Left Flank

Christopher Pellegrini contributes #2 in a series of excellent pieces on the anti-Lee protests in Seoul . Here's the important part.

The people want change. True, this president was sworn in only a little over a hundred days ago, but they want change again. Serves them right for not voting in the first place.

But the protests of 2008 aren't the protests of yesterday. These protests are being maintained by the well-connected community of regular people that surf the Internet every day (also known as netizens).

Again, how can South Koreans protest the guy they didn't really vote for? It's a convenient excuse, right? But, police just wouldn't stand at the fringes and ask for proof of voting, could they? How many of these younger acolytes of disorder actually thought about their choice 100 days ago?  What reality do the netizens inhabit to justify listening to their grievances?

Juan Cole cites the recently intensifying anti-Lee-çûm beef protests (and open season for any progressive grievance in ROK) to protest Senator John McCain's notoriously long-term strategy for Iraq.

Do you notice how Iraq and South Korea are not actually very much alike? Do you really think they will become alike in the next 4 years? Could Republicans please stop using John Gaddis's brain-dead "analogy", which never made any sense to begin with?

On one hand, let's validate that theory about anti-Americanism as a cause for the protests. But, on the other, rightly, Seoul's past is sui generis, and not even a good example for its own future. Beijing's and Tokyo's competition for regional hegemony, even as two Korean states vie for diplomatic influence, is unprecedented. This works, too:

The analogy would make slightly more sense if Seoul were in NORTH Korea. Otherwise, you should compare having troops in South Korea to having troops on the Kuwait/Iraq border.

Only the US Army, and this is the salient constituency he needs to impress, would appreciate McCain's thin grasp of trivia.

Korea Report surely bloviates about the fiery destruction of the Great South Gate (sungnyemun, or now, namdaemun):

While Koreans are aghast by the burning of the number-one national treasure, criticisms abound, from government's lack of attention and care of historical and cultural artifacts to the general trend in South Korea of fast-paced modernization and development policy that trumps outwardly show of achievements, wealth and commercialism at the expense of social harmony, safety for citizens, and respect for cultural legacy and identity.

Chosun Daily really goes over the top, though, calling the incident "Korea's 9/11". I think that occurred on June 25, 1950! Yet, it gets worse. South Korean police have apprehended a suspect who is a repeat offender: in April 2006 a man called "Chae" also burned down a part of Seoul's Changgyeong Palace. So, of course, South Koreans are blaming Seoul's firefighters.

Only on last Wednesday, as I was telling my wife's friend from Seoul about monuments and battlefield parks in the PA-MD-DC-VA area, she quipped that South Koreans have not taken care of their historical monuments. This woman had traveled extensively, but I'm certain she couldn't care less for Gettysburg and the Mall. I let South Koreans off the hook, saying that the Japanese (and we were all eating sushi and sashimi) had burned down most of the buildings. Obviously, in light of Hwaseong Fortress, Changgyeong Palace, and now, Sungnyemun, I was too forgiving.

I would blame both the police and "Chae".

Is proximity a more important factor than acclimation for Olympic athletes seeking a training advantage? Of course, humans aren't horses (and some Swiftians would find that fact depressing), but then all those concerns about smoggy, humid air transcend species boundaries.

As of Thursday, 15 foreign countries had decided to send a total of 499 athletes to South Korea. The teams are to train in some dozen disciplines in Seoul, North Chungcheong Province and Jeju. Egypt has agreed with the Korea Olympic Committee to send about 40 athletes to South Korea in March. Bulgaria and Algeria are considering setting up training camps for all members of their Olympic teams here.

A total of 11 local governments are trying to attract foreign Olympic teams. The Korea Tourism Organization has published a guidebook on training camps and mailed copies to the national Olympic committees in foreign countries.

Japan has reportedly attracted about 20 foreign Olympic teams. According to the Yomiuri Shimbun newspaper, 150 Swedish athletes in 19 events will train in the city of Fûkûøká. Osaka has agreed with the British swimming team to supply a long-term training camp. Hokkaido, where the G8 summit for 2008 will be held, has invited the ambassadors from the G8 countries, and Hokkaido Governor Harumi Takahashi handed them promotional pamphlets.

"Yellowy" Seoul, I guess, would count as a suitable substitute for Beijing in the spring and early summer.

I could make so many comments - it's election season in ROK, and Japan could use some positive, cheap diplomatic news - but, more Sakhalin Koreans are arriving in Seoul for repatriation.

Lee and her husband, who speak Russian at home, now live in a small but modern flat about an hour west of Seoul. It took years of negotiations among Japan, Russia and South Korea to devise a repatriation plan.

Japan, which says all its compensation claims with South Korea were settled by an accord the two signed decades ago, has quietly and on humanitarian grounds helped fund the return, South Korea's Overseas Information Service said.

The Koreans receive rent subsidies, pensions and health insurance from the South Korean government with Japan kicking in money for their transport and appliances for their new homes.

The first group of 900 Sakhalin Koreans came back in 2000. The current program, open to Koreans 65 and older, has been relocating another 610 people since the start of October.

«My parents wanted to come back so much. They spent their days crying until they finally passed away,» said Chung Young-ja, 67, who went with her parents to Sakhalin when she was a toddler.

South Korea says there are still 3,200 first-generation Koreans on Sakhalin.

On leaving Russia Chung and her husband, Chang Jung-gi, left behind three children and seven grandchildren who are settled in the country and are never likely to live in South Korea.

I can't help but think Japan gets the better part of this deal - Tokyo doesn't need to take care of these elderly people, and it gets to keep the younger workers. 

Two major events concerning the Korean peninsula hit the public in the last few days, the Second DPRK-ROK Summit and the latest installment of the Six Party talks in Beijing. As usual the ball is in Pyongyang's end of the court, and even I won't place bets, at least not on one prediction.

In Pyongyang, not even ROK President Roh Moo-hyun can get respect (and, who's really complaining?). During the course of the media bomb, I was concerned about the inordinate attention on economic issues. Seeing Chung Mong-koo in Pyongyang on South Korean TV made me wonder if the entire reason the ROK Supreme Court exonerated him was, so he could grab his share of loot from the North Koreans.

Among the top three business topics expected for discussion - natural resource developments, roadway and railway distribution system expansions and dockyard construction - Hyundai-Kia Automotive Group is said to be interested in building railroad cars through its shipping affiliate Glovis, and also measure the feasibility of SOC businesses, while POSCO showed interest in forestation.

Although company officials said forestation is just a possibility, as the steel maker has shown its interest in securing carbon credit overseas, industry insiders say the opportunity will be advantageous for POSCO if cooperation comes through.

And as speculations rose that SK Group may be considering communication and energy projects in the North, company officials said plans are open for review if the right offer is made.

LG and Samsung, which are said to be mulling over their specialty areas of electronics, seem to be in the same scouting stages as others.

I think the first piece I wrote on Korea was about Samsung turning the DPRK into a giant industrial park. If Graph 5 of the «Declaration for Advancement of South-North Korean Relations, Peace and Prosperity» are any indication, it seems Chairman Chung's time was wasted.

From what can be gleaned of their substance, talks between the two leaders on October 3rd only emphasised the distance still to travel. Mr Kim may be willing to squeeze the outside world for aid?but on his terms. So Mr Roh?s offer of what amounted to a Marshall Plan to transform North Korea?s economy in pursuit of Chinese-style liberalisation met with blank dismissal. Mr Kim does not even like a showcase industrial park at Kaesong, where South Korean manufacturers employ cheap North Korean labour, to be described as a model of successful ?reform?. Once again, Mr Kim showed how he puts his own survival over that of the North Koreans he brutalises.

Yet a joint agreement was announced on October 4th, something Mr Roh will be able to take home with relief. Gone were his hopes for great involvement in the North, but there was agreement to allow freight trains into Kaesong. There was a recommitment to help families divided by the civil war to meet (though a word from Mr Kim is all it would take to solve that sad problem). Talks will be sought with America and China to put a formal end to the civil war (though peace on the peninsula, these countries are likely to argue, can only come after its denuclearisation). Steps were promised (as, fruitlessly, they were at the 2000 summit) to reduce military tensions: defence ministers would meet, while a disputed western maritime area would see its fisheries jointly mined.

And, it's even more disconcerting to read DPRK Vice Foreign Minister Choi Su-hon at the UN say, that «...there was no need for the UN as a go-between in inter-Korean affairs, as inter-Korean dialogue is 'going well.'» I hope dialogue is much more multi-voiced, and includes as many «go-between's» as possible.

Vice Minister Choi also called the latest agreement in Beijing, agreeing to the disablement of Yongbyon by the end of the year, a «courageous decision». It remains for Pyongyang to manifest its courage. But, there are plenty of other ways the enthusiasm could get punctured.

At the request of the other five parties to the nuclear deal, the United States will lead disablement activities and provide initial funding. It will lead an expert group to North Korea, probably next week, to prepare for disablement.

North Korea also reaffirmed its commitment not to transfer nuclear materials, technology or know-how, the statement issued in Beijing added.

But the statement skirted the issue of when the country would be removed from the U.S. state sponsors of terrorism list, one of Pyongyang's key demands, saying only Washington would fulfill its commitments to begin that process in parallel with action on the ground.

Last week, Bush authorized $25 million in aid for the North, which would cover the cost of up to 50,000 tons of heavy fuel oil.

China and South Korea have delivered initial fuel shipments and Russia is expected to do so too. But Japan has indicated it will not participate unless North Korea addresses the issue of Japanese citizens the North abducted in the 1970s and 1980s.

And, to be fair, there is substantive opposition to the entire process.

Nowhere, however, in the new agreement was what Reagan-era diplomats called a «third basket» ? a set of exchanges and commitments regarding how the communist regime treats its citizens, a feature of the Helsinki accords first signed in 1975 by 35 nations, including America and the Soviet Union.

A third-basket negotiation was the hope of a left-right coalition of human rights and religious leaders who on May 25 warned Secretary of State Rice that it «would oppose the provision of significant financial assistance to North Korea without progress on human rights issues.» The coalition included Human Rights Watch, the Southern Baptist Convention, the National Association of Evangelicals, Freedom House, and the George Soros-funded Open Society Institute.

One of the organizers of the coalition on North Korean Human Rights, Michael Horowitz, yesterday said the denuclearization agreement would lead to war. «This policy has increased the risk of war on the Korean peninsula. If we give Kim Jong Il money for his weapons programs, the future will bring more weapons not fewer weapons,» Mr. Horowitz said. «I fear that if this deal goes through, Kim Jong Il will seek to blackmail the world in less than two years with what may be the world's largest chemical and biological stockpile and missiles capable of delivering them.» Mr. Horowitz pointed out that when North Korea tested missiles last July, both Democrats and Republicans called for a military strike.

«It is sad and ironic that President Bush, the most forceful advocate of North Korean human rights, has signed off on a policy approach that seeks to legitimize and finance the Kim Jong Il regime in exchange for mere weapons promises on its part.»

Mr. Bush yesterday praised the agreement and said North Korea would provide a «complete and correct» accounting of «all its nuclear programs, nuclear weapons programs, materials, and any proliferation activity.» Mr. Bush also said the new agreement would «help secure the future peace and prosperity of the Northeast Asian region.»

Mr. Lefkowitz yesterday said human rights and national security are two complementary objectives in the administration's North Korea policy. «It is a false choice to say the United States policy should focus either on nuclear security or human rights; indeed, the two go hand and hand. We have very serious imminent interests in North Korea disarming,» he said.

There is also this choice Roh quote:

The talks left Roh with an impression that progress remains hindered by Kim's deep suspicions.

«North Korea still has some skepticism about the South and doesn't trust it enough,» the South Korean president was quoted as saying at a Wednesday luncheon after his first two-hour session of talks with Kim. «We need greater effort to demolish a wall of mistrust.»

Roh said the North Korean leader was suspicious about terms such as «openness» and «reform,» suggesting that he sees any rapid move toward Chinese-style economic reforms as a threat to his autocratic rule.

Mistrust also was evident in observers' reactions to the nuclear deal struck in Beijing. Many experts raised concerns over whether the deal would fully disable the North's nuclear facilities, or merely leave them easy to reassemble.

One can learn a lot through a child's eyes.

Alright, no Left Flank post would be complete without criticism of the Bush administration, even as it is praised. Ed Morrissey is refreshingly pragmatic, when he argues that «...A few million dollars to ensure security is a small price to pay, and besides, we can then ensure that the facilities really cannot be reused for a very long time.» Dilworth at KUS puts it a little more colorfully than I would, and Richardson is skeptical.

As my wife often says in these times, Korean events lurch two steps forward, and then one step back. Is this the progress, or the reaction? Let's meet again on December, 31!