Left Flank

Ok, I get the point! Nothing changed in DPRK the night the New York Philharmonic Orchestra played (TMH's sly derision, ROK Drop's matter-of-fact outrage, Joshua's total outrage, DPRK Forum's Google-enabled skepticism). But, if not only a way to dupe those foolish American liberals, it was a very entertaining way to upstage ROK President Lee Myung-bak's inauguration. Lorin Maazel owes Lee an apology.

Say you're the beleaguered tyrant of a certain Northeast Asian country.  In a moment of financial duress, you signed an agreement in which you agreed to disclose and eventually give up a nuclear arsenal in which you've invested a great deal of money, pride, and prestige.  You know that in a year, there's an even chance that you might be dealing with the most naive and pliable U.S. President since Jimmy Carter.  You also know that if too many people start getting the idea that you're stalling on that declaration, momentum will shift in favor of turning the economic screws on you again, which you know could be the end of you. You can't survive without money from your enemies, and one of your best sources might soon dry up. Even the foreign diplomat who had been the main proponent of going easy on seems to be turning sour.

Can you last this year without performing on that accursed nuclear deal? Yes, you can!

Fortunately for you, your enemies have an inexhaustible appetite for superficial displays. They desperately want to believe that the gas chambers, nuclear tests, concentration camps, abductions, famines, and global crime syndication are merely a misguided artist's cry for attention. Some of them, though not all, even have the self-important delusion that they can change your nature by playing music for you.

To its credit, The Economist doesn't mention why the gulags are still full and the North Korean people still struggling to survive, but it does dispose of "the self-important delusion":

But will all this bonhomie—both contrived and genuine—really change anything? Donald Gregg, a former American ambassador to South Korea who attended the performance, called it a «16-inch broadside of soft power into the hearts and minds of the [North] Korean people.» But conservative American commentators have attacked it as pandering to a brutal regime. History suggests orchestral diplomacy may be of little real relevance. The Boston Symphony's visit to the Soviet Union was followed soon after by the crushing of the Hungarian uprising. America's relations with China fared better after 1973, but its alignment against the Soviet Union was the critical factor. America has no strategic interests in North Korea beyond stopping it from being a menace.

For the record, that same feature article includes some interesting vignettes of foreigners experiencing Pyongyang.

Choosing what to play in Pyongyang proved the easy part. Finding a suitable venue and getting the orchestra and instruments there were more difficult. The seat of the State Symphony Orchestra, the Moranbong Theatre (recently refurbished under Kim Jong Il's guidance—«no details escaped him,» gushed the state news agency), was rejected as too small. The East Pyongyang Grand Theatre, though bigger, needed modifications to bring its acoustic qualities up to the Philharmonic's standards (the North Koreans obligingly made the alterations, including building an «acoustic shell», at their own expense).

Pyongyang's harsh winter and shattered economy were obstacles too. Organisers worried that the instruments would be damaged by temperature variations as they were transported into and around the city. The chandelier-decked foyer of the venue itself was freezing. Mr Mehta held talks at the foreign ministry with an official wearing a thick overcoat in his office. Pyongyang's heating has been so bad this winter that residents complain they cannot remember the last time they were able to have a shower, says a diplomat.

Unable to find any heated trucks in North Korea to carry the instruments, the orchestra arranged for some to drive up from South Korea (South Korea's Asiana Airlines provided a Boeing 747 jet to fly the orchestra itself in and out of Pyongyang). The North Koreans promised good heating at the hotel and venue—and they delivered it. Mr Mehta had to ask for a window in his room to be unsealed so that he could get a bit of cool air.

The authorities spared no effort to isolate the Americans from the reality of life in Pyongyang. Some attempting a morning jog were turned back by guards at the perimeter of their hotel. Officials like to put foreigners there. It is on an island in Pyongyang's Taedong River from which it is difficult to get into the city proper, and there are no taxis available. When they were not rehearsing or performing during their 48-hour stay, the Americans were taken on bus tours of the city's monuments, including a giant bronze statue of the late President Kim—the country's leader during the Korean war.

It's only been a couple years since I've had heat and air conditioning in a college classroom in Busan, and still not the rest of the building. It must be a Korean virtue to sacrifice when others have much more.

Comparing The Economist's less diplomatic opinion of President Lee Myung-bak with immediate reactions highlights what those snap judgments slighted.

The president, elected last December, has made a poor start to his five-year term.

Mr Lee, cleared this month of any wrongdoing in a failed investment scheme, nevertheless faces public suspicion over the past business dealings that made him a multimillionaire. And some of his nominees for cabinet posts are already under clouds. Three of his ministerial choices—for sex equality, «unification» (ie, dealings with North Korea) and the environment—have resigned over criticism of their property dealings. This is a highly sensitive issue in Seoul, where many cannot afford to buy their own homes. Some of his nominees' children are foreign citizens. One was thus able to dodge the mandatory military service. This has raised hackles. Most South Koreans cannot afford to send their children abroad to acquire foreign passports.

Most economists think Mr Lee's bold promise of 7% annual growth is optimistic. His plan to build a canal system on the peninsula has united a coalition of civic and political groups in opposition. And his call for a «pragmatic not ideological'' relationship with North Korea has perturbed American leaders. In addition, Mr Lee has had to scale back his plans to trim the bureaucracy. Instead of 13 government ministries there will be 15, down from 18 under his predecessor, Roh Moo-hyun.

The president's difficulties are compounded by his shallow political base. In a pun on the name of a famous actress, South Koreans call it «Ko So Young». «Ko» refers to his alma mater, Korea University, which has supplied him with prospective ministers and aides; «So» to the church he attends; and «Young» to the south-east of the Korean peninsula, which voted for him in huge numbers largely because Mr Roh is widely loathed in the region.

Even within the GNP, Mr Lee has few allies. Party heavyweights have long viewed him as an upstart without their own conservative convictions.

Korea Report concurs with this perspective on Lee's ethically-challenged cabinet nominees. It's unfortunate, but ROK is a country tired with partisan fractiousness looking for leaders who aren't contemptuous of average South Koreans and the law.

The political storm surrounding Lee's nominees was triggered by a new law requiring high-ranking officials to disclose their personal assets. Declarations from the Cabinet nominees and data leaked to the media show that most of Lee's nominees owned two or more houses, some with extensive tracts of land suggesting that they may have been engaged in speculation.

Now, Lee's choice of Han Seung-soo for prime minister hangs by a thread, with the nominee wounded by allegations of property speculation and tax evasion. A parliamentary vote is scheduled Friday.

And on Wednesday, two Cabinet nominees withdrew just hours before what were expected to be deeply embarrassing parliamentary hearings on their appointments.

Park Eun-kyung, nominated for environment minister, stepped back after reports that she once sold property zoned as farmland to a developer.

To avoid speculation, South Korean law requires that such land be farmed at least 90 days a year. Park had never been a farmer.

Nam Joo-hong, a professor nominated to lead the ministry responsible for unification issues with North Korea, withdrew after reports that his wife owned a ginseng field north of Seoul worth $2.2 million. The revelation was a damaging blow to an appointment already in trouble because of Nam's fierce opposition to rapprochement with North Korea, and from news that his son had acquired U.S. residency, gaining an exception from compulsory military service.

Those pullouts followed Sunday's announcement by putative gender equality minister Lee Chun-ho that she was withdrawing her name because of questions about real estate speculation. She and her sons were found to own more than 40 properties across the country.

All three former nominees blamed the media and opposition parties for using South Koreans' suspicions about real estate to taint them with what they said were unfounded allegations.

There are some who would argue that these rescinded nominations are the result of substantive policy disagreements (for another view, read Seoul Searcher's "It Must Go"). Yet even if both pundits are correct about ideological differences over DPRK policy, that doesn't explain the fracas over the Gender Equality and Environment ministries. More constructively, Brendan Carr analyzes the causes for ROK's precious real estate.

So just to be conservative, let's say that W50 million accounts for the «extra construction cost» necessary to complete that 34-pyong apartment. Construction, then, takes us to just around W200 million. That's in no way a bargain, by the way—we're talking about a 900 sq. ft. box (and the basic fit-out is real çráp, too). According to the math, the greatest contributor to the balance of the average apartment price is the cost of land. In an earlier Korea Law Blog entry (August of last year), I noted how Seoul apartments of the size we're talking about here sell for an average price of W570 million—this Maeil Kyungjae report says that price is comprised of W200 million for the apartment, W370 million for the minuscule slice of the land underlying the apartment tower.

Rot in, rot out.

Although these moving images derived from a terrestrial-based radar installation are exciting, why is NASA sending an orbiter to map the South Pole again?

Scott Hensley, a scientist at JPL who took part in the latest radar-mapping effort, notes that the orbiter's laser-like radar, or lidar, will be able to match Goldstone's 20-meter resolution at the south pole after some eight months of orbiting the moon. But the orbiter can't bring that level of detail to as wide a swath of the south pole as can the radar. But where the radar can distinguish changes in elevation of roughly five meters, the LRO will be able to detect changes in terrain height of around one meter.

But for other parts of the moon, the LRO will only match the one-kilometer resolution of past missions. The Goldstone radar still has the best chance of spotting those yacht-sized objects anywhere on the moon scientists can aim it, making it for now the lunar cartographer to beat.

Alright, I can see why the difference between one and five meters of elevation is important to a descending craft with humans aboard. But, can't NASA just make a better radar at Goldstone? Is NASA just inflating simple tasks into romantic ventures, to save its budget?

It's a convenient opportunity, but one cannot be impressed by how Canada's British Columbia and America's EnergySolutions are conducting their respective carbon and nuclear energy policies. It's no surprise, but I lean towards nuclear energy as a carbon-free alternative and favor carbon taxes. But, nuclear waste disposal is probably the most prominent liability for nuclear energy proponents to defend. On the other hand, BC has initiated carbon taxes while keeping the overall budget revenue-neutral.

And, where are the Democrats on energy? Rescinding tax breaks…wait, where is America's national energy strategy, not it's corporate habits?

It's been one of those days—again!

I've had work-related problems and computer glitches popping up all day long. Between my firewall malfunctioning, files a-deleting for no reason, and crawling into the innards of my hard drive, I'm finger-tied and my eyes are stinging. And, with the start of new semester at Dong A University, I'm beginning to get the hint I should have left last year for the States instead of next.

I read some chapters and listened to bhTV as I waited for this, that, and wasn't uninstalling and rebooting, emailing and checking schedules, etc. But, really, right now, I'm crawling into a book, or a movie with lots of gratuitous violence in it, and starting tomorrow afresh.

That is, if I'm not uninstalling and rebooting again early in the morning!

My father-in-law reacted scornfully to a passage in President Lee Myung-bak's Inaugural Address about obeying the law.

But the fanfare of traditional horns could not drown out the fact that South Korea's bitterly partisan politics have barely paused for breath.

Lee's speech urged an end to "wasteful political disputes" that are alienating voters. But the two months since he won the presidency by a wide margin were shadowed by an investigation of his business ties to an alleged felon. The inquiry ruled last week that there was no evidence to implicate Lee in financial fraud.

He also assumes office amid a political storm over the wealth of his nominees to the 15-member Cabinet.

"Two-faced!" both my father-in-law and wife shouted.

The most quoted passage is "We must move from the age of ideology into the age of pragmatism." Yet, President Lee is a throwback to the previous generation of South Koreans striving for economic development. His model is former dictator Park Chung-hee, and Lee's goals are broadly macroeconomic: average GDP, average income, yearly growth. Another sign of this first-generation approach is Lee's oft-lampooned canal project, linking Seoul with Busan. Lee still talks about "sacrifice". He calls for a leaner government, but not leaner family-owned corporations. He's called the "Bulldozer", but ROK needs a fine-tuner.

The new President played to his business background by campaigning largely on an economic reform platform. Touting the "747 economy" -- shorthand for raising economic growth to 7%, doubling per-capita incomes to $40,000, and lifting Korea's world GDP rankings to 7th, from its current 13th -- Mr. Lee has set the bar high. Over the past five years, Korea's growth averaged around 4.5% annually, lagging its Asian peers. Foreign investors have shied away from burdensome regulations, an inflexible labor market and a perception that foreign capital isn't welcomed.

Mr. Lee says all that will change on his watch. He wants to cut taxes, clinch the U.S.-Korea free trade agreement, and institute a "small and efficient" government. He needs to move quickly. While Mr. Roh presided over an economy buoyed by a flood of Fed-supplied money and a global upturn, Mr. Lee is walking into a much tougher external environment. He seems to understand the urgency. His transition team negotiated the elimination of three government ministries before Mr. Lee even took office.

President Lee will fine tune DPRK policy.

Though Lee has vowed to broadly continue Seoul's policy of detente with the North, he has said he will approach the country with a more critical eye.

His predecessors — Roh Moo-hyun and Kim Dae-jung — were accused of showering unconditional aid and concessions as part of reconciliation efforts while getting little in return.

Lee said he is willing to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong Il whenever necessary.

Fortunately, Lee is discussing strengthening ties with Japan and the US. GI Korea calls it, "business as usual". K-Bloggers are still arguing as if Lee is different, but NK Monitor phrases it best: "I'd say the question is not whether things are changing, but which way they are changing." We might all return to this moment again in five or ten years.

This is my third inauguration in ROK, and I'm less optimistic every time. In 1997, the acute crisis of the 1997 currency debacle opened a space for radical reform that was squandered in consumer gold sacrifices and xenophobia. Bureaucratic directives war against one another every season or so, only to confront a buzz of entrenched opposition. The same hot air is repackaged for a newer goal, like education or public infrastructure. The Dong-A Daily does as best it can to suggest more.

If, in the form of a Korean saying I have heard said, Presidents Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun represented two steps back, then at least President Lee is the one step halting the slide.

Two eponymous blog opinions about Ralph Nader entering the 2008 presidential race: Greg Laden's "worst fears"

Our worst fears have been realized. We finally have a chance to boot the Republicans out of the White House, and now Ralf Nader has announced his insane plans to do whatever he can to make sure that a Democrat does not take that position.

Nader announced his quixotic and potentially destructive plan, in which he will abuse his name recognition, manipulating legions of mindless, moronic Nader-Simps, and get his jollies telling us all how much the system is broken while he single handedly guarantees eight more years of economic strife and bloody warfare ... in a Sunday interview on Meet the Press.

Democrats: Pick the republican you hate least and start working for that candidate, because you don't get to have a Democrat in the White House. Thanks to Ralf.

Nader, who clearly intends to ruin everything, claims that Americans are disenchanted with the Democratic and Republican parties. Apparently he has not noticed the throngs of Democrats and Independents, as well as numerous Republicans, swarming the Democratic Primaries and Caucasus. Clearly, he has no clue. But he does have a huge, overblown ego and a very loose grip on reality.

…vs. Matthew Yglesias' "Tweddlesomething":

After all, there's not a dime's worth of a difference between a candidate promising tax cuts, pushing more health risk onto individuals, a re-invigoration of George Bush's campaign to dominate the world through military force, and an industry-friendly approach to environmental issues and his rival who's promising substantial socialization of medical risk, a 80 percent reduction in carbon emissions, and end to the war in Iraq (and to the mindset that led to war!), universal preschool, etc. Well, sure, there's judicial appointments -- abortion, gay rights, etc. -- and some small fry stuff about whether or not the NSA will have unrestrained surveillance powers. But basically it's just the same two corporate clones running on virtually identical platforms.

Again, comments make the difference.

Pierce R, Butler:

This is an opportunity for derision, not panic (nor repeating simplistic charges that "Nader cost us the 2000 election" which serve more to obscure Democratic failures than to shed analytical light).

It's unlikely that even the Greens will accept Nader as their nominee this time around - maybe some of them will start to realize just how much harm he did to their party in '00 & '04.

The Nader threat has always been overblown, but this year it's not likely he'll make it onto many state ballots. In the meantime, the threat from the Supreme Court has only worsened, and the prospects for election-rigging (electronic & otherwise) are more worthy of alarm.

Guy in Jersey:

1) "Ralph Nader's ego is the reason we have George W. Bush in the White House. period."

Because without Nader, all those disaffected fringe voters would have voted for Gore/Lieberman. You've convinced me.

2) "Nader is the only thing that cost Gore the election"...."without Ralph Nader, Al Gore would be president."

The fallacy is that if Nader runs --> Bush wins. -Nader runs. -Bush wins. That's a common logical fallacy usually expressed as p --> q. -p, therefore -q.

Thomas:

I think Nader is smarter than you, Matt.

I mean, the Democrats ran on ending the Iraq war in 2006, and they didn't. From what I hear, they plan on running on the same issue in 2010.

Democrats have been promising a government takeover of health care for two generations. But this time it's right around the corner.

And Obama, unlike, say Bill Clinton, who didn't bother to submit Kyoto for ratification, is serious about reducing carbon emissions. That's why, when he won in Wisconsin he told the good folks of Texas that he was going to bring the price of gas down. That's the sort of thing we need to hear! Bringing the cost of energy down is surely the best way of reducing carbon emissions. Nader needs to be patient; this time it's different.

There is a candidate promising tax cuts. It's Obama, who tells seniors--who already receive disproportionate benefits from the federal government--that they'll pay less in tax. But those sort of small points shouldn't bother Nader. No, he should keep his eye on the big picture, like NSA surveillance, where Senate Democrats demonstrated just how different they are from Republicans.

R. Vangala:

Matt, this post is really disappointing. I too am concerned that in swing states, Nader could have a spoiler effect a la Florida in 2000. Still, for someone who is often critical of the Democratic Party's positions on a number of issues, you seem to be suggesting that such difficulties are irrelevant. I disagree. Our democracy can only be strengthened by widening the field of candidates for voters to choose from. The unfortunate truth is that a lot of voters in this country are seriously ignorant of U.S. policies that affect them and others around the world in terrible ways. Nader's presence in the election will help to bring criticisms of those policies into the mainstream, so that the Republican and Democratic candidates will be forced to respond to them. Ideally, Nader will run his campaign, raise issues that matter to progressives, challenge the two front-runners to take a progressive stand on those issues, etc., but then withdraw his name from the ballot in swing states prior to the election in November. This way, voters in locked down states can express support for him, thereby pressuring the two dominant parties to shift to the left, while voters in swing states cannot, thus eliminating the possibility of a spoiler effect. Should polls suggest that he will have a spoiler effect, and should he still insist upon remaining on the ballot in the relevant states, I will lose a lot of respect for him. Otherwise, I think his overall effect on the election will be positive (from the perspective of a progressive).

ly_nyg:

Do you guys realize how hypocritical it is to pressure third party candidates into not running?

Since when was it the position of the Democratic Party to disenfranchise voters? Because that is, in essence, what limiting them to one of two parties does.

The issue isn't whether third parties should be able to run or not - of course they should be able to! I mean, it was a third party that freed the slaves.

What the Democrats SHOULD be focused on is creating a system of voting that lets people express their preference for a third party without sabotaging their ability to affect the election. I think Instant Runoff Voting does this extremely well, but really, any sort of runoff would be nice. Even proportional allocation of electoral collage members would be a start.

I'm not sure people have really thought through the logical conclusion of all this Nader bashing - why not just limit the election to two parties? Or only to parties that either have more than 40% of the vote, or less than 2%? Why not just stay married to the Democrats and the Republicans for the rest of American history?

People focusing on whether Nader should run or not don't GET IT. What Nader's candidacy shows more than anything is the need for a new system of voting that allows people to express their frustration with the major parties, without wasting their vote.

I mean, my vote already doesn't count because I don't live in Ohio or Missouri. I might as well vote for the candidate who most effectively sums up my frustration with both Republicans AND Democrats.

For what it's worth, I'm voting for Obama in the general, unless by some freak chance Hillary pulls it out. In that case, I'm proudly voting for Nader.

Bal(t)imoron's take:

Firstly, the election is a non zero-sum game. The more people vote and the more platforms circulate, the stronger the republic is.

Secondly, the Democratic and Republican parties are not constitutionally mandated. As a matter of fact, they're necessary evils. So, appeals to party loyalty can only go so far before they become anti-republican.

Thirdly:

MR. RUSSERT:  You have five seconds, historian.  Have you ever seen a race like this?

MS. GOODWIN:  I love it.  It's the best.  No, you know, and it's exciting because people are involved with--we've been worrying for years about the fact that nobody's paying attention anymore, that it's a--you know, it's not a participant sport, that the declining polls are going down.  People are going to the voting booths; people are excited.  How can you not love it?

Who cares if the MSM wants max carnage on the road to the general election! Of course, these men and women are egomaniacal! Elections are like this blog: smash ideas and candidates in a cyclotron, and run with what's still living!

(Also, check out the Green Party's website!)