Human rights hypocrisy: South Korea boosts relations with Saudi Arabia

Posted on by
Reply

The South Korean government has announced a program to strengthen cultural ties with Saudi Arabia, one of the most notorious human rights abusing states in the world. This in itself isn’t a problem; the freedom for citizens to engage in cultural and economic exchanges is never a bad thing. The problem is that it is entirely inconsistent with South Korea’s adherence to the U.S. policy of closing off ties with North Korea, ostensibly due in part to North Korea’s human rights violations. Indeed the same people who condemn Pyongyang and disdain of any economic interaction are likely front-line supporters of economic and cultural exchange with the Saudi kingdom.

President Park Geun-hye herself stated before the presidential elections last year that South Korea should adopt a human rights bill to improve conditions in the North all the while demanding North Korea reform before meaningful negotiations of peace can take place. In other words, ties with Saudi Arabia are a good thing despite their bad behaviour, while ties with North Korea are bad because of their bad behaviour.

This indicates a reality that many countries who bear the brunt of U.S. criticism for human rights abuse are well aware of — that the concept of human rights is really nothing more than a tool in the game of power politics for Washington elites and the elites of their ally states.

Nuclear weapons are another example. The South Korean government has a strong relationship with Israel. This is in spite of Israel’s substantial clandestine nuclear weapons arsenal. Israel is also not a member of the Nuclear Non-Profliferation Treaty (that so many condemn North Korea for leaving in 2003). Israel also has an abhorred human rights record. Park maintains the U.S. policy that North Korea must first denuclearize before any meaningful peace negotiations can continue on the peninsula, while her government seeks weapons deals with a state that runs the worlds biggest open air prison in the Gaza Strip, subjugating innocent people merely because they are Palestinian.

The South Korean government shouldn’t think they can change Saudi Arabia or Israel. This is not only because they clearly have no influence in these countries, but also because reform is for the people of these countries to undertake. It is also increasingly obvious that South Korea has very little influence in North Korea and it makes no sense to pursue a strategy of preconditions — nuclear and human rights reforms — before serious peace discussions.

Continue reading →

Sexual harassment scandal clearly wont hurt South Korea-U.S. alliance

Posted on by
Reply

What would it take for the U.S. to suddenly decide to stop “protecting” South Korea from its vastly inferior enemy to the North? Certainly more than a sexual harassment scandal.

This is because the U.S. isn’t actually protecting South Korea from anything. It is using “protection” as a pretext for maintaining an imperial presence in East Asia and preserving its military hegemony in the region. It depends on South Korea for this policy, which is manifest in President Barack Obama’s “Asia Pivot” and is primarily directed against China.

Unfortunately, most South Koreans don’t see it that way. Mainstream education, popular culture and the dominant political class reinforce the contradictory notion that South Korea needs the U.S. to remain independent. Such ideas are beamed into the minds of young men during two-year mandatory military service and compulsory annual military reserve training for years after.

Even though North Korea is a pathetic failed state that suffers from fuel shortages preventing it from training its decades old fighter jets and depends on its soldiers to plant crops because it relies on a faulty system of state economic planning, many South Koreans still think North Korea is going to invade their country — and win — the moment American soldiers leave the peninsula. This absurd fear ignores that South Korea spends four times the amount the North does on its military and has access to far superior equipment and training opportunities. They can do this because they are so vastly superior economically.

So when most South Korean media frets about how President Park Geun-hye’s chief press spokesperson was accused of sexually assaulting a 21-year-old intern at the Korean embassy in Washington during Park’s recent visit (and apparently inviting the intern up to his hotel room and greeting her in his underwear or, according to some rumours, his birthday suit), the U.S. government simply isn’t bothered much.

Continue reading →

South Korean President affirms loyalty to the U.S., blames China for North Korea

Posted on by
Reply

Author’s note: This article also appeared at Global Research on May 14, 2013.

South Korean President Park Geun-hye made her first visit to the Washington imperial court last week, what is always a moment of great prestige for the junior ally-state still under wartime control of the United States sixty years after the Korean War. During the trip, and fitting her subaltern position, President Park signaled her intention to maintain a posture toward China’s relationship with North Korea that will please Washington, but remain completely ineffectual.

Speaking to the Washington Post on May 8, Park willingly played the “blame China” card, arguing it “can do more” to force North Korea to change.

“In order for…the Korean Peninsula to enjoy greater peace, North Korea needs to choose the right path, and China should exert greater influence in inducing North Korea to do so,” she said after meeting President Barack Obama.

The “right path” includes, presumably, North Korea renouncing its policy of nuclear deterrence and giving up its small arsenal of questionably operable atomic weapons before any kind of negotiations with the U.S. can begin. Of course, the “right path” might refer to human rights as well, but, though President Park may care (as former first lady of and apologist for her father’s authoritarian government it is hard to say), it would be naive to assume her superiors in Washington are truly concerned about conditions within the North. The U.S. is, after all, responsible for the most grave international war and human rights crimes of any nation currently existing (see Afghanistan, Iraq, torture, drones, the drug war, and so on).

Notions of “right” or “wrong” paths aside, it seems reasonable to assume North Korea is unlikely to give its nuclear weapons up — even if it has sincere incentive (in the form of a Washington peace treaty, among other benefits) to do so. If the North Korea government wasn’t already determined to keep their nukes, the fate of Muammar Gaddafi in Libya showed North Korea’s leadership that having even the appearance of a nuclear deterrent may be the difference between finding one’s head on a spike (or in Gaddafi’s case being anally raped by a bayonet)  and living it up in Pyongyang.

Continue reading →

Dokdo school opens on the eve of a national holiday

Posted on by
Reply

Friday, March 1st 2013 is a national holiday in South Korea. This day is officially known as 3.1절, or March 1st Movement. It refers to an event which occurred on this day in 1919 when Korean religious and cultural leaders staged one of the earliest public displays against Japanese colonialism on the Korean peninsula.

The day began with a group of 33 Korean nationalists reading the Korean Declaration of Independence at the Taehwagwan Restaurant in Seoul. The proclamation stated:

We herewith proclaim the independence of Korea and the liberty of the Korean people. This we proclaim to all the nations of the world in witness of human equality. This we proclaim to our descendants so that they may enjoy in perpetuity their inherent right to nationhood.

Huge crowds assembled, against the wishes of the original organizers, to listen to speeches and participate in marches. The Japanese local police force struggled to contain the procession, so sent in the army to suppress the crowds. Media reports suggested several atrocities were committed against the Korean people by the Japanese forces.

One source claims approximately 2 million Koreans participated in this series of movements and demonstrations which paved the way for a major shift in opinion against Japanese occupation in Korea.

Further to Stuart’s article below about the boycotting of Japanese products on this day, the  Independence Hall of Korea has kindly – or unkindly, depending on how you see it – decided to open the ‘Dokdo School’ in Cheonan, nearly 100 kms south of Seoul. It was reported in the Korea Times back in October that such a school – or memorial center – would be opened on this day. Continue reading →

South Korean boycott of Japanese products suggests long-term challenges for US “Pivot to Asia”

Posted on by
Reply

This post also appeared at Global Research on March 1st.

As the United States government attempts its “Pivot to Asia” by strengthening military alliances with democratic and (contrary to the official portrayal of America as a champion of human rights) undemocratic nations alike, its leaders hope to maintain a united armed front against China. The “pivot” is a misguided attempt at preventing China from developing credible military parity in the region and is predicated on further militarizing the already hyper-militarized Asia-Pacific, much to the glee of military contractors nationwide.

A major cog in the plan is for greater cohesion between the United States’ two most important allies in the region — South Korea and Japan. But the foundations of the “pivot” are proving inherently weak as, yet again, South Korea and Japan are at odds over the disputed Dokdo/Takeshima islets. This comes after Japan celebrated its annual “Takeshima Day” in recognition of Japan’s claims to the tiny rocks currently in possession of South Korea.

Like in China last year, this dispute threatens to expand from a purely territorial issue to an economic concern. On March 1, a South Korean holiday commemorating the nation’s declaration of independence from Japanese colonialism, the Save Local Stores Alliance will begin a boycott of the sale of Japanese products ranging from Asahi beer to, presumably, Hello Kitty accessories. The alliance is a group comprised of over 80 different commercial organizations, 60 local business groups and boasts membership of over 6 million South Koreans .

From the Hankyoreh, quoting an alliance spokesperson:

“Japan is already subject to global censure for its distortion of the historical fact that it was a colonial aggressor,” the alliance said. “The country’s move to celebrate Takeshima Day cannot be accepted. It is not only an affront to the international community, but it is also derived from an imperialist view of history that shows no signs of contrition for its misdeeds.”

Continue reading →

North Korea’s impending nuclear test: more of the same

Posted on by
Reply

I am still not blessed with enough time to write a comprehensive post on the apparently-impending North Korean nuclear weapons test, so I’ll be brief with this text-based cold splash of water to wake up the anxious among us:

1) Yahoo News has an almost-adequate assessment of the nuclear test that I will refer you to, only to write that I am highly skeptical that North Korea has even the fraction of an intercontinental ballistic missile program capable of reaching the U.S.. Yes, they did successfully launch a rocket into orbit–but that is only the beginning of an incredibly expensive program and they must be capable of repeated production and testing before any kind of aggressive launch could ever conceivably take place.

2) I also need to point out the absurdity of a quote appearing in the above-cited Yahoo article: “I see this as their way of testing the water,” said Narushige Michishita, a North Korea expert at Tokyo’s Graduate Institute of Policy Studies. “North Korea will probably never be able to defeat the United States in a war. But they are getting stronger.” The idea of the crumbling and decaying North Korean military somehow ever defeating (or holding its own with) the American military is laughable at best. Such statements only serve to inflate the capability of the North’s large (in terms of manpower) but primitive (in terms of technology and equipment) military beyond realistic terms. Their missile program is improving, but it is likely at the expense of the rest of its military.

3) Even if the North did somehow develop the reliable capability to hit the west coast of the U.S. with a missile, it still doesn’t likely have the ability to miniaturize its nuclear weapons for missile-based delivery (the current nukes are likely only deliverable by plane and dropped Hiroshima-style). Sooner or later its money will run out. The more likely scenario is that this is all a last-gasp effort to get the U.S. to recognize them diplomatically, exchange ambassadors, achieve reductions of sanctions, etc.. And as to that: given that the U.S. has no problem being great friends with some of the most brutal regimes in Africa and the Middle East (including a certain apartheid settler state) there are no human rights-based reasons to refuse doing this that hold any credibility from the American foreign policy-making perspective. My opinion is that engagement with North Korea is still the best chance of improving the long-term security of the peninsula, but I also get the feeling the inertia of this mess is heading in the opposite direction.

4) (Again) Even if the North did have the ability to somehow reach the U.S. with a nuked-armed ICBM they would be committing mass suicide in doing so. The retaliation would be swift and destructive. Crazy they may be, but they are not seeking some kind of paradise in the afterlife for conducting what would essentially be the greatest suicide attack of all time. This also applies to the idea of selling their weapons to terrorists, or other comic book scenarios of deviance–any trace to North Korea would be akin to an invitation for the U.S. to respond.

Nuclear weapons are defensive, not offensive. They are meant to give states the ability to inflict a devastating response if another nation attacks first. The idea is deterrence. Is it possible that the U.S. hates this so much because it takes the regime change option off the table?

Nobody should be pleased that the North is spending all of its money (at the expense of millions of innocent people) on nuclear weapons testing, but neither should they be deeply afraid of the impending test’s consequences–especially toward the U.S.. Until America decides to give up the apparent policy of waiting for the regime to collapse rather than dealing with it without preconditions to negotiation (giving up their nukes), these kinds of test will continue (and no, negotiations are not, in themselves, rewarding the North for bad behaviour; they are a constructive means of attempting to improve the situation instead of ignoring it completely).

It is the possibility of regime collapse — predicted by so many “experts”, but held off for more than 20 years since the Cold War — that should have everybody worried.

 

 

Website inactivity

Posted on by
Reply

The website is currently on a bit of a hiatus as other personal priorities have taken all my time. It is not dead or dying, but in hibernation. I still intend to write here regularly as soon as I have taken care of other demands. Further, I am mulling a content overhaul to focus specifically on foreign policy issues and avoiding cultural analysis almost entirely. I also intend to take the time to update the Korean content on the site. Check back for more in the coming days.

North Korea’s successful rocket launch in perspective

Posted on by
Reply

This article also appeared on Global Research on December 12, 2012.

North Korean state media announced it successfully launched a satellite into orbit this morning, surprising the international community after it had previously claimed just days earlier that technical difficulties would delay the event until late December.

Japanese and South Korean officials confirmed the launch took place around 10 a.m. and that all three stages of the launch fell as predicted, without harming any neighboring countries.

The launch was widely condemned by the international community, and the US was particularly indignant. The American government and its regional allies suggest the launch was a cover for testing technology that will eventually allow North Korea to mount a nuclear warhead onto ballistic missiles. They also condemned North Korea for wasting money on an expensive weapons test while ignoring the plight of their own people (a good point, except it conveniently omits America’s own unconditional financial backing of the Israeli brutalization of Palestinians, to use but one example).

The apparently successful launch comes after a previous attempt this year, which North Korea aborted just two minutes into the process. There were three other failures in 1998, 2006 and 2009.

How will the international community respond?

In the short term, Japanese and South Korean security officials have opened “emergency” meetings to discuss the launch, and no doubt the United States and China will be doing something similar. Which begs the question, “What emergency?”

Continue reading →

Year in review: Asian regional integration in 2012

Posted on by
Reply

2012 was a bridge year in Asian integration, but where that bridge leads is anybody’s guess. Controversy surrounding territory disputes became the central issue in the region, highlighting a year of mixed results for security and economic inter-connectivity.

A chip in the American league of security alliances emerged August 10 when South Korean President Lee Myung-bak visited Dokdo, a group of islets owned by South Korea but also claimed by Japan. The visit, a first for a South Korean president, sparked a diplomatic quarrel between Japan and South Korea that still hasn’t completely abated. The visit perplexed analysts because just months before the president was trying to sign an intelligence pact with Japan that was pushed back due to large public opposition.

The dispute is part of a decades-long disagreement between the two American allies and it underscores the tenuousness of their mutual security interests in the region.

Japan had other territorial concerns this year. Tensions flared to an extremity with China, its largest trading partner, over a chain of islands nearly equidistant from Taiwan and Japan’s Okinawa called the Senkaku Islands (by Japan) or Diaoyu Islands (by China). Like Dokdo, these islands have been contested for decades.

Events related to the most recent round of the dispute occurred throughout the year, including incursions into claimed territorial water by Chinese surveillance boats and unregistered (as required by Japanese law) visits to the island by Japanese politicians. The climax came in July when Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda announced Japan would purchase the islands from a private Japanese owner. HIs government made an official purchase bid in late August.

This sparked massive anti-Japanese riots throughout China. Protestors converged on the Japanese Embassy in Beijing and targeted Japanese-owned businesses. Reports from China spoke of Japanese restaurants putting Chinese flags up while drivers of Japanese cars pasted signs affirming China’s rightful ownership of the islands to avoid being targeted.

Continue reading →

The 15th ASEAN Plus Three Summit produces little more than tension

Posted on by
Reply

It was a week of Asian regionalism in Phnom Penh, Cambodia as leaders of the ten Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN), Japan, South Korea and China met on Monday for the 15th ASEAN Plus Three (APT) summit amidst ongoing territorial disputes in East and Southeast Asia.

The APT, arguably the most relevant engine for more formal regionalism in East Asia, included the attendance of Japanese Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao. It primarily focused on economic integration and avoided overt discussion of the island disputes Japan is engaged in with both countries.

Leaders discussed the need to strengthen the Chang Mai Initiative and the importance of improving food security regionally.

Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono specifically said the Chang Mai Initiative, which provides a pool of reserve currency for member nations in the event of a currency crisis, should be reinforced by increasing the amount of reserve money provided by each nation. He said the initiative, a reaction to the 1997 financial crisis, is necessary as a means to reduce dependency on the IMF.

Members of APT also continued to support movement toward freer regional trade, investment and interconnectivity among citizens.

A joint statement after the meeting said, “We are committed to further strengthening cooperation and dialogue in political-security areas…in order to address emerging regional and global issues as well as maintain peace, stability and prosperity in the region.”

But this statement belied the reported suspicion between the three major leaders at the summit. Yonhap News Agency in South Korea quoted Premier Wen suggesting Japan was contributing to tensions over the disputed Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands off Taiwan due to its creeping measures toward militarism. President Lee also shot across Japan’s bow by saying Japan could become “an unnerving element” in East Asia if it continued toward what he suggested was an increased conservative tendency (Lee being the president for a conservative party himself, would know one when he sees one).

Continue reading →