Left Flank

Don Oberdorfer, the author of one of the best books on the Korean peninsula, The Two Koreas, is a straight arrow on Korean issues. When he argues that «Seoul's 'Beef' Not About Beef», it carries weight.

We've been reading in the U.S. press almost every day about big street demonstrations by thousands of South Koreans protesting the import of U.S. beef for safety reasons. Recently, the United States modified the trade agreement saying that only beef younger than thirty months would be exported. Koreans eat a lot of beef— but are they really that worried about the safety of American beef?

I don't think you can make a generalized statement about what all Koreans believe or are worried about. But, in my view, there are a lot of other elements here in addition to beef. In some ways beef is the least of it. Really, a lot of it has to do with Korean nationalism, with protests between various groups in Korea. There were these huge candlelight protests with literally hundreds of thousands and even millions of people out in the streets at one time. These had to do with the fact that after ten years of progressive governments, the Koreans have elected a conservative as their president. A lot of this has to do with the current politics opposition to the conservatives on the part of many of the progressive groups.

This is an excellent interview, including opinions on DPRK policy and FTA. A must read!

One of many problems I have with what Song Min-soon (mp3 file: a rush transcript is also available), the ROK Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade says at the Council of Foreign Relations is his definition of a «bold and strategic move» or a «first move». And then, there's just the lie of omission about the Roh administration's, and, generally, progressives' concept of joint economic community.

What is a «first» or «bold» move other than a carrot the US offers to the DPRK? The moderator, Stephen Bosworth does a good job at the end trying to pin down Song's vacuous rhetoric when he asks how does Seoul account for the fundamentally different nature of the two Korean regimes. Song advocates contact, as if talking and disclosure is enough to change the situation. As alluded to in Bosworth's question, replying to Don Oberdorfer's preceding question (actually when I stopped actively listening to Song or trusting him), about the difference between an armistice and a peace regime, Song calls for free movement of goods and more contact and DPRK-US diplomatic normalization. Earlier still, Song removes the conditionality of this peace regime on denuclearization, instead calling the relationship between the Six Party talks and the DPRK-ROK summit «mutually reinforcing». Just because Seoul is enabling Pyongyang with carrots, and that the process is failing, doesn't mean Washington has to give Pyongyang more carrots. Perhaps, someone has to wield more sticks? Perhaps, Seoul needs to join that team?

And, as Song's responses reveal, why is it so beneficial for the world, that Seoul has untrammeled access to Pyongyang? Economic prosperity requires security, which would favor denuclearization over Seoul's contacts. Even if the DPRK were to develop, what guarantee is there that trade will not cause political violence leading to regime change in Pyongyang? That's seems to be a destabilizing development Seoul does not want to occur precipitously. Are Seoul and Pyongyang going somehow going to modulate and suppress North Korean political dissent as economic contact fostered development? That seems to be a prospect just as troubling as an authoritarian state with nukes.

ROK Minister Song needs to come cleaner on his ideas.