You gotta love the Americans. They are so predictable, and perform like trained seals when it comes to North Korea. Listen to US secretary of defence Robert Gates speaking in Beijing: 'North Korea is an immenent danger to the security of the US'.
Why? The DPRK's sophiscated level of rocketry will, down the road, produce an ICBM [intercontinental ballistic missile] able to hit Alaska. Consequently, North Korea is a 'imminent' and 'present danger' to the lives of the more 300 millions Americans.
Ain't that a moutful? Gates' words are typical of the lunatic foreign policy that the US is conducting towards Pyongyang, and in general, it subsumes the wild eye way the US looks at geopolitics. It typifies a mindset that brought George Bush to invade Iraq on the false premiss that Saddam Hussein had WMD [weapons of mass destruction]. The policy makers in the White House, the Pentagon, and Foggy Bottom [the home of the US department of state] are weavers of a seamless cloth of questionable assumptions. Consider, for the moment, Washington's campaign against Iran and its nuclear programme. Meir Dagan, the disgraced head of Israel's Mossad, on leaving office, has given lie to the US and Israeli propaganda that Tehran is on the cusp of developing a nuclear bomb. Based on confidential if not classified data, Dagan has pooh poohed that idea, and put any such development off for years.
North Korea has the bomb, but when Robert Carlin and Dr. Siegfried Hecker visited a heretofore unknown enrichment plant outside Pyongyang, it turned out that North Korea was more interested in building light water reactors to replace its inadequate and antiquated Soviet built infrastructure. [As GuamDiary observed, Bill Clinton reneged on a promise to build 3 light water reactors for the North Koreans. A promise which to this day remains unfulfilled.]
Gates' object was to scare the pants off his fellow citizens. It zeros in on North Korea's rocketry. Admittedly, North Korea's rocketry is of high level. After all, owing to stringent US imposed sanctions, Pyongyang earns the denied hard currency which US policy inhibits it from normal trade relations with other countries. Ironically, even a strong ally like Egypt is a buyer of North Korean rockets. On the other hand, in developing long range rockets, North Korea has had little success yet.
They may in the future, but that remains a matter of time and speculation.
What is at the bottom of Gates' war scare? Historically, the US has been at war with the DPRK for more than 60 years. Therefore, in a sense, North Korea is a present danger to the US. That war is frozen by a 1953 Armistice agreement, so the danger is minimal to America.
The real threat arises from the failed US and South Korean policy to provoke North Korea to war or to starve it until it collapses. On both countrs, Washington and Seoul have failed miserably. The Obama administration like the Bush administration before it, is counting on China to pull its chestnuts out of the fire by muzzling North Korea. China cannot and will not for the very same reasons it entered the Korean War against the US led UN troops: it does not want a hostile presence on its borders. It was true now as it was then. A reunited Korea under South Korea sends off danger signals in Beijing.
South Korea, if anything, is more aggressive towards the North through military exercises dangerously close to the North's international waters in the Yellow Sea [pace: the shelling in November 2010] and the axis of ill intention of Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo in waters in the Yellow sea that Beijing views as threatening to its own security, let alone to destablising North Korea.
If there is an imminent and present danger, it comes from the US and its South Korean and Japanese allies. It is based on a harrowing mad policy towards North Korea which is full of tripwires to war. Gates' pronouncement in China is simply 'eyewash'--full of deception and misleading words.
Tuesday, January 11, 2011
Sunday, January 9, 2011
Suzannah Clarke, Middlesbrough, & North Korea
Imagine tuning into the BBC and hearing a trained operatic voice singing 'Happy Birthday' in Korean to Kim Jong eun. Well, you do not need to imagine. It really happened. The voice belonged to Suzannah Clarke of Middlesbrough, England. Is there a special charm that attracts Clarke and Middlesbrough to North Korea? Clarke and Middlesbrough illustrate the old saying that music and sports are a universal language.
A little bit of history is in order here: in 1966 North Korea qualified for the World Cup held in the UK. The DPRK's 11 landed in Middlesbrough. The people of this Yorkshire county displayed a curiosity about the DPRK team, which was not hostile. In fact, by maintaining an air of neutality, they took the North Korean team as their own. In other words, they treated it as a hometown team. As for the North Korean soccer players, they did not disappoint the town that adopted them. In one of those strokes of luck which happens in sports, the DPRK 11 knocked out the world soccer champions Italy in the first round. Their victory brought much joy to Middlesbrough and drew it closer to the North Korean players. Park Doo ilk's goal went down in the record books as one of the biggest upsets in world soccer history. Alas, they, too, were eliminated but they left for home with the proud self respect of trouncing Italy and with the knowledge that in the midst of the Cold War, a town in England had treated them as one of their own. For North Korea and Middlesbrough it was 'the games of their lives'. [GuamDiary suggests looking at Daniel Gordon's 'The game of their lives' which captures the spirit of that triumph, and follows 40 odd years later what happened to the DPRK 11 players after they returned home.] An unexpected and 'tremendous' goal caught the world's imagination that instant which was impossible to forget. The town of Middlesbrough never forgot the North Koreans they adopted, and as we shall see, North Korea kept a found memory of Middlesbrought nearly a half century later.
Fast forward to 2003 when Middlesbrough Italian trained opera singer Suzannah Clarke participated in Pyongyang's Friendship Festival as tensions heightened on the divided Korean peninsula over the North's nuclear programme. Perky, clear eyed, and surely nobody's fool, with an degree with honours in Business, believed that as a good citizen of Middlesbrough, she could bridge differences with North Korea through entertainment. And she proved that by singing 5 concerts, performing both operatic and West End musical songs. Her 2003 'tour' was filmed by the BBC.
North Korea greeted her warmly, on two counts: one, she was breaking a taboo against performing in the DPRK, and two, she was from Middlesbrough.
Clarke has returned many times to North Korea. She has also given talks and classes on western opera and spoken of popular music. She has gone into the provinces as well. She is no starry eyed idealist, but ever the practical English gentlewoman that she is. As though she were talking, say, with a neighbour, the soprano exchanged tips on home gardening to increase family food supplies, with her North Korean hosts.
Listening to her interview on the BBC, Clarke exhibits a warmth towards North Koreans but she also knows they respect her opinions and her beliefs. She remains true to her ideal of building bridges through song. But it's not all song and concerts for her. According to her, she found her hosts attentive and curious about the world beyond North Korea without being patronising. And of course, she never forgets to say that she's a goodwill ambassador from Middlesbrough. Clarke, in her own way, is an example of the finer qualities of English sense of fair play.
As for Middlesbrough, the 'Middlesbrough Ladies' soccer team re enforced the city's historic connexion with North Korea, by playing in the DPRK. The team wore jerseys emblazoned with the words 'Friendship Football'. The press described the smiling 14 players and 3 coaches as sports ambassadors breaking new ground by playing in North Korea. The 'Ladies' were part of a programme marking 10 years of diplomatic relations between the DPRK and the UK. And football became a metaphor of that relationship which can serve as a model for other countries. In fact, to mark this event, the Embassy showed the popular film 'Bending like Becham' to a North Korean audience.
Events have come a long way since Middlesbrough 'adopted' the DPRK 11 in 1966. And the ties that bound that city and North Korea have survived and thrived through generosity of spirit and a willingness to get along or what in the old days people called 'peaceful coexistence'.
A little bit of history is in order here: in 1966 North Korea qualified for the World Cup held in the UK. The DPRK's 11 landed in Middlesbrough. The people of this Yorkshire county displayed a curiosity about the DPRK team, which was not hostile. In fact, by maintaining an air of neutality, they took the North Korean team as their own. In other words, they treated it as a hometown team. As for the North Korean soccer players, they did not disappoint the town that adopted them. In one of those strokes of luck which happens in sports, the DPRK 11 knocked out the world soccer champions Italy in the first round. Their victory brought much joy to Middlesbrough and drew it closer to the North Korean players. Park Doo ilk's goal went down in the record books as one of the biggest upsets in world soccer history. Alas, they, too, were eliminated but they left for home with the proud self respect of trouncing Italy and with the knowledge that in the midst of the Cold War, a town in England had treated them as one of their own. For North Korea and Middlesbrough it was 'the games of their lives'. [GuamDiary suggests looking at Daniel Gordon's 'The game of their lives' which captures the spirit of that triumph, and follows 40 odd years later what happened to the DPRK 11 players after they returned home.] An unexpected and 'tremendous' goal caught the world's imagination that instant which was impossible to forget. The town of Middlesbrough never forgot the North Koreans they adopted, and as we shall see, North Korea kept a found memory of Middlesbrought nearly a half century later.
Fast forward to 2003 when Middlesbrough Italian trained opera singer Suzannah Clarke participated in Pyongyang's Friendship Festival as tensions heightened on the divided Korean peninsula over the North's nuclear programme. Perky, clear eyed, and surely nobody's fool, with an degree with honours in Business, believed that as a good citizen of Middlesbrough, she could bridge differences with North Korea through entertainment. And she proved that by singing 5 concerts, performing both operatic and West End musical songs. Her 2003 'tour' was filmed by the BBC.
North Korea greeted her warmly, on two counts: one, she was breaking a taboo against performing in the DPRK, and two, she was from Middlesbrough.
Clarke has returned many times to North Korea. She has also given talks and classes on western opera and spoken of popular music. She has gone into the provinces as well. She is no starry eyed idealist, but ever the practical English gentlewoman that she is. As though she were talking, say, with a neighbour, the soprano exchanged tips on home gardening to increase family food supplies, with her North Korean hosts.
Listening to her interview on the BBC, Clarke exhibits a warmth towards North Koreans but she also knows they respect her opinions and her beliefs. She remains true to her ideal of building bridges through song. But it's not all song and concerts for her. According to her, she found her hosts attentive and curious about the world beyond North Korea without being patronising. And of course, she never forgets to say that she's a goodwill ambassador from Middlesbrough. Clarke, in her own way, is an example of the finer qualities of English sense of fair play.
As for Middlesbrough, the 'Middlesbrough Ladies' soccer team re enforced the city's historic connexion with North Korea, by playing in the DPRK. The team wore jerseys emblazoned with the words 'Friendship Football'. The press described the smiling 14 players and 3 coaches as sports ambassadors breaking new ground by playing in North Korea. The 'Ladies' were part of a programme marking 10 years of diplomatic relations between the DPRK and the UK. And football became a metaphor of that relationship which can serve as a model for other countries. In fact, to mark this event, the Embassy showed the popular film 'Bending like Becham' to a North Korean audience.
Events have come a long way since Middlesbrough 'adopted' the DPRK 11 in 1966. And the ties that bound that city and North Korea have survived and thrived through generosity of spirit and a willingness to get along or what in the old days people called 'peaceful coexistence'.
Saturday, January 8, 2011
Demonising Kim Jong eun Pyongyongologists hit a new low
Ambassador Donald Gregg famously said, 'North Korea is the US' biggest intelligence failure'. Reading the rumours which Pyongyongologists have been gratuitously floating in the global media simply underscores Gregg's remarks.
Consider the 'New York Times' correspondent Mark McDonald's 'Low profile of an heir reinforces a mystery' which appeared in the paper of note's online edition [08 January 2011].
The appearance today of McDonald's article is not fortuitous. It has a purpose. Eight January 2011 is Kim Jong eun's birthday. It is not a declared public holiday, but, according to North Korean press sources, his birthday is not an unknown date among North Koreans. And because the date is not celebrated with fanfare, Pyongyongologists consider it open season to demonise Kim Jong il's youngest son.
A hundred days age Kim Jong eun became his heir apparent. Since then the media and cyberspace and nattering of the North Korean scholarly clerisy have spread misleading statements, oblique allusions indirectly accusing this young man of evil designs and actions which remain baseless and without a shred of evidence, and endowing him with powers of deadly force.
When you poke a finger into this puffery, you come up with trickery or purseful disinformation.
Pyongyongologist like to see their names in print. Nothing is more flattering or stroking to the ego. Consequently, they have a ready stock of sound bytes should a journalist want a word from them.
What do we know of Kim Jong eun? At most a bare boned 'curriculum vitae'. We do not know his true ago. We think that he spent some years in a Swiss lycee. Is he married?
We may assume that he went to elite schools in Pyongyang. We know that in September 2010 he was promoted to a 4 star general. Until then, we did not know what he looked like. We do now: he is the spitting image of his grandfather Kim Il Sung. The word brought back by visitors to North Korea indicates that he is learning the ropes of leadership and going through a rigorous and planned apprenticeship of leadership.
And that is more or less what we do know. Not very much, in other words.
Now let us turn to an oft quoted Russian born Korean expert Andrei Lankov, professor at South Korea's Kookmin university. Here is what he has to say on North Korea's 'heir apparent: 'there are some minor but real reasons to ask if we are rushing our judgment about Kim Jong eun'. Just reading his words reveals their gossipy tone. What minor reasons? What real reasons? Not satisfied with the sound of his own voice, he grandly affirmed on Kim's succession: 'the regime seems to be making preparations for the succession, but they haven't reached of no return'. How does he know? And then to put the cherry of condescension on his 'in the know', he went on to proffer portentously: 'Next year, they could very well, say, "Kim Jong us? Oh, he's just one of 20 generals"'. Who is Lankov kidding? His 'reasoned' opinion reveals thoughtlessness and what's more to the point, inanity.
Here we have a 'learned opinion' based on hot air. If if this is the best a much Besides giving McDonald a throw away bit of nonsense, Lankov is klewless as to what's happening in the North. His 'best educated guess' is worthless if not misleading and dangerous. It is dangerous in the sense that governments like the US will consult Lankov for his expertise which, according to his own musings, is hardly remarkable and vacuous.
McDonald also brought Robert Carlin into his article. Carlin a long time North Korea watcher who often visits North Korea and keeps his finger on the pulse of its nuclear programme, remarked that during his last visit in November 2010, the name of Kim Jong eun did not come up. Why should it? He was shown 'a previously unknown uranium enrichment plant outside Pyongyang', but his hosts never brought up Kim Jong eun's name. Carlin is more thoughtful in his assessment of what's happening in the North. In face, he has a more sophisticated understanding: let him speak for himself: he thinks that [Kim] is the 'the one', even if the public rollout is being carefully paced and scripted'. Compare his judgment with Lankov's. Carlin may have an axe to grind with the North but he does not show it. Lankov, on the other hand, influenced by his growing up in the old Soviet Union, never fails to exhibit his ideological knife when it comes to North Korea. Therein lies the difference.
And then there Brian Myers at Busan's Dongseo university. Known for his book 'The cleanest race: how North Koreans see themselves and why it matters'. Impatient that Kim Jong eun's emergence is not following detail by detail the path traced for father, he seems confused. His confusion illustrates that in his own mind North Koreans behave predictably. Now if we know anything about North Korean watchers, there is one thing that they agree on almost to a man, and that is, the North is unpredictable, irrational, and on and on. Maybe having devoted 8 years to reading North Korean cultural production he has discerned a 'pattern', but what does that have to do with political decisions or the rise of Kim Jong eun? This kind of thinking is a crude example of 'historicism'. Lankov, too, falls into the facile explanation: he brings up the fact that Kim Jong eun's birthday is not marked in 'red' in North Korean calendars, nor is his name printed in bold face type in newspapers. Give it time old dear!
Here, too, is an example of the impatience of Pyongyangologists. They've a script and anything which does not conform to it infuriates them. They tend to see North Korea through the lenses that they have fashioned ideologically. They expect Kim Jong eun be 'crowned' as though he were the heir apparent to the throne of England. Hence they get flustered, frustrated, and even more dangerously, striking out blindly and maliciously because the North Koreans are not acting out the film louping in their own heads.
GuamDiary has a long laundry list of the remarks of other Pyongyangologists, but the point has been made of their quality. The level of knowledge could improve greatly were, say, the US recognise North Korea.
A final word: Kim Myong chol, the officious voice of North Korea in Japan had much fun mocking Barack Obama with a long article 'Kim Jong eun makes Obama blink'.
Consider the 'New York Times' correspondent Mark McDonald's 'Low profile of an heir reinforces a mystery' which appeared in the paper of note's online edition [08 January 2011].
The appearance today of McDonald's article is not fortuitous. It has a purpose. Eight January 2011 is Kim Jong eun's birthday. It is not a declared public holiday, but, according to North Korean press sources, his birthday is not an unknown date among North Koreans. And because the date is not celebrated with fanfare, Pyongyongologists consider it open season to demonise Kim Jong il's youngest son.
A hundred days age Kim Jong eun became his heir apparent. Since then the media and cyberspace and nattering of the North Korean scholarly clerisy have spread misleading statements, oblique allusions indirectly accusing this young man of evil designs and actions which remain baseless and without a shred of evidence, and endowing him with powers of deadly force.
When you poke a finger into this puffery, you come up with trickery or purseful disinformation.
Pyongyongologist like to see their names in print. Nothing is more flattering or stroking to the ego. Consequently, they have a ready stock of sound bytes should a journalist want a word from them.
What do we know of Kim Jong eun? At most a bare boned 'curriculum vitae'. We do not know his true ago. We think that he spent some years in a Swiss lycee. Is he married?
We may assume that he went to elite schools in Pyongyang. We know that in September 2010 he was promoted to a 4 star general. Until then, we did not know what he looked like. We do now: he is the spitting image of his grandfather Kim Il Sung. The word brought back by visitors to North Korea indicates that he is learning the ropes of leadership and going through a rigorous and planned apprenticeship of leadership.
And that is more or less what we do know. Not very much, in other words.
Now let us turn to an oft quoted Russian born Korean expert Andrei Lankov, professor at South Korea's Kookmin university. Here is what he has to say on North Korea's 'heir apparent: 'there are some minor but real reasons to ask if we are rushing our judgment about Kim Jong eun'. Just reading his words reveals their gossipy tone. What minor reasons? What real reasons? Not satisfied with the sound of his own voice, he grandly affirmed on Kim's succession: 'the regime seems to be making preparations for the succession, but they haven't reached of no return'. How does he know? And then to put the cherry of condescension on his 'in the know', he went on to proffer portentously: 'Next year, they could very well, say, "Kim Jong us? Oh, he's just one of 20 generals"'. Who is Lankov kidding? His 'reasoned' opinion reveals thoughtlessness and what's more to the point, inanity.
Here we have a 'learned opinion' based on hot air. If if this is the best a much Besides giving McDonald a throw away bit of nonsense, Lankov is klewless as to what's happening in the North. His 'best educated guess' is worthless if not misleading and dangerous. It is dangerous in the sense that governments like the US will consult Lankov for his expertise which, according to his own musings, is hardly remarkable and vacuous.
McDonald also brought Robert Carlin into his article. Carlin a long time North Korea watcher who often visits North Korea and keeps his finger on the pulse of its nuclear programme, remarked that during his last visit in November 2010, the name of Kim Jong eun did not come up. Why should it? He was shown 'a previously unknown uranium enrichment plant outside Pyongyang', but his hosts never brought up Kim Jong eun's name. Carlin is more thoughtful in his assessment of what's happening in the North. In face, he has a more sophisticated understanding: let him speak for himself: he thinks that [Kim] is the 'the one', even if the public rollout is being carefully paced and scripted'. Compare his judgment with Lankov's. Carlin may have an axe to grind with the North but he does not show it. Lankov, on the other hand, influenced by his growing up in the old Soviet Union, never fails to exhibit his ideological knife when it comes to North Korea. Therein lies the difference.
And then there Brian Myers at Busan's Dongseo university. Known for his book 'The cleanest race: how North Koreans see themselves and why it matters'. Impatient that Kim Jong eun's emergence is not following detail by detail the path traced for father, he seems confused. His confusion illustrates that in his own mind North Koreans behave predictably. Now if we know anything about North Korean watchers, there is one thing that they agree on almost to a man, and that is, the North is unpredictable, irrational, and on and on. Maybe having devoted 8 years to reading North Korean cultural production he has discerned a 'pattern', but what does that have to do with political decisions or the rise of Kim Jong eun? This kind of thinking is a crude example of 'historicism'. Lankov, too, falls into the facile explanation: he brings up the fact that Kim Jong eun's birthday is not marked in 'red' in North Korean calendars, nor is his name printed in bold face type in newspapers. Give it time old dear!
Here, too, is an example of the impatience of Pyongyangologists. They've a script and anything which does not conform to it infuriates them. They tend to see North Korea through the lenses that they have fashioned ideologically. They expect Kim Jong eun be 'crowned' as though he were the heir apparent to the throne of England. Hence they get flustered, frustrated, and even more dangerously, striking out blindly and maliciously because the North Koreans are not acting out the film louping in their own heads.
GuamDiary has a long laundry list of the remarks of other Pyongyangologists, but the point has been made of their quality. The level of knowledge could improve greatly were, say, the US recognise North Korea.
A final word: Kim Myong chol, the officious voice of North Korea in Japan had much fun mocking Barack Obama with a long article 'Kim Jong eun makes Obama blink'.
Friday, January 7, 2011
Rope in Lee Myung bak, Mr. Obama!
As US special North Korean troubleshooter Stephen Bosworth scurries like a chicken with its head cut off,from Seoul to Beijing to Toyko, America's client South Korea's president Lee Myung bak not only has flatly turned down North Korea's call for 'open and frank talks without preconditions', but has kicked off a new round of live fire military drills to push Pyongyang's face in the mud.
Happily, Kim Jong il & co. are not impressed. They know that Bosworth is trying to salvage a failed US North Korea policy by reversing engines and talking up the reconvening of the stalled six party talks in Beijing.
As GuamDiary has long observed, Obama like Bush before him has stood the question of dealing with North Korea on its head. Washington looks to China to keep North Korea in line as though such illuminati scholars like Aidan Foster Carter characterise Pyongyang as 'China's satellite'. This wrong headed approach is always bound to failure for many reasons. Consider the following two: China will never agree to a hostile presence on its borders with Korea [which was the overriding cause for sending volunteers to fight along the North Koreans during the Korean War], and like the Cold warriors of yore who banked on Stalin's hold of Mao, Beijing is far from being Pyongyang's handlers.
Poor Bosworth, he has a thankless task; how to get Lee Myung bak to talks in Beijing after the US has done everything to encourage the man to push the North's button until the maximum. And when that was done, the North replied in kind to the South
s shelling of its territorial waters in the Yellow Sea. Suddenly, all Obama & co. could see was the opening of a third war in Asia for the US. It pulled backed seeking diplomacy to calm Seoul's heated passions. Ironically, when the Chinese [and Russians] called for emergency consultations in November 2010, the US rejected them out of hand. So now, hat in hand, poor Bosworth. beggar hat in hand, is trying to kickstart talks in Beijing.
The fly in the US' ointment is its client Lee Myung bak. Mad as a hatter in his pursuit of regime change in the North and fancying himself as the 'reunifier' of the divided Korean peninsula, Lee try as he might can never bring his plans off. His lunatic policy has hit stumbling blocks at every turn. Yet, as head of a strong economy and a freshly signed Free Trade Agreement [FTA] with the US, he thinks he holds winning cards in dealing with Washington.
Washington has an even stronger trump to play: it can call for discussions leading towards a peace treaty with North Korea and China, thereby ending the Korean War. Lee seems to forget Syngman Rhee refused to sign the 1953 Armistice, and therefore, excluded the South from any party of new arrangements on the divided Korean peninsula. Such a threat should sober up Lee. His exclusion in the peace process would make Pyongyang the sole spokesman for the Korean people both South and North.
Of course this is an abomination to Lee, but it is a truncheon the US can effectively use to drag the unwilling Lee to talks in Beijing.
It is no time for the US to shilly shally with the mad man Lee. It is time to rope him in, hog tie him, and bring him 'shaved and shorn' of his hubris to Beijing.
Happily, Kim Jong il & co. are not impressed. They know that Bosworth is trying to salvage a failed US North Korea policy by reversing engines and talking up the reconvening of the stalled six party talks in Beijing.
As GuamDiary has long observed, Obama like Bush before him has stood the question of dealing with North Korea on its head. Washington looks to China to keep North Korea in line as though such illuminati scholars like Aidan Foster Carter characterise Pyongyang as 'China's satellite'. This wrong headed approach is always bound to failure for many reasons. Consider the following two: China will never agree to a hostile presence on its borders with Korea [which was the overriding cause for sending volunteers to fight along the North Koreans during the Korean War], and like the Cold warriors of yore who banked on Stalin's hold of Mao, Beijing is far from being Pyongyang's handlers.
Poor Bosworth, he has a thankless task; how to get Lee Myung bak to talks in Beijing after the US has done everything to encourage the man to push the North's button until the maximum. And when that was done, the North replied in kind to the South
s shelling of its territorial waters in the Yellow Sea. Suddenly, all Obama & co. could see was the opening of a third war in Asia for the US. It pulled backed seeking diplomacy to calm Seoul's heated passions. Ironically, when the Chinese [and Russians] called for emergency consultations in November 2010, the US rejected them out of hand. So now, hat in hand, poor Bosworth. beggar hat in hand, is trying to kickstart talks in Beijing.
The fly in the US' ointment is its client Lee Myung bak. Mad as a hatter in his pursuit of regime change in the North and fancying himself as the 'reunifier' of the divided Korean peninsula, Lee try as he might can never bring his plans off. His lunatic policy has hit stumbling blocks at every turn. Yet, as head of a strong economy and a freshly signed Free Trade Agreement [FTA] with the US, he thinks he holds winning cards in dealing with Washington.
Washington has an even stronger trump to play: it can call for discussions leading towards a peace treaty with North Korea and China, thereby ending the Korean War. Lee seems to forget Syngman Rhee refused to sign the 1953 Armistice, and therefore, excluded the South from any party of new arrangements on the divided Korean peninsula. Such a threat should sober up Lee. His exclusion in the peace process would make Pyongyang the sole spokesman for the Korean people both South and North.
Of course this is an abomination to Lee, but it is a truncheon the US can effectively use to drag the unwilling Lee to talks in Beijing.
It is no time for the US to shilly shally with the mad man Lee. It is time to rope him in, hog tie him, and bring him 'shaved and shorn' of his hubris to Beijing.
Wednesday, January 5, 2011
Will the six party talks meet again?
It ain't going to be easy to drag South Korea - and Japan - back to six party talks in Japan. Already in the op ed columns of the 'Wall Street Journal' [WSJ] John Bolton, the grand pooh bah of not giving in to North Korea's nuclear blackmail, has trashed president Obama's intentions of breathing air into the stalled talks in Japan. In South, the US president's Stephen Bosworth whose dossier handles North Korea, in a photo op, cannot manage to crack a smile. South Korea's president Lee Myung bak has rejected the North's call for 'early and unconditional talks' as an 'insincere offer'.
Washington's ally's has dug his heels in the ground and won't budge from a 'no win' standpoint. Little wonder, Botsworth has a sour look on his face. Lee is giving Obama more wool than he is willing to thread on North Korea.
Instead of bearing down on Lee, Obama's envoy is looking to China to pull the US' chestnuts out of the potential 'nuclear' fire the next time. GuamDiary has to wonder aloud about the US' two left feet in foreign affairs. China had already called for emergency discussions on the growing crisis which might lead to war in Korea, but, Washington dismissed Beijing's efforts to calm turbulent waters in the China Sea.
Now the US has had a change of heart. It now wants China to 'reason' with North Korea. Recent events - including the eyewitness account of Bill Richardson -- show that it is South Korea that is the danger not the North. Yet, the Obama diplomacy remains wedded to an outdated and failed view of what's going on in South Korea. 'Bulldozer' Lee is seeking revenge for the humiliation and the failure of his own policy towards North Korea.
Added to the wimpiness of US diplomacy in east Asia, as GuamDiary has already noted, the formation of a Washington-Seoul-Tokyo axis which plans more military drills in the Yellow Sea. This is yet another sign that the US is trying to buy time to continue its lunatic policy, supported by South Korea and now Japan, to bring North Korea to the brink of collapse as the North is going through a transition of power.
Now the US has the choice of 'sitting on' 'Bulldozer Lee' and bring him kicking and screaming to Beijing for talks or letting the situation deteriorate to the point that Lee will end up provoking renewed war on the Korean peninsula.
Obama has a precedent in putting Lee's rejectionist policy in a straitjacket: president GWH Bush twisted painfully the arm of Itzhak Shamir so that he came to the Madrid Conference with the PLO and Arab states. Photos of that time of the early 1990s will show a grim, unhappy Shamir, but there he sat and there his US handler made him eat humble pie. Obama could do the same. Does he have enough lead in his spine to force Lee to the talks?
Lee, on the other hand, may be counting on a revivified Republic party to give more tractions to his dangerous military and political moves. Can he count on the party that has given America two botched wars?
In sum, Bosworth has his work cut out for him, and the US tack towards North Korea has the man's two hands tied behind his back. Is there any reason to look for a glimmer of optimism in the impending storm? Perhaps.
Washington's ally's has dug his heels in the ground and won't budge from a 'no win' standpoint. Little wonder, Botsworth has a sour look on his face. Lee is giving Obama more wool than he is willing to thread on North Korea.
Instead of bearing down on Lee, Obama's envoy is looking to China to pull the US' chestnuts out of the potential 'nuclear' fire the next time. GuamDiary has to wonder aloud about the US' two left feet in foreign affairs. China had already called for emergency discussions on the growing crisis which might lead to war in Korea, but, Washington dismissed Beijing's efforts to calm turbulent waters in the China Sea.
Now the US has had a change of heart. It now wants China to 'reason' with North Korea. Recent events - including the eyewitness account of Bill Richardson -- show that it is South Korea that is the danger not the North. Yet, the Obama diplomacy remains wedded to an outdated and failed view of what's going on in South Korea. 'Bulldozer' Lee is seeking revenge for the humiliation and the failure of his own policy towards North Korea.
Added to the wimpiness of US diplomacy in east Asia, as GuamDiary has already noted, the formation of a Washington-Seoul-Tokyo axis which plans more military drills in the Yellow Sea. This is yet another sign that the US is trying to buy time to continue its lunatic policy, supported by South Korea and now Japan, to bring North Korea to the brink of collapse as the North is going through a transition of power.
Now the US has the choice of 'sitting on' 'Bulldozer Lee' and bring him kicking and screaming to Beijing for talks or letting the situation deteriorate to the point that Lee will end up provoking renewed war on the Korean peninsula.
Obama has a precedent in putting Lee's rejectionist policy in a straitjacket: president GWH Bush twisted painfully the arm of Itzhak Shamir so that he came to the Madrid Conference with the PLO and Arab states. Photos of that time of the early 1990s will show a grim, unhappy Shamir, but there he sat and there his US handler made him eat humble pie. Obama could do the same. Does he have enough lead in his spine to force Lee to the talks?
Lee, on the other hand, may be counting on a revivified Republic party to give more tractions to his dangerous military and political moves. Can he count on the party that has given America two botched wars?
In sum, Bosworth has his work cut out for him, and the US tack towards North Korea has the man's two hands tied behind his back. Is there any reason to look for a glimmer of optimism in the impending storm? Perhaps.
Sunday, January 2, 2011
New Year in a divided Korean peninsula
North Korea's three major newspapers expressed a 2011 desire for better relationship with South Korea. The headlines did not beat around the bush. They called on the South to open discussions, 'as soon as possible' in order to 'relax tensions'. And the land divide at the DMZ and especially on watery borders in the Yellow sea are on high alert in the wake of an exchange of fire along the NLL [Northern Limit Line] along North Korea's territory.
The stakes are indeed high, the more particularly the South's shelling of North Korean waters in November 2010, brought retaliatory fire with casualties on the military installation on the island of Yeonpyeong hardly 10 km from North Korean waters.
The North does not shy away from the fact that the South's increasing joint military drills with the US since the sinking of the 'Cheonan' [the cause of which remains, as GuamDiary noted, under a cloud of doubt as to Pyongyang's guilt].
The exchange of fire between the South and the North is symptomatic of the danger of South Korea's president Lee Myung bak's brinksmanship [see the leaked diplomatic cable which appeared in the 'Guardian', 29 November 2010]. A policy which has made the former governor of New Mexico greatly uneasy since one miscalculation would renew war on the Korean peninsula, and might not rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang in its New Year's greetings called for the suspension of these naval drills and avoid any tripwire to confrontation.
Lee had publicly stated that he wanted 'dialogue' with the North. His words are welcome, but ...
His American pro consul, the Obama administration remains obscure in backing up Lee's wishes and in no way, seemed willing to suspend military exercises in what it sees as 'North Korea's underbelly' along the NLL in the Yellow sea.
The thinking in Seoul and in Washington is 'the North broke the rules laid down' by them. As such, the South and US allow themselves the right to 'escalate' the conflict between them and the North. Since Seoul and Washington have barely a passing contact with Pyongyang, they set themselves up as judge and jury and proclaim to a confused and ignorant world that justice is on their side. They have set the rules -- even though the North does not recognise them -- and in a distortion of the truth and reality, they are unwilling almost nothing to change the situation.
In the lunatic policy South Korea and the US have set up, they see an opportunity to push the North to the limit as Pyongyang is going through a transition of power. They have bet on the death of Kim Jong il and the elevation to power of his son and chosen successor Kim Jong eun. The younger recently nominated 4 star general is very wet behind the ears, and so he will be a weak reed and one unable to keep the DPRK from collapse.
The West's North Korea clerisy nod in agreement with this scenario. And what's more, they foresee that China will come in and pick up the pieces but ultimately will cede to South Korea the full control of a reunified Korean peninsula.
GuamDiary wonders have they, like the lotus eaters in the 'Odyssey', tasted the narotic of self delusion? Have they moved so off the pier of history, that the role of China in the Korean War and its assessment of South Korea today as a state hostile to the peninsula's geopolitical reality under no circumstance would Beijing agree to one Korea under Seoul's dominance.
For the moment, we have to see whether Lee will live up to his words. For, there is a clear and present danger of war in Korea. Seoul and the US cannot hide behind the cover of 'it's the North to blame' when an honest assessment of events points to the double dealing they are engaged in.
The stakes are indeed high, the more particularly the South's shelling of North Korean waters in November 2010, brought retaliatory fire with casualties on the military installation on the island of Yeonpyeong hardly 10 km from North Korean waters.
The North does not shy away from the fact that the South's increasing joint military drills with the US since the sinking of the 'Cheonan' [the cause of which remains, as GuamDiary noted, under a cloud of doubt as to Pyongyang's guilt].
The exchange of fire between the South and the North is symptomatic of the danger of South Korea's president Lee Myung bak's brinksmanship [see the leaked diplomatic cable which appeared in the 'Guardian', 29 November 2010]. A policy which has made the former governor of New Mexico greatly uneasy since one miscalculation would renew war on the Korean peninsula, and might not rule out the use of nuclear weapons.
Pyongyang in its New Year's greetings called for the suspension of these naval drills and avoid any tripwire to confrontation.
Lee had publicly stated that he wanted 'dialogue' with the North. His words are welcome, but ...
His American pro consul, the Obama administration remains obscure in backing up Lee's wishes and in no way, seemed willing to suspend military exercises in what it sees as 'North Korea's underbelly' along the NLL in the Yellow sea.
The thinking in Seoul and in Washington is 'the North broke the rules laid down' by them. As such, the South and US allow themselves the right to 'escalate' the conflict between them and the North. Since Seoul and Washington have barely a passing contact with Pyongyang, they set themselves up as judge and jury and proclaim to a confused and ignorant world that justice is on their side. They have set the rules -- even though the North does not recognise them -- and in a distortion of the truth and reality, they are unwilling almost nothing to change the situation.
In the lunatic policy South Korea and the US have set up, they see an opportunity to push the North to the limit as Pyongyang is going through a transition of power. They have bet on the death of Kim Jong il and the elevation to power of his son and chosen successor Kim Jong eun. The younger recently nominated 4 star general is very wet behind the ears, and so he will be a weak reed and one unable to keep the DPRK from collapse.
The West's North Korea clerisy nod in agreement with this scenario. And what's more, they foresee that China will come in and pick up the pieces but ultimately will cede to South Korea the full control of a reunified Korean peninsula.
GuamDiary wonders have they, like the lotus eaters in the 'Odyssey', tasted the narotic of self delusion? Have they moved so off the pier of history, that the role of China in the Korean War and its assessment of South Korea today as a state hostile to the peninsula's geopolitical reality under no circumstance would Beijing agree to one Korea under Seoul's dominance.
For the moment, we have to see whether Lee will live up to his words. For, there is a clear and present danger of war in Korea. Seoul and the US cannot hide behind the cover of 'it's the North to blame' when an honest assessment of events points to the double dealing they are engaged in.
26 February 2008: Americans in Pyongyang
A reader of GuamDiary sent us a DVD of the New York Philharmonic's 'The Pyongyang Concert' performed and televised from the Great Eastern Performance Hall in the North Korean capital. on 26 February in Pyongyang
It was a moment of what the US used to call of 'People to People' [P-t-P], at its very best. 'P-t-P', a programme floated by president Eisenhower, to cut through the red tape of Cold War politics and bureaucratic inertia, the better to foster better understanding between people in our 'small and interconnected' world. The disc has a documentary which shows the way the music transcended ever so briefly the great divide which has been separating the DPRK and US for more than 60 years.
The warm personality of the Philharmonic conductor Lorin Maazel and the transforming talent of the orchestra's musicians bonded the North Koreans and the Americans in a way that was immediate and touching. Maazel spoke learnt phrases in Korean; surprised that the audience understood him, it was a way to 'break the ice' and immediate to connect with the North Koreans.
The Philharmonic played, as a coda, the traditional folk song 'Arirang' which had a visibly moving effect. 'Arirang' is a song loved on both sides of the divided Korean peninsula. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that for the South Koreans watching the concert on the television, few fought the tears that may have pearled on the lids of eyes.
The North Koreans looked on this 'unique' occasion as the first steps of a rapprochement between the two countries. It is difficult to read the motives of the Bush administration in allowing the Philharmonic to play in Pyongyang. After all, to president Bush, the DPRK was an 'axis of evil' state; its leader Kim Jong il, he did not hesitate to vilify; and in his pursuit of a lunatic policy which pushed North Korea to test a nuclear device.
Zubin Mehta, the Philharmonic's president, with the New York Korea Society ready to offer its good offices, and the 'maverick' State Department diplomat Christopher Hill, smoothed the uneven edges in order to arrange for the Philharmonic's presence in Pyongyang.
According to Mehta, the North Koreans agreed to programme: the playing of the two nations' national anthems, with national flags displayed on the stage's edges. He stressed that an 'American' orchestra would be performing in the DPRK, and the selection of the music would reflect its character--Dvorak's 'New World Symphony', a work commissioned by the Philharmonic; Gershwin's 'An American in Paris'; and Leonard Bernstein's 'Candide's' overture.
GuamDiary urges its readers to look for the DVD in public or university libraries, or if the spirit moves them, to buy it.
Mehta, Maazel, and the Philharmonic musicians may and did feel that they had succeeded beyond their wishes. Yet, the concert had no follow up by the Bush administration.
Someone who had a good feel for the inner workings of the New York Korea Society, spoke to GuamDiary on the condition of anonymity. In spite of its good works in assisting in bringing the Philharmonic to Pyongyang, the Society'schanged its tune from one second to another. The word, it seemed, had come down from on high in Washington that it 'disengage' from having anything to further the 'people to people' tilt towards an opening to North Korea. It may have been alright for the Society's top guns to deal with the DPRK delegation to the United Nations, but nothing more. It may be an NGO, but it does dance to the tune of its paymaster!
Did the Bush administration take fright that the viewing American public would discover that North Koreans were not the villains nor the monsters that US propaganda made them out to be? Did it retreat from the possibility of a breakthough in disucussions with Kim Jong il? We do know that the administration turned a sharp heel and retreated into a Cold War frame of mine. It lacked the political will or courage to venture forth and chart new diplomatic territory. And so much the tragedy since the Obama administration has kept to the straight and narrow of no contact!
It was a moment of what the US used to call of 'People to People' [P-t-P], at its very best. 'P-t-P', a programme floated by president Eisenhower, to cut through the red tape of Cold War politics and bureaucratic inertia, the better to foster better understanding between people in our 'small and interconnected' world. The disc has a documentary which shows the way the music transcended ever so briefly the great divide which has been separating the DPRK and US for more than 60 years.
The warm personality of the Philharmonic conductor Lorin Maazel and the transforming talent of the orchestra's musicians bonded the North Koreans and the Americans in a way that was immediate and touching. Maazel spoke learnt phrases in Korean; surprised that the audience understood him, it was a way to 'break the ice' and immediate to connect with the North Koreans.
The Philharmonic played, as a coda, the traditional folk song 'Arirang' which had a visibly moving effect. 'Arirang' is a song loved on both sides of the divided Korean peninsula. It is not a stretch of the imagination to say that for the South Koreans watching the concert on the television, few fought the tears that may have pearled on the lids of eyes.
The North Koreans looked on this 'unique' occasion as the first steps of a rapprochement between the two countries. It is difficult to read the motives of the Bush administration in allowing the Philharmonic to play in Pyongyang. After all, to president Bush, the DPRK was an 'axis of evil' state; its leader Kim Jong il, he did not hesitate to vilify; and in his pursuit of a lunatic policy which pushed North Korea to test a nuclear device.
Zubin Mehta, the Philharmonic's president, with the New York Korea Society ready to offer its good offices, and the 'maverick' State Department diplomat Christopher Hill, smoothed the uneven edges in order to arrange for the Philharmonic's presence in Pyongyang.
According to Mehta, the North Koreans agreed to programme: the playing of the two nations' national anthems, with national flags displayed on the stage's edges. He stressed that an 'American' orchestra would be performing in the DPRK, and the selection of the music would reflect its character--Dvorak's 'New World Symphony', a work commissioned by the Philharmonic; Gershwin's 'An American in Paris'; and Leonard Bernstein's 'Candide's' overture.
GuamDiary urges its readers to look for the DVD in public or university libraries, or if the spirit moves them, to buy it.
Mehta, Maazel, and the Philharmonic musicians may and did feel that they had succeeded beyond their wishes. Yet, the concert had no follow up by the Bush administration.
Someone who had a good feel for the inner workings of the New York Korea Society, spoke to GuamDiary on the condition of anonymity. In spite of its good works in assisting in bringing the Philharmonic to Pyongyang, the Society'schanged its tune from one second to another. The word, it seemed, had come down from on high in Washington that it 'disengage' from having anything to further the 'people to people' tilt towards an opening to North Korea. It may have been alright for the Society's top guns to deal with the DPRK delegation to the United Nations, but nothing more. It may be an NGO, but it does dance to the tune of its paymaster!
Did the Bush administration take fright that the viewing American public would discover that North Koreans were not the villains nor the monsters that US propaganda made them out to be? Did it retreat from the possibility of a breakthough in disucussions with Kim Jong il? We do know that the administration turned a sharp heel and retreated into a Cold War frame of mine. It lacked the political will or courage to venture forth and chart new diplomatic territory. And so much the tragedy since the Obama administration has kept to the straight and narrow of no contact!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)