Flying Yangban

Tsunami relief: Every little bit helps

I don't feel the need to give much of an overview of the current state of things in South Asia right now.  I'm sure that everyone is well aware of the devastation caused by the recent earthquake and tsunami.  The death toll has already passed 100,000 and I expect that the final number will be much more.

Several bloggers have already talked about relief efforts.  Much of the initial efforts have been for rescue work and providing emergency provisions.  Many nations outside of the disaster area (notably Australia, the USA, New Zealand and Singapore) have deployed their militaries to help and groups from all over the world are converging on worst-hit areas.

The next thing that the region needs is vast amounts of medical aid to prevent the rapid spread of disease among the survivors.  Because of that, I've decided to give some money to AmeriCares since they are reputed to be a pretty efficient outfit and are concentrating on delivering medical supplies.  Click on the AmeriCares graphic if you would also like to make a donation.

Yahoo has also set up a site were you can make a donation to the American Red Cross' relief efforts.  Again, just click on the ARC logo to go to the donation site.

Don't worry if you can't give a lot.  According to AmeriCare, every $100 of cash donations allows them to deliver about $3,000 in medical supplies.  So even ten bucks will go a long way.

Goh Kun: A Korean Cincinnatus?

In case you missed it, the Korea Herald ran a piece a couple of days ago about the popularity of former prime minister Goh Kun.  Well, here it is (I'll also copy it in the continuation before it gets lost in the black hole of the Herald's old articles.).

Who is Goh Kun?

Goh Kun is a former prime minister, governor of South Cholla Province, two-time mayor of Seoul, three-time cabinet member (transportation, agriculture and government administration) and of course, acting president during President Roh's impeachment (as if we could forget).

Goh has earned a couple of monikers during his long public career. 

Many Koreans know him by the less than exciting nickname of "Master of Administration."  He was a technocrat in a government dominated by political hacks.  Another nickname is "Mr. Stability." He is understated in a political environment dominated by demagogues.  He is basically a guy who advanced in Korean politics by being basically competent and not rocking the boat (kind of like Colin Powell).  He is also known as "2ID Goh" at one IKK blog because he was the guy the Korean government seny to talk with USFK officials whenever there was a problem.

What is the deal with Goh Kun?

Despite the fact that he has not been very active since he resigned as prime minister last May, recent polls rank him above the Grand National Party's (GNP) Park Geun-hye and Our Open Party's (OOP) Chung Dong-young (the current Anti-Unification Minister).  The Herald piece gives a couple of reasons for Goh's popularity:

"Under the present circumstances, people tend to hope for a type of leader who can stay neutral and be free of political ambitions," said Professor Park Ho-rae of Tamra University. "Goh was known to have carried out his duties quietly but firmly. Thus, people who are tired of the present 'noisy' politics would give more marks to Goh, who is seen by the public as quiet but reliable."

In a way, Goh's popularity mirrors people's dissatisfaction toward the government and politics, said professor Park. "The more the public feel discontent toward the present (state of) politics, the more they would want someone like Goh as the next president."

But that quote also exposes the problem of a potential Goh run for president.  A big part of Goh's popularity is that many Koreans see him as a kind of Cincinnatus; someone who wants to serve Korea and who is without political ambition for himself.  Were he to run for the presidency, he would be at least partially undercutting the very thing that makes him popular with the Korean people in the first place.

The other problem is that Park and Chung seem have the inside track (if not a lock) on their parties' nominations for the 2007 election.  While Korea is not quite a two-party system like the US (yet), the GNP and OOP control most of the money and organizational muscle on the right and left end of Korean politics today.

Sometimes dreams don't come true.

As many people know, these kinds of 'dream candidacies' more often than not end in a bust.  Many Democrats saw General Wesley Clark (who led the 'illegal' war in Kosovo) as the perfect man to take the White House and started a draft Clark campaign, but once he threw his hat in the ring his campaign sputtered and he dropped out early. 

Koreans also remember the candidacy of Chung Mong-joon, the man who brought the World Cup to Korea.  He started off strong and was an early favorite for the Millennium Democratic Party nomination eventually won by Roh Moo-hyun.  His political alliance with Roh Moo-hyun during the 2002 presidential election could have set him up as a political king-maker and the early favorite for president in 2007. 

But his withdrawal of support for Roh just before the election and Roh's subsequent victory marginalized Chung.  Chung was the only person from his now defunct party elected to the Kuk Hoi this year.

Can 'President Goh' be made a reality?

So, given the political minefields that must be negotiated and the contradictions inherent in Goh actively campaigning for president, how can a Goh presidency be a reality?

First of all, forget a 'draft Goh' campaign in the general election.  For one thing, a campaign without a candidate can't build a big enough war chest to sustain it.  Also, a large and active 'draft Goh' campaign would split the the vote on the right and ensure that the OOP candidate won.  So clearly, if you are going to have a campaign to draft Goh, you will need to do it during the GNP nominating process. 

Park Geun-hye is the clear GNP front runner right now but she has enough enemies among more conservative members of the party that she probably won't be able to get the nomination without a fight.  On the other hand, while they might be able to wound her it seems doubtful, baring some major scandal,  that anyone will be able to displace her.

It is during the in-fighting for the GNP nomination that a draft Goh campaign could succeed.  What would be needed is some cryptic words from Goh about 'not seeking' the nomination and a well-organized campaign to give it to him.  If timed right, the campaign could hand the GNP nomination to Goh, who would 'humbly and reluctantly' accept the nomination.  After five years of Roh Moo-hyun and three of an OOP-controlled Kuk Hoi, the general election should be a cakewalk.

Such a draft Goh campaign needs to be run by someone intelligent with a lot of ambition; someone who is has some pull in the GNP but who currently lacks the gravitas to rally sufficient support for himself; someone who wants the top job but who is young enough to wait his turn until 2012.  Who fits the bill?

Ladies and gentlemen...

I give you Park Jin.

(For a little more on Park Jin in English, see here.)

And now for six kilos of salt

I don't think that anyone will see this piece for anything but the wild speculation that it is but I guess I need to give this warning just in case:  Clearly, there are a lot of hypotheticals in this piece and any number of things could derail a draft Goh candidacy:

-Park Geun-hye could crush all opposition early.

-She could be strong enough in the GNP to beat 'dravt Goh' (it being hard to beat somebody with nobody).

-2007 a cakewalk for the GNP?  People thought the same thing in early 2002.

-Goh is no spring chicken.  Maybe the era of geriatric leaders in Korea is over.

-Park Jin might not want to wait until 2012 for his shot or he might not like Goh Kun.

-(the biggie)  When Goh kun indicates that he doesn't want the job, maybe, just maybe, he really doesn't want the job.

Like I said, this is pure speculation.  But wasn't it fun?

Sidebar:  Who was Cincinnatus?

Cincinnatus is one of those guys most Americans should have heard of but haven't.  Here is a bit about him: 

In 458 Cincinnatus was appointed dictator at Rome in order to rescue a consular army that was surrounded by the Aequi on Mount Algidus. When the call to duty came up he was found working his small farm. He accepted the request of the Senate to lead the Roman Army. He defeated the enemy in a single day and celebrated a triumphant return to Rome. Cincinnatus maintained his authority only long enough to bring Rome through the emergency; a mere fifteen days. He then resigned and went back to his farm.

Having total power and giving it up to go back to the farm; I believe that qualifies Cincinnatus as one of the great studs of history.  The American connection is our own George Washington was regarded as an American Cincinnatus for refusing to take power after the American War for Independence and for later voluntarily leaving the presidency after two terms in office.

A message from Adrian Hong (Executive Director of LiNK)

Last week I posted about the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights put on by Liberation in North Korea (LiNK) last month.  In that post, I made the following comment:

In past posts I've expressed my admiration for the folks who are organizing LiNK and hope that they and other Korean-American groups can help pull their Korean cousins' heads out of the sand regarding the Norks.

Something I saw at the symposium has made me believe that I may have been too hopeful.  When the leftists on the panel began attacking the North Korea Freedom Act (NKFA), Adrian Hong (Link's rep) went into full back pedal mode and said that LiNK did not and perhaps legally could not take a stand on specific legislation.

Really?  Is this the same organization that protested and gathered signatures in support of the North Korean Human Rights Act (the Senate version of NKFA)?  You can see more pics of the event at LiNK's blog here. Why the change?

That post generated several comments, including one from LiNK's executive director Adrian Hong (at least I hope it is from Adrian).  Since it addresses some items that several people have talked about, I think it deserves it's own post.  You make have to read my orginal post for context:

***********************

Hello everyone,
First- thank you to the Yangban for always posting so diligently about LiNK and it's exploits- it helps a lot to have enlightened English speaking outlets observe and write about us, certainly to me personally- it helps show how our actions and events come across to the general public.

I would like to clear up a few things, though.

Re: Neil's comments: there was no direct "shift" in views about anything after the rally in DC- it was not until much, much later.

About your comments about the left-right confusion in LiNK, or LiNK's hypersensitivity: I'm not sure if you or anyone you know was able to make it to the Symposium at the Museum of Tolerance in Los Angeles. If you do know anyone that made it, please ask them for a rundown of the closing panel. LiNK was involved in a very intense debate with a Korean American professor representing the groups you note- groups affiliated with Pyongyang in one way or another, the same groups that say defectors are lying, that human rights groups are opposing and hindering reunification. We are not afraid of criticism- we welcome it. In fact, I believe that criticism from certain people only gives us more legitimacy, and shows us that we're on the right track.

"a final note... I told this girl that LiNK's greatest challenge would be overcoming the bias against NK human rights agitation among SK thought leaders and stirring the avg Korean to care about it... I guess this organization will not do this because theyre too sensitive to criticism, they care too much what other Korean NGOs think about them, and they have some wobbly-at-the-knees left wingers in their leadership."

I'm not going to respond to that directly for fear of offending possible "left-wingers" that may read this blog, but I will say that our actions will speak louder than our words, and if you continue to watch LiNK, particularly our upcoming activities in Seoul, you will see that perhaps your judgment was a bit premature.

What's up with LiNK?

If I had spoken freely at our Yonsei symposium, every panel participant would have left the room, and never would have listened to us again. However, you may be able to judge our stance on things from a talk we had at Chicago's Wheaton University just a week before Seoul. I stated that I believed it was shameful that South Korea, of all nations, would abstain from the UN's vote on the NK human rights record, that Roh, a HUMAN RIGHTS LAWYER, would make it policy to not only be silent on the NK human rights record, but actively work AGAINST NGOs and groups trying to bring about change in NK and help the many refugees in China. There was a lot more to it, but I just want to make one thing clear: a large reason for my personal decision to work on something like LiNK was to make up for the inaction and apathy of nearly 50 million of my cousins in South Korea. If they will not take this cause up, then we Korean Americans will. I have said this in every interview with Korean press from Queens to Seoul, and will continue to say it. However, we are trying to awaken South Koreans not with accusations and insults, but by shaming them into action with our own.

This Seoul forum was the first of a few attempts at seeing if South Koreans are going to be reachable, if we will be able to find allies in this movement, if they will hear us and our perspectives on things. We were, effectively, guests in their house, and in the interests of probing more deeply and accurately into each existing group and movement, we left the majority of our stronger beliefs unsaid.

[However, the last two to three hours of the Yonsei event were very much more reflective of LiNK's stance and position on things.]

At the panel, I did say that LiNK does not support the NKHRA. However, I also said that it was because legally, as a non-profit organization, we are barred by law from supporting any legislation or candidate for office. I did also say that regardless of our opinion of it, it is now law, and we must not only work with it in mind, but also see to it that it is not used as merely a political tool, but a genuine movement to help the North Korean people.

"It's not about left or right, it's about the Nork boot bashing their cousins' faces in over and over again."

We said exactly this at the forum, and several articles in Korea Times/Herald/Ohmynews [ yes, the virulently anti-American outlet] made mention of it as well, gratefully.

Mr. Yangban has very shrewd observations. Expediency is precisely one of the main motivations in this development [I would not call it a shift.].

You were also right in your characterization of our role in Seoul- we are, for the time being, merely a facilitator. There was a lot more to LiNK's trip to Seoul than was visible at Yonsei. We met with every major NGO and group, public or underground, working with NK human rights. Some groups we had worked with in the past, others we were being introduced to. Two major responses were evident. The first was that we were too young to be taken seriously, but great for photo ops. The second, was that we were too American to be taken seriously, and anything we said was automatically discounted and even cut-off in mid-sentence. Most of the meetings ended up being worth less than the free tea we were served- just opportunities for "human rights leaders" to lecture us on the lack of understanding we had of the "daily dangers" South Koreans faced from North Korea, and our "ignorance" of Korean history and politics.

You can imagine, then, why we were reluctant to be too forthright in our charges at the Yonsei event.

LiNK will work for a bit to shed the image in Korea of us as "outsiders" and "meddlers." It will take some time, but it is anything but impossible, particularly because many of us are not only of Korean heritage, but also of Korean citizenship. We have found kindred spirits in Seoul and it's universities already, and groups of people have approached us about starting chapters in Seoul.

Once we establish ourselves as a credible voice, we will say nothing different from what we say in New York or Los Angeles.

Our next Korea events will likely be in March/April. Please stay tuned- I greatly appreciate this sort of rare dialogue that I am allowed to engage in on this page, and Yangban's page in general.

Finally, I will tell you in advance that some major developments are coming shortly with LiNK and it's activities, for extremely important reasons of... expediency. LiNK has been engaging in more and more "overseas activities." Most of these developments will be made public as soon as LiNK's leadership has had time to digest it at our bi-annual Summit, in two weeks.

Thanks so much, again, and hopefully we will meet some of you at a future event. Also, if anyone has any further questions, or even criticisms- criticisms are always welcome! Please leave a note.

sorry, one more addition:
after the frustration with long-winded koreans and terrible translation, the next symposium we have will be entirely in English. =).

**********************

The last couple of hours (which Adrian said were more true-to-form for LiNK) were the couple that I missed.  That's too bad.

Thanks for the message Adrian.  The link to LiNK's web page is here.

Roh's visit to Iraq has the Hanky a little depressed

By now, we have all heard about President Roh's recent trip to Iraq to visit the Korean troops there.  It was the right thing to do politically, diplomatically and morally (especially considering how they were sent off back in August).

Predictably, the Hankyoreh (Korea's main leftist paper) isn't happy about it.  After giving some platitudes about how the visit much have been an encouragement to the troops, they started making up reasons that the visit was wrong: 

Nevertheless, his visit had inherent problems that are no less significant. Over the long run, it was a critical mistake for openly supporting and assisting the US's unjust invasion of Iraq. Korea has lost all chances for the slightest bit of "sympathy" for having sent troops in the name of "peace and reconstruction" out of being unable to resist American pressure. One worries the president's visit will incite local resistance elements and in doing so actually have the effect of putting soldiers in danger.

Two notes for the Hanky.  First, if Roh is serious about pursuing a more 'independent' foreign policy then he can hardly take the line that Korea is in Iraq because the US made them go.  I realize that Roh had taken a similar line last year (that Korea had no choice) but that was just to buy some coverage with members of the Uri party on their vote to deploy the troops. 

Second, the Korean troops are in Kurdistan the Kurdish part of Iraq.  The only 'local resistance elements' in the area are some fundies bottled up in a couple of villages on the Iranian border.  The 'local resistance elements' in Iraq are Sunnis who fear losing power in a democratic Iraq.  The Kurds are fine.

So, given that their concerns are bunk (which I think they know) what is their real worry?  Look at the last paragraph: 

Members of the National Assembly who have noted that sending troops to Iraq was unjust and worked against the Assembly bill to extend their time in Iraq must keep from being losing strength and getting discouraged in the wake of the president's visit.

There you have it.  Roh has tied himself politically to the deployment.  This certain strengthens the hand of Uri party members who want to extend it (The Grand National Party is already on board).

In fact, with Uri' four major projects in one former of trouble or another, the deployment extension might be the most significant piece of legislation to come out of the Kuk Hoi this year.  That is certainly not something the folks at the Hanky are happy about.

It's still a condom in Korea

Horny foreigners in Korea won't have to worry about breaking out their Korean-English dictionaries the next time they drop by the local LG25.  Korea has dropped plans to replace the English loan word for condom (콘돔) with a 'pure' Korean word (애필).  Check this out:

The Korean Anti-AIDS Federation said it would drop the use of a suggested new word for condom, "ae-pil," which was derived from the Chinese characters for love and necessity.

The name, picked from 19,000 suggestions sent in by the public, had prompted complaints from many South Koreans with similar-sounding characters in their names, federation official Kim Hoon-soo said.

"An old lady called to complain, saying she was worried about her grandson being teased due to her name being 'condom,'" Kim said, adding the federation had dropped its push for a new name.

So you single guys out there have one less thing to have to remember.

My little trip to the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights; Part Two (What's up with LiNK?)

(Here is part two of my my first-hand account of part of the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights, which was held at the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies on Saturday, November 27.)

In part one, I talked about the morning session of the symposium. .

After a lunch of stale bread from a bakery near Yonsei University's east gate, I got to see some of the second round action.

The Line-up

The afternoon battle royal panel discussion

When the folks at LiNK say that they want to bring different groups together for dialog, they aren't joking.  The afternoon forum had members from all over Korea's political spectrum and some of them clearly detested each other.  The participants where (from stage right to stage left on the podium):

-Adrian Hong; Executive Director of LiNK (more on him in a moment).

-Lee Yeong-hwan with Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights.  I suspect that they are pretty right-wing, because they are helping North Korean refugees in China and Russia.  They certainly don't seem to have any love for Kim Jong-il and the boys. 

-Park Jeong-eun with The People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy.  They are pretty left-wing and think that any problem with the Norks is America's fault.

-Park Il-Hwan with 자유민주남복청년희 or the (time for a tortured translation) United Korean Youth for Freedom and Democracy Association.  [Somebody please tell me their real English name so I can find a link.  Or better yet, give me a link.  Never mind, I now know that the English name is Korean Youth United. They don't seem to have a web page yet, which is weird since everyone in Korea has a web page.]  Anyway, Park is a defector from North Korea.  He is currently a college student.

-Lee Seung-yong with Good Friends.  This seems to be a Buddhist counterpart to the Christian groups who are helping North Koreans.  Unsurprisingly, it is also pretty left-wing (most Korean Christians being on the Right).

Tarik Radiwan, a professor and human rights attorney.  Radiwan was the most impressive of the folks that I saw that afternoon, mainly because he seemed to be the only one up there without an agenda other than talking about human rights in North Korea.  Unsurprisingly, he took a legalistic approach to the issue and said that the Chinese are bound by the international agreements they have signed to take in North Korean refugees.  Yeah, that sounded naive to me too.

I only wish that I could have stuck around for the whole thing (I don't get to spend enough time with Lady Yangban these days and I wanted to get home for some QT).

What's up with LiNK?

In past posts I've expressed my admiration for the folks who are organizing LiNK and hope that they and other Korean-American groups can help pull their Korean cousins' heads out of the sand regarding the Norks.

Something I saw at the symposium has made me believe that I may have been too hopeful.  When the leftists on the panel began attacking the North Korea Freedom Act (NKFA), Adrian Hong (Link's rep) went into full back pedal mode and said that LiNK did not and perhaps legally could not take a stand on specific legislation.

Really?  Is this the same organization that protested and gathered signatures in support of the North Korean Human Rights Act (the Senate version of NKFA)?  You can see more pics of the event at LiNK's blog here. Why the change?

I see a couple of possibilities.  First, the Ryongchang disaster may have started a change in the perceptions of some LiNK members away from opposition to the North Korean government towards more of a politically neutral stance.  Second, their may have been a leadership change in the organization with a corresponding shift in direction.

However, I think the most likely explanation is that most political of motivations: expediency.  Check out this quote from LiNK's  own coverage of the event: 

These reactions (of Korean groups to the NKFA) and polarization makes useful discourse about the subject difficult. Most separate themselves into two camps: those who support the Sunshine policy and reunification above all else versus those who want to push for human rights now.

Diana Sur, one of the event organizers who is also starting a Seoul chapter of LiNK, mentioned the frustration of trying to bring the two sides together. "One group would find out another was attending and refuse to appear," she said.

So I think Hong's backpedaling may have simply been a way to try to keep the peace among some of the participants.  It could very well be that LiNK is a two-headed beast: agitator in America and facilitator in Korea.

If some kind of consensus can be achieved, great.  But I would not hold my breath.  After all, this is a land where brawls on the floor of the legislature are commonplace.

If any LiNKers out there see this, I would certainly appreciate some enlightenment.

UPDATE:  My first comment confirmed that there has been a shift in thinking at the top of the organization.  I would certainly like to hear more about this (and any other views).

Up date on the 'questioner' at the NK Human Rights symposium

In a previous post, I had talked about how a questioner at the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights had come down and translated his own question.

That elicited this response: 

I was there as well, and one comment that I believe should be made in light of your post is that the professor that you mention, the one that made his statements in both English and Korean, DIDN'T SAY THE SAME THING IN EACH LANGUAGE!

After speaking with Adrian after wards, I grasped that this was his main reason for invading the panel and answering that self righteous prick that thought he could pull one over on the crowd. His basis for the entire splay was that, in English, Clinton had a plan for attacking NK nuclear facilities. His Korean interpretation, 공격하려고 했다고, translates into decided to attack.

Such dishonest propaganda rhetoric has no place in a symposium, and for some conceited (punk) to think he knows so much more than the rest of us that he will conveniently translate in order to make everyone happy is abhorrent

Thanks for the heads up, mystery guy.

I've been told by a bilingual friend that such happens all the time, when some on the Korean left (and right) want to say something for domestic consumption in order to 'fire up the base' or spread misinformation.  Of course, they would not want to say that in English because someone would call them out on it.

(OK, I really promise to finish my review of the symposium tomorrow.)

UPDATE:  Joel says that the mystery guy is wrong about what the professor said (see the comments section).  Perhaps when can get one or two more guys in here to see who is right.

My little trip to the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights (part one)

(Here is my first-hand account of part of the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights, which was held at the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies last Saturday.

The symposium was sponsored by Liberation in North Korea (LiNK) and Korea Youth United.

Read it and you will figure out why I would never make it as a journalist.  You can also check out this OhMyNews piece on the event.)

The big banner in the front hall tells who got the ball rolling for this thing.

When I heard that there was going to be a symposium on North Korean human rights at Yonsei University in Seoul, I decided that I had to go.  When I found out that it started at 9:30, I decided that I had to go there late.  After all, Yonsei is a 90 minute subway right from my home and Saturday is the only day that I can sleep in.

I finally dragged myself out of bed and up to the symposium by about 11:00.  When I got there, I found three distinguished speakers in a small auditorium talking to about 90 people.

Being linguistically challenged (as the Marmot once lovingly called me) I didn't get that much out of the morning session since it was all in Korean.  To my country ears, it basically went something like this...

Blah blah blah North Korea and blah blah blah blah blah blah.  Korea and North Korea blah blah blah if blah blah blah Koreans blah blah blah.  In North Korea blah blah blah blah.  Blah blah blah blah international....

Luckily, the kids in charge got the simultaneous translation up and running for the last few minutes of the presentation.   Unfortunately, the speed of the talking during the Q & A period (along with the extensive use of looooooong, multi-claused sentences) often overwhelmed their translation efforts.  That's too bad because it was a good Q & A. 

I've seen long-winded academics using 'questions' (with tons of 'whereas' and 'given that') to drive home their pet rhetorical points, but the questioners at that presentation were real pros.  The first guy rambled off such long and laboriously worded questions that the translators quickly gave up trying to type even a basic summary of what he was saying.  For added effect, he earnestly rattled some papers he was hold whenever he made (to his mind) a strong point.

The next guy was even better.  I knew exactly what he was saying because he went down to the front of the room, took a mike and stated his 'question' in English and Korean.  When the panelists did not answer to his satisfaction, he went down and asked another 'question.'  Here is a brief summary: 

South Korea should not pressure North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons program.  Japan has tons of nuclear material, so Korea (it was pretty clear that he was referring to the North and the South collectively here) should not abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons.

That brought the normally mild-mannered moderator (LiNK's Adrian Hong) down to give his own thoughts on comparing the the Norks to a real government.  In short, he didn't think there was one.

The afternoon session was going to have six participants, so I figured that it would be twice the fun.  I wasn't disappointed.  More on that tomorrow.