and sometimes like a pensioner going shopping."

The name-calling between Washington and Pyongyang is not new. George W Bush branded Kim Jong-il "a spoiled child at a dinner table". The North Koreans called Bush a "tyrannical imbecile" lacking "even an iota of elementary reason". And in 1968, North Korea's Major-General Pak Chung Kuk called Lyndon Johnson a "living corpse" ("Two U.S. journalists freed from Korean gulag" : The Independent).

At any rate, there was a lot of press coverage, but with expectations suddenly raised between North Korea and the U.S., although I feel I am a quite an optimist by nature, I cannot be more than a tad pessimistic about what may lay ahead. This "summit" has all the elements that the Koizumi-Kim summit had in 2002 when Koizumi suddenly and unexpectedly arrived in North Korea for a summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong Il for the release of Japanese abductees. Of course, none at the time and nobody more so than former Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi could have anticipated how adversely the Japanese public would consume the news that their citizens had indeed been abducted.

Personally, I believe what will drive North Korea-U.S. relations as well as with the other four parties from the six party framework, is how each party comes to accept the fact that North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapons. This stands in stark and direct conflict with the fact that the United States will never accept North Korea as a legitimate nuclear power along the lines that the U.S. has with India -- and rightly so.

But, I do believe the U.S. would be content to see a steady-state where North Korea has nuclear weapons, but doesn't share/sell nuclear weapons or technology to other countries or non-state actors. Of course, this would hinge on North Korea not testing nuclear weapons (you can see this as the U.S. -- I'm thinking Department of Defense here, which has a different definition as to what constitutes a nuclear test than the U.S. State Department). And, of course, this action by the U.S. would in and of itself be a security guarantee for North Korea -- while not directly in the form of an alliance, the U.S. will do everything in its power to make sure a state with nuclear weapons does not collapse (think Pakistan).

But, pessimissm aside, I have a feeling that come one year -- and provided Kim Jong Il doesn't die, not much will have changed from how things were perhaps a couple years ago. If North Korea returns to a posture where it looks like it is going to negotiate, then South Korea can again start trading with North Korea and, well, unfortunately Japan looks like the odd man out (I'm quite concerned about what would happen if Japan's interests were not considered by the U.S., leading to Japan re-arming. Japan has quite a few greivances with all her neighbors: Kuril Islands/lack of peace treaty (Russia), Liancourt Rocks (Korea), No Peace Treaty (North Korea), and the Senkaku Islands (China/Republic of China(Taiwan)). I'm probably missing some others as well.

Anyways, I'm thinking that at best we can expect a return to the status quo and see what type of vocabulary each country uses to come up with a tacit acceptance of North Korea's nuclear weapons program as no country will go to war with North Korea to get rid of it.

(So, Kim Jong Il gets a de-facto security guarantee from the United States with the potential for much more).

The Power of Words and of Democracy, Japan, and Sarah Palin

I remember a few years back during the Good Ol' Days we had ... a George W. Bush as president of the White House. I didn't really appreciate what people meant when they believed the United States was the country most dangerous to world security and stability at that point in time yet. (See my post America the Dangerous). By the way, just as in the post below, please send me corrections. I would hate to think that I would be propagating something untrue.

Ahh. Those were the good ol' days. The U.S. economy was booming (after a sharp, but short-lived contraction after 9-11). Well, the U.S. President at the time, George W. Bush was in Japan for a summit with then Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi (I guess those were the good ol' times for Japan too... at least on a relative basis, considering the past twenty years now).

Oh, and on a side note, for those thinking the decline of the LDP and the recent dissolution of the Diet in Japan after the humilitating defeat of the ruling LDP in recent elections in Tokyo is the start of a new multiparty democratic regime in Japan.

Think Again.

Compare how Shinjiro Koizumi (former Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi's son has been "annointed" to succeed his father). This is straight from the Japan Times (Kim Jong Un is the son of Kim Jong Il reported to succeed his father once he returns to Mount Paekdu as the next ruler of the North Korean regime) :

"And, as Aera pointed out, the strategy for making sure Koizumi Junior gets the seat is strikingly similar to the one currently being carried out in North Korea. Even if Shinjiro is Koizumi's second son and not his third, he's 28 years old, the same age as Jong Un and Hidetada when they were picked for their jobs" ("My son, I give you power over the people" : Japan Times).

Anyways, well, when George W. Bush was in Japan, he did something amazing; he confused the word "devaluation" with "deflation." You see, Japan had been experiencing problems of falling prices -- deflation, for a very long time and it was the biggest issue in Japan at that time. So, if he were to meet the Japanese Prime Minister, it would be quite natural to talk about U.S. backing for Koizumi's strategy to flight deflation.

But, during the press conference after the summit:

"A remark by US President George W Bush about "devaluation" in Japan has caused confusion in the currency markets. The yen fell as some traders interpreted the comment as meaning the US favoured a devaluation of the Japanese currency" ("Bush gaffe hits yen" : BBC)

His exact words were:

"He [Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi] said I want to make it very clear to you exactly what I intend to do and he talked about non-performing loans, the devaluation issue and regulatory reform and he placed equal emphasis on all three" (Feb. 18, 2002).

The problem, you see, though, is that there was no devaluation issue at the time (Where, the U.S. would tacitlty approve a Japanese policy of trying to rid deflation by the Japanese Central Bank lowering the value of the Yen versus the Dollar -- in effect, exporting Japan's economic problems, which of course, the U.S. was not in favor of).

Ironically, that is exactly what the U.S. seems to be doing. But, more on this perhaps some time in the future since I just started studying this (it's basically what the second half of the course I am taking about is: EC321: Money and Banking), so in all fairness I don't really have an informed opinion.

But, on paper though, the U.S. enjoys an Exorbitant Privilege as the U.S. enjoys the ability to issue debt in her own currency (dollars) andat lower comparative interest rates (for example, treasury bills are considered safe debt to own) so depreciation is much more beneficial to the U.S. than say it would have been for Japan (but on a personal level, I think Japan should be commended for not depreciating her currency during this time when competitors in China and particularly South Korea went through a period of protracted depreciation, either explicitly (Korea) or implicitly (Japan)).

Of course, the fact that he "misspoke" cost like I believe a sharp drop in the value of the Yen, but the fact that one wrong word by this President led to billions of losses (or gains) by investors who were taking George W. Bush's words seriously is/was a pretty scary thought -- Thank God that there is no chance of a Palin adminsitration:

"This bombshell was unexpected, and makes it highly unlikely that she will ever be president" ("The passing of Palin" : Economist)

Anyways, when I first read that I just couldn't believe it. How on Earth could this not have gotten more media coverage? No, not with respect to Sarah Palin. That's more like (How on Earth could she have gotten so much media coverage?) But, more interestingly, here's this word that when spoken recklessly and carelessly by one person it has the power to affect all those that take him/her seriously -- especially if we are speaking of billions, well trillions, of yen.

North Korea, Koreas Update

On the North Korean front:

Nothing exciting to speak of as North Korea really is running out of things to do, firing missiles on July 4th has been done before and no missile came close to Hawaii. Kangnam I safely returned back to North Korea. But, what has recently begun appearing on the news is if the North Korean succession story is for real or just to grab Hillary Clinton’s (United States) attention. More on this later.

South Korea – Japan held a summit. Of course, nothing came of it since still the dominant relationships in East Asia are still the bilateral relationships with the United States. Of course, what should be interesting for Korean nationalists, whose national psyche or “han” has not fully healed yet, is how they react to the trilateral meeting between the United States-China-Japan that will be held shortly. Previous overtures by China on such a meeting were declined on the part of the United States to assuage South Korean insecurities. However, with the financial crisis the United States consented this time.

With this in mind, South Korea’s foreign policy priority number one should still solely be on unification and nothing else. Ideas such as being a neutral or balancing party (former South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun) or of building closer ties with ASEAN (South Korean President Lee Myung Bak’s New Asia Initiative) might seem great, but it’s just fanciful(wishful) thinking on the part of a confused half nation. This has been a repeated theme in this blog. Zhiqun Zhu writes:

“Korea's dream to become a leading player in international affairs will also likely be wishful thinking if the nation remains divided. Nevertheless, Lee, just like Roh, is commendable for his attempts to enhance South Korea's international profile and to contribute to peace and development in Asia” (South Korea in a new Asia initiative Asia Times).

China is NOT the key to North Korea

I'm actually in the middle of studying for a make up test later today, so I have a flight in a few hours, but this editorial caught my eye. To be honest, it’s flimsy editorials like this one that make me want to write this blog. I can’t find exactly who the author is, but somehow it made to the Los Angeles Times.

"North Korean leader Kim Jong Il decided long ago that nuclear weapons were his best protection against an external threat of regime change" ("China is the key to North Korea" Los Angeles Times).

A couple posts down, I describe why South Korea’s foreign policy is held hostage at least with respect to North Korea due primarily to the location of Seoul. But, what I didn’t mention in that post was how while the United States could attack North Korea without much risk to being attacked at home, U.S. foreign policy too is held hostage to the fact that there are still about 28,500 U.S. soldiers in South Korea. An invasion by North Korea with or without nuclear weapons would not only destroy Seoul, but kill most of those U.S. soldiers overnight. Former President George W. Bush was told this exact same thing by former Saudi Ambassador and Crown Prince Bandar (Check out Bob Woodward’s State of Denial: Bush at War, Part III ). If twenty thousand U.S. soldiers died overnight from a North Korean invasion, then there would be no need for a congressional or public debate about the need for a U.S. invasion of North Korea. It would be done (Another reason why as I wrote earlier that Extended Deterrence was solely for propaganda purposes).

If North Korea has artillerly that can flatten Seoul and kill 28,000 thousand American soldiers and about twenty million living Koreans overnight, then this should be enough to protect against a "regime change." Then which country would have the most to lose if North Korea actually developed a full-fledged nuclear program? So, it’s not the U.S. and it’s definitely not South Korea. Japan, maybe? Recall the United States decision to notify Japan only twenty minutes before taking North Korea off the list of states sponsoring terrorism. The only terrorists North Korea actually harbored were those of the Red Army (Communist Japanese Terrorists). And, moreover, if Japan feels it “necessary” that to protect against North Korea that Japan too needs nuclear weapons, when of course, the country doesn’t (remember, Extended Deterrence covers Japan as well), then who loses?

China.

So, if China would lose out the most if North Korea developed nuclear weapons and China is not doing too well as the more North Korea backtracks the more China’s lack of power shows (i.e. failure of six party talks, continual and unending foreign aid from Beijing), then does China really have the power to do anything in North Korea?

Perhaps. But, what if North Korea had let’s say dozens of nukes that couldn’t go thousands of miles, but could fit on its Rodong missiles that could hit Beijing?

So, no. It is to protect the North Korean regime from a China rather than a United States and China does not have the power to change North Korean policy and will see the country’s ability to do anything at all get smaller and smaller as North Korea’s nuclear program matures.

Anyways, I will be taking a break for a few days – unless I see articles like this again, and I will actually be flying on July 4th with more than a slight bit of irony to London to attend summer school there for the next 6 weeks.

America the Dangerous?

On a more serious note, I noticed a couple articles in the news that makes me want to explain the other side … the view of the United States as a “normal” nation where the behavior of the nation isn’t explained by how America wants to expand “democracy” or rid “tyranny.”

This is a view I picked up living in Korea and I also hinted before at how shocked I was at the level of Anti-Americanism seen in Korea. How could it be that so many people of the same shared heritage (and, of course, of the same 족(族)) could hate America ? The country gives so many opportunities to so many different countries and is so goddamn beautiful (미국, 美國). On a side note here: One of my favorite lines in Korean, “아름다운 미국을 어떻게 싫어 할 수 있어 ” or “How could you hate Beautiful America?”

There’s a double meaning here and another opportunity to poke fun at Japanese. The Chinese characters used to represent the United States in Chinese and Korean literally mean “Beautiful Country/Nation (美國).” In Japanese, it isn’t (米國). In both, Korean and Japanese (not sure in Chinese), but anyways, the characters for “beautiful(美)” and “rice(米)” are homonyms. So if the Chinese characters that the Japanese language uses were to be pronounced in Korean, it would still be the same (미국 whether it’s美國 or米國). And, if the Japanese language were to call America “Beautiful Country” rather than “Rice Country” as Chinese and Korean do, then everybody in Japan would still be able to understand. Those island savages…

Anyways, to the meat of the post: America is also basically a giant island nation bordered by two much smaller countries to the north and south and an ocean to the east and a “vast ocean (太平洋)” to the west. So, basically the United States has no natural competitors (well, minus a Brazil one day) and dominates an entire hemisphere (half a planet) to herself. And as the Pat Buchanan wing of the Republican Party advocates and has advocated since the birth of this nation, the United States can always hide behind the two oceans with the most powerful navy in the world (Unfortunately, I believe this is why Japan fought a war with the U.S., for the control of the ocean. Consider that Japan has gotten everything the island nation wanted during World War II except for that).

Since the United States controls the oceans and has the most powerful navy in the world and has a string of allies in East Asia, it gives the country one huge advantage: very far-flung borders.
So, the effective border between the United States, and say, North Korea, is the DMZ and the East Sea (Sea of Japan) (For China, it’s even worse. The effective border between the U.S. and China is Japan down to South Korea down to Taiwan – So, that’s why Taiwan is so important to China/U.S.). The United States can attack North Korea from South Korea or Japan or even off the waters near North Korea in the East Sea or (Sea of Japan) without fear of reprisal. North Korea has to launch unreliable missiles over thousands of miles just to hit a Hawaii or Alaska.

But, now, let’s take a look at it from the South Korean perspective:

If you are living in Seoul, particularly Sinchon (신촌), then there’s a good chance a war between the U.S. and North Korea (for a second imagine, that it’s only between the U.S. and North Korea and while the U.S. and South Korea may be allies in name or nominal allies, it’s not in the South Korean or for that matter in any nation’s interest to see her capital destroyed) would not be seen as such a good thing. The reason I mention Sinchon in particular is that there was a study that said a North Korean attack on South Korea would lead to 99% of the people in Sinchon dying in the first fifteen minutes (Of course, I can’t cite the exact study, but hey this is a blog). So, actually, if you’re studying at Yonsei or Ehwa Universities, then there’s a good chance you might be done for. The point is that while a North Korean missile must travel thousands of miles before it can actually hit U.S. territory, the economic and political capital of South Korea is just fifteen minutes away from North Korea.

This can lead to some serious misunderstanding between the United States and South Korea. While the U.S. may think it to be perfectly rational to simply consider an airstrike on a North Korean nuclear facility, South Korea would think it to be utterly crazy. I mean from South Korea’s perspective, how on earth could somebody consider launching a war that would immediately destroy Seoul (half of all Koreans in South Korea live in Seoul and neighboring Gyeonggi province). So, before certain Korean-Americans and other commentators in America are quick to judge South Korea as a disloyal and ungrateful nation, it would also be natural and quite fair to expect that the United States understand and consider South Korea's concerns or else the United States would be the disloyal and arrogrant nation. Anyways, while North Korea has been in the news a lot recently (well up until Iran stole the limelight and the Obama Administration is tackling a real concern -- health care), the United States definitely did respond to North Korean threats by:

1. Upgrading Missile Defenses in Hawaii, which while it may sound ludicrous, it also serves a domestic propaganda function -- President Obama is “taking action” (Ahh, I miss President George W. Bush; well not really, but at least some of his phrases. I am a registered Republican by the way).
2. And, while none of the major newspapers in the United States seems to have covered it, the United States conducted a missile test too. Well, China, South Korea, and, of course, North Korea’s state run news agencies did (American newspapers aren’t state run right?) Basically, while the U.S. president wants Americans to know things are being taken care of (Hawaii), the U.S. wants North Korea to know that "Hey we got hundreds of these missiles that work and isthey are very, very accurate -- to within 6 m? -- and can carry three nuclear weapons at once."

“The Minuteman 3 was fired from Vandenberg Air Force Base during a six-hour
window that started at 3:01 a.m., carrying three unarmed re-entry vehicles that
hit their targets near the Kwajalein Atoll in the Marshall Islands, some 4,200
miles (6,720 kilometers) away, the Air Force said” (Xinhua).

Anyways, it's not the type of thing I believed a "good" country like the United States would ever do and maybe it's just coincidental. After all, the United States loves to bomb things. Before the United States gave up possession of Dokdo/Takeshima(독도(獨島)/たけしま(竹島)) and Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, the United States used both as bombing ranges (A link for this will be provided one day). Anyways, America at the same time actually does believe she is a force for good.

South Korean President Lee Myung Bak is "taking action" as well as South Korea is building up a missile defense system of her own. South Korea is buying a lot of weapons from the United States:

"South Korea plans to acquire 40 new surface-to-air missiles within the
month for its Aegis destroyer, a military source said Sunday" (Yonhap).

Anyways, that's South Korea's view.that is how the United States can be seen as a "normal" nation that takes behavior not based upon what is right or wrong, but what on her interests. Interestingly, and what I believe will and has been a recurring theme in American (and World) History is that the United States and, moreover, Americans genuinely believe that what is in America's best interest is also good for the world. They call it naivete in Europe. I call it optimism and a product of the Enlightenment.