U.S. says NK's peaceful nukes "not a major stumbling block"

Some people have pointed to future presidential hopeful and current Unification Minister Chung Dong-young as a Pyongyang proxy for having undermined Washington-Seoul-Tokyo solidarity at the six-way talks in Beijing when he said that North Korea should be allowed to have some nuclear capabilities as long as they were under close supervision.

But last week came news that the United States may be willing to accept such a compromise. U.S. negotiator Christopher Hill suggested to reporters that the United States could be flexible on what was "not a major stumbling block." He went on to say: "I think we can come up with something. But I cannot be more specific than that because we are in the middle of a negotiation."

Reuters says that Hill's softer line could anger hawkish officials in the Bush administration who have been skeptical of reaching a deal with North Korea and do not want to give the communist nation any chance of breaking an accord and making weapons, and I have to say I agree. My hours of listening to Rush Limbaugh rail against Clinton for the 1994 agreement have taught me that. But other than attacking North Korea militarily, they offer few other useful solutions.

In the end, the Bush administration will probably end up doing what the Clinton administration did in the bad situation that it inherited in the 1990s: make a deal that can keep as tight a lid as possible and hope that the North collapses or changes soon enough that it won't become a problem.

The deadly French

This was bound to happen. Warning labels on French fries. On golden fries in the Golden State, at least.

Some will complain that we are just contributing to a nanny society when instead people should just be allowed to make their own decisions. But aren't warning labels helping people to make those decisions?

If I were a kid and I saw a label on my French fries, I might have steered clear of this greasy fast-food ambrosia before I ever got hooked. It may be too late for some of us, but at least we can save the next generation.

The way things should be

The Joongang Daily reports that South Korean and Japanese defense officials are scheduled to meet next week to formulate a bilateral military exchange and cooperation agreement, the first between the two neighbors that constantly act as if they're in a sibling rivalry.

Originally, the agreement was to be signed next week, but the actual signing may be postponed due to concerns that it might hinder the progress of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear arms programs. We don't want to give Pyongyang an excuse to back out.

From the Joongang Daily:

The defense meeting comes after years of expectations that such an agreement would be signed. In 2003, President Roh Moo-hyun and Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi agreed in principle to reinforce Seoul and Tokyo's military cooperation. A similar promise was made when South Korea and Japan announced a partnership declaration in 1998.

So far, according to military sources, Seoul and Tokyo have been cooperating in areas of intelligence sharing over Pyongyang's nuclear arms programs and missile systems and in joint search and rescue operations carried out by the South Korean Navy and Japan's Maritime Self-Defense Force.

Despite all kinds of talk in the conservative blogosphere that South Korea is practically in China's and North Korea's camp, thanks in part due to gaffes by the South Korean president himself, the reality of what South Korea does with Washington and even Tokyo shows that Seoul is far closer to those two than to Beijing and Pyongyang, and that's not likely to change.

According to a Japanese source, South Korea will be only the second country with which Japan has signed a military exchange accord. The same source said the following: "To cope with changes in Northeast Asia, such as China's growing military presence and North Korea's nuclear issues, closer ties between Seoul and Tokyo are vital."

This also represents, I think, a return to the pragmatism employed by former President Kim Daejung. The Joongang Daily quoted a South Korean official: "There are pending diplomatic issues such as the Tokto territorial dispute with Japan, but it is necessary to bolster our military relationship with Japan."

I have said it many times, and I will say it again: while there are some legitimate beefs between the two countries, South Korea and Japan have far more in common socially, economically, and politically with each other than with any of their neighbors, and those beefs should be resolved but never allowed to derail what should otherwise be good relations between these two nations.

President's political ally calls for assassination of foreign head-of-state

Note: The following post has been updated (see below).

Imagine this: A political ally or South Korean President Roh Moohyun, who helped garner votes for the left-wing candidate during the most recent presidential election, calls for the assassination of Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

The Korean blogosphere would be on fire with condemnation about the left-wing loonies and how extremist Koreans are in their xenophobic fervor. We would probably hear for weeks or months how this is another sign of how crazy and xenophobic Korea really is.

But it wasn't Roh or Korea; it was a supporter of Bush in the United States. A founder of the the Christian Coalition, a major Republican voting bloc. Nevertheless, the condemnation should be just as strong, right?

Reverend Pat Robertson, a former Republican candidate for president and a major vote-booster for President George W. Bush, has called for the assassination of Venezeulan President Hugo Chávez. Chávez is an annoyingly anti-American leftist who I'm sure the White House sees as a pain in the butt, but is this enough for a member of the clergy to call for a political killing?

From the Miami Herald:

Accusing Chávez of turning Venezuela into ''a launching pad for communist influence and Muslim extremism,'' the 75-year-old preacher and former Republican presidential hopeful said it would be cheaper to ''take him out'' now than fight a war against Venezuela later.

Every Christian in America should be condemning this man of the cloth for these extremely anti-Christian views. Would Jesus Christ have ever suggest Pilate or Caesar be taken out? Not the Jesus I learned about in church. This sounds more like an Islamist fatwah than a Sunday sermon. "Reverend" Pat Robertson is making a mockery of the faith he professes to follow, and it exemplifies for me exactly what is wrong about the hypocritical Religious Right.

UPDATE:
The not-so-reverend Reverend Robertson has apologized, sort of (notice his rationalizations). This was only after he denied actually making the statement. Meanwhile, Venezuela is getting ready to boot Protestant missionaries out of the country.

And as I had hoped, many Christian clergy were quick to condemn this. The president of the National Clergy Council released a statement saying Robertson should "immediately apologize, retract his statement, and clarify what the Bible and Christianity teaches about the permissibility of taking human life outside of law." The Reverend Richard Cizik of the National Association of Evangelicals said that he and "most evangelical leaders" would disassociate themselves from such "unfortunate and particularly irresponsible" comments.

The money quote from him:

It complicates circumstances for foreign missionaries and Christian aid workers overseas who are already perceived, wrongly, especially by leftists and other leaders, as collaborators with U.S. intelligence agencies.

The Reverend Jesse Jackson called for an investigation by the Federal Communications Commission, just as it did when Janet Jackson's breast was exposed during the 2004 Super Bowl broadcast. "This is even more threatening to hemispheric stability than the flash of a breast on television during a ballgame," he said.

You don't suppose they'll hold a grudge, do you?

Announcing the Ŭryu Amnesty!

In the midst of a recess at the six-party talks, North Korea is apparently announcing an amnesty timed for the sixtieth anniversary of Korea's liberation from the Japanese, which every child knows was singlehandedly accomplished by Korea's President for Eternity, the Great Leader Kim Ilsung.

Any journalist wannabe knows that a proper story answers the 5 W's and (in the interest of diversity) the 1 H, but with this story, we're limited to just one or two W's: what and possibly when. We don't even know how.

The what is the amnesty itself, rubber-stamped by the rubber-stamp parliament, but we don't know who will be given amnesty.

We also know when: September 1.

We don't even know what kind of crimes the amnesty will cover. We only vaguely know that why may have something to do with international pressure on human rights.

Or does it? Maybe Pyongyang has locked up too many people to run the barely running economy, so they have to let some of them out. Or maybe by letting people out of prison, the leadership is hoping that the pardoned will feel warm and fuzzy when things get really bad this winter, enough that they and their family members won't try to overthrow the ruling cadres.

Holiday amnesties are common in South Korea, with some geared toward beefing up voter support on the cheap by wiping out parking violations. But this is the North's first amnesty in three years. Back then, according to AFP, Pyongyang pardoned people sentenced to labor or re-education, in order to celebrate the 90th birthday of Kim Ilsung.

Even then it wasn't clear how many prisoners were freed, but there probably weren't many double parkers among them.

Peter Jennings passes away

Peter Jennings passed away today from lung cancer, just four months after he announced he had been diagnosed with the disease. There is no word on who his replacement will be.

Peter Jennings has a special place in my heart. Many of my "cross-cultural" courses at the Jesuit university utilized materials from his broadcasts to convey what North Americans were thinking, feeling, and saying. More importantly, it was his cool objectiveness that inspired me to push for news programming at our mom-and-pop network. I very consciously modeled the language of our news broadcasts and my own analysis after the way he said things, and I instructed those who worked under me to do the same.

Without ever having met the man, he was an invaluable mentor.

I should also add that it was thanks to Mr. Jennings, a Canadian who became an American only two short years ago, that I learned about Canada's Northwest Territories being split into two, with the new Native-run territory being called Nunavut. I used that piece of information to win bets against Canadians with a chip on their shoulder about Americans who didn't know anything about Canadian geography, among whom they assumed I was one.

ME:
So, where you from in Canada?

BET LOSER-TO-BE:
Doesn't matter, 'cuz you've never heard of it.

ME:
Maybe I have. Try me. I know all the provinces and I can name all three territories.

BET LOSER-TO-BE:
You're wrong right there, you tool, 'cuz there are only two territories.

ME:
How much do you wanna bet there are three?

Peter Jennings, I think, demonstrated the wisdom of having a non-American anchoring a premier American news program. He was objective and dispassionate when he needed to be, though you could feel his passion when it was important. I really respected that man, and as far as my news career was concerned, I aspire(d) to be just like him.

He will be sorely missed.

Koizumi loses "confidence vote"

Well, not exactly. The upper house of Japan's Diet voted down, 125 to 108, a reform bill pushed by Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi that would have split up and privatized the country's postal system and the large financial system it runs (its banking arm's holdings total about US$2 trillion while its insurance arm holds about US$1 trillion).

Proponents of the bill have said that Japan Post represents the bloated bureaucracy that is stifling the economy, and Koizumi has argued the money needs to be opened to more efficient investment in order to stimulate the world's second-largest economy.

While this loss for Koizumi might seem terribly boring, it is significant because the postal bill was a major piece of aggressive reform legislation being pushed by Koizumi, and Koizumi himself had said he would see failure of the bill to pass as a vote of no confidence.

Twenty-two members of his own Liberal Democratic Party (which is conservative, go figure) sided with the opposition, while eight were absent or abstained. Now Koizumi seems poised to make good on his threat to dissolve the lower house and call an election for September 11. According to Kyodo, the LDP's leadership said that Diet members who voted against the bill would not be allowed to run on the LDP ticket.

Fallout for LDP may come from the postal workers' union, which CNN says has long been supportive of the LDP, and from rural voters, who saw the privatization bill as hurting their interests.

Blinded by looking right of the Rising Sun

I'm not going to link where this is from, and I'm removing the name of the author to whom I'm responding, but I thought I should put this up because without seeing the actual words from this person's keyboard, it's hard to imagine that someone can actually be like this.

Bold and italics is an older comment by me. Italics is X's reply to that. The regular type is my response to that.

"X" wrote, in response to me:

You simply don’t know enough about the context [of the "souvenir photo" of a Japanese soldier with the half-naked Comfort Woman he apparently just paid for] to depict this as Korean “peddling” of what you call “false history.”

I have seen the photo I brought to attention used numerous times on Korea websites, and by Koreans online. This is the kind of image that younger Koreans have of the Japanese administrative period of Korea.

Yes, but it's also available in Japan, too, put up by Japanese. It is crafty of you to post this photo, allegedly doctored by Chinese and reprinted in Europe, North America, Japan, and Korea, and call it the "peddling" of "false history" by Koreans.

But that's your m.o. Your primary motivation in having this site is to spread animosity toward Korea, plain and simple. But if you focused on Japan with the same hate-filled scrutiny, you would find many terrible things that you choose to ignore.

You would rather scrutinize Korea, post things that may or may not be legitimate gripes, and then depict them as if they represent everyone's view.

You are no better than the Japan-bashers in Korea, who nitpick every little thing they can find and then portray them as if they represent the true face of Japan.

And, more importantly, since the book and its pictures are presented in Chinese, by a Chinese publisher, about atrocities that occurred in China (including those involving Korean comfort women), it is specious to blame this on Korea or Koreans as a whole for “peddling” this “false history.” Whether true or not, the peddling is being done by the Chinese publisher. You are so gung-ho to bash Korea that you’re smearing the whole country for things that, if they are indeed false, are perpetrated by someone from another country.

Yes, the picture is supposed to be an actrocity of the attack of Nanjing. Nothing to do with Korea, but Koreans keep using photos like these as ‘proof’ that Japan did those kinds of things in Korea.

Are you referring to the Comfort Woman picture or the other atrocities? The comfort woman picture and many others like it are used by Koreans and non-Koreans alike to depict the humiliating plight of the Comfort Women.

But the other atrocities? I have not seen atrocities against Chinese used as "proof" that Japan did this in Korea, because there's plenty of evidence in Korea [of atrocities] to begin with.

Now, it's possible that these photos and photos like them are used to demonstrate the general viciousness of the Japanese military in general at that time, and it's true that the Japanese military was brutal in Korea, in Guam, in the Philippines, in China, etc., so it is a valid point to hold up such photos, if they are legitimately Japanese military atrocities, as evidence of Japanese imperial-era brutality.

And I’ll be willing to bet dollars to donuts that these same books or pictures are reproduced in Japanese somewhere, too (some years ago, I believe I saw them while browsing some train station bookshop). Then the Japanese you so love are also guilty of “peddling false history.” Then your whole anti-Korean argument is moot.

Some people in Japan will believe the authenticity of the above photo. Many ‘actrocity photos’ have been published in Japanese newspapers and contrary to what you likely believe, are widely thought to be genunine.

"Contrary to what I likely believe"? X, you haven't the faintest idea what I believe because, as you've made clear time and time again, you think of people in one-dimensional caricatures based on your world view.

I know there are Japanese who think those pictures are genuine, or that the pictures genuinely depict Japanese military atrocities even if some of them are not accurately labeled. You see, I have Japanese relatives and friends, including some who work as history teachers in the school system or university system. I've been to Japan many times and see evidence that plenty of Japanese are aware of Japanese military atrocities.

And you should come clean with what you think is the false history. Are some of the pictures fake, in your opinion, or are all of them?

Some of them are composite photos or airbrushed or otherwise altered, some of them are removed from their context (hundreds of dead bodies strewn on the ground - massacre or battlefield?), some are quite simply of unknown origin, and may or may not be the Japanese army.

It would be nice to think that the Japanese army went into China and nobody innocent got killed, huh? Then you can feel good about your unconditional love of Japan.

Do you think tens or hundreds of thousands of civilians were or were not killed by the Japanese in Nanjing?

Its quite hard to say. I am not an expert on Nanjing, so you have never heard me comment on it before.

I was not claiming you had. But I think your view on this would be an interesting insight into your true beliefs.

I even gave you a way out: you could have said that you thought tens of thousands were killed but not hundreds of thousands, as people like Iris Chang and the Chinese government claim. But you said about even tens of thousands of deaths that, "it's hard to say."

However I have read some criticisms of the book ‘The Rape of Nanking’, which contains many inaccuracies. I think it is certainly within the realm of possibility that a massacre took place, but equally possible that the wartime Chinese government may have exaggerated it for propaganda purposes.

I think this really exemplifies what people find so scary and offensive about you and your m.o.: you don't want to believe bad stuff about Japan. You find comfort in the possibility that maybe it's all made up.

Yeah, I have read the right-wing Japanese criticisms of Iris Chang's book, but when you distill it all down, they are still not a denial that there were atrocities committed. They only thing they can do is cast aspersions on where and when they happened, not that they happened. But even then, there are many parts they are not able to discredit, including Western accounts of events happening. So even if the critics are right, there are still thousands upon thousands, probably in the tens of thousands, that were killed.

Face it, people from your beloved Japan, people I am probably related to, killed untold thousands of innocent Chinese, as well as others.

Do you believe or not believe that tens of thousands of Korean women were duped, coerced, or forced into sexual slavery?

Korea has had a long history of prostitution before the Japanese came to Korea. I am sure there were many willing prostitutes.

You are parroting the right-wing defense, which attempts to discredit the claim by a vague assertion that there were "willing" prostitutes. Well, then, what percent? Give a ballpark. 1%? 10%? 50%? 90%?

On the otherhand, it seems that some girls were tricked by their parents and Korean pimps into being prostitutes.

When the comfort women issue first came to light, there were stories of girls being duped by stepfathers (Korean) and schoolmasters (Japanese), job brokers (Japanese), etc. But ultimately this was orchestrated by the Japanese government for the military.

That some Koreans were involved in this duplicitous and evil act does not absolve the Japanese government of moral responsibility, which is why Japanese historians pushed their government to admit responsibility, which they ultimately did.

But you, X, seem to believe that the Japanese government (or the Japanese military, take your pick) was not ultimately responsible, right?

You find exactly the same thing happening in many parts of Asia at this very moment.

Yes, this is true. And this was happening in Korea, too, a country where women have historically been maltreated.

But you see, X, that does nothing to absolve the Japanese government of responsibility. They denied it for decades, and then were forced by Japanese historians who found the records to admit they had orchestrated this. Why is this so difficult for you to accept?

While the Japanese government did not do enough to protect the civil rights of some of the women involved,

X, the Japanese government were the ones stripping their rights away. Koreans in Korea had few rights at all, thanks to the Japanese colonial administration. This is why tens of thousands of Koreans voluntarily chose to go to Japan proper or to Japan-controlled Manchuria, because then they might actually be granted the rights they were promised (though these voluntary migrants certainly are NOT the only Koreans to go to Japan and Manchuria; many were forcibly mobilized).

I think the greater responsibilty is shouldered by the Korean parents that sold their female children into prostitution and the Korean pimps that profited from it.

Those people who did that shoulder great responsibility. But the Japanese government which mobilized them and set up the system that forcibly held them there is at least as responsible.

Read George Hicks's "The Comfort Women." Japanese in Korea were duping these women. You can't push this on parents and prostitutes.

In short, I think the majority of the women were normal prostitutes, and a minority were tricked and sold out by their parents.

I'm sure you'd like to believe that's all it boils down to. But it doesn't. The Japanese imperial government was directly responsible for the sexual servitude of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, and has admitted so, your denials notwithstanding.

You are merely parroting right-wing propaganda that, like you, wishes to pretend Japan historically has really done nothing wrong. You are the same as the nationalist Koreans you so despise.

In anycase, tricked or not, all the women were paid for their ‘work’.

Held in sexual slavery in dangerous conditions, repeatedly raped and then "compensated" with pennies, and you think that makes it all okay. If you really think so, X, then you are sick.

If there is some soul searching about the ‘comfort women’ to be done, it should be done by Koreans that place so little value on the rights of females that parents would sell their own flesh and blood to the sex industry.

You know what? You are right. And I made that point many times since this issue came out. But the cases you site are only a percentage of the total. But ultimately, the Japanese government is responsible for those and all the rest.

And if they were duped, coerced, or forced into it, is it or is it not an on-going sex crime throughout the whole ordeal, including when the souvenir picture was taken?

This picture has nothing to do with Korea, and it is unknown if the Chinese brothel owner forced the girl to be a prostitute or not. I choose not to speculate.

"Chinese brothel owner"? Even if that particular brothel was run by a Chinese (as the right-wing critics of Iris Chang claim), the government has admitted that they were running brothels.

What is the false history, X?

False history is the kind of image the Koreans are trying to create about the Japanese rule of Korea.

"The Koreans"? See, this is what you do: fine a nice little piece to rip on, and then depict it as if it represents the entire country. Well, wouldn't Andrew Nahm's more balanced history be as representative? There are others, how about theirs?

Your problem, X, is that you don't want to believe any of it. So even if something utterly objective and level-headed were in front of you, you would reject its assertions, too.

I know people who were beaten up in prison by Japanese guards for not worshipping the emperor. I know people who were beaten by Japanese officers who had gone into their home late at night because they (the Koreans) were "hording" rice so they wouldn't starve. I know people who were forced to work in mines during the war. I know lots of people who have experienced these things.

Believe it or not, not all of these "victims" hate Japan. Some of them think Japan is a good country or that Japanese are basically good people. They blame the people who beat them. Or they blame the emperor for allowing this.

But regardless of how they feel, the treatment was real. Japanese military and governmental authorities did some horrible things. People were beaten, they were tortured, many died. Tens of thousands of people. More if you count those who were killed while wearing a Japanese uniform or through war-induced starvation.

Here is a case in point.

From the introduction of Jo Jung-rae’s Arirang

“How many Jews were killed by the Hitler government of Germany during the Second World War? According to the Jews the number was three or four million.
So how many of us Koreans were massacred and killed by the Japanese during the 36 years of Japanese colonialism? Is it three million? Or four million? Or is it six million? Unfortunately that estimate has not been made public or official. My estimate is between three and four million. With the writing of Arirang, I am going to make that figure concrete.”

You cite the intro to a novel as historical fact? I suppose you think "The Da Vinci Code" is an accurate history of the Catholic Church, too.

There were not any large scale massacres of any kind in Korea, yet this is the kind of image of Japan that Koreans want to show. That is false history.

The hunting down of the Righteous Armies... the suppression of the Samil Movement? These were not large scale massacres? They were larger than Kwangju in 1980, and I would classify that as a large-scale massacre.

I'm with you, though, on any claims that what Korea experienced was somehow comparable to the Holocaust. To me, that is nothing short of offensive. Not even what North Korea is doing to its own people now is on the scale of the Holocaust.

You keep saying that the Japanese leaders apologized, and they indeed did, but then it appears you are perpetrating the right-wing argument that undermines the apology, that these incidents being apologized for are “false history” (your very words). What part is the false history, X?

Most of the apologies are vague because they cannot admit to the specifics of what the Koreans say they did.

But on the Comfort Women issue, the apologies have pretty much admitted government culpability. Culpability you are deflecting and denying.

In my opinion the Koreans keep asking for and rejecting apologies because the Japanese government is foolish enough to play the game. I think its a waste of time catering to Korea’s persecution complex.

They keep demanding apologies because right-wing zealots with the same agenda as yours keep saying tht what is being apologized for didn't really happen.

I've been tagged.

Space Nakji has tagged me. If you are mentioned in #17, then you are tagged, too.

1. Ten years ago -- In Korea. I fear this might sound boring as heck because answers #1, #2, and #3 will all be in Korea. Ten years ago I was beginning my adult life in Korea (don't think you can figure out my age based on this, though), and I was working at a certain Catholic university's Department of Continuing Education (I'm trying to be vague). I was doing GRE and GMAT courses, a "Cultural Seminar" that advanced English students would take to learn about cross-cultural issues. I had also started work at a mom-and-pop television network where I was doing on-air and behind-the-scenes work on educational programs.

I was always going back to California for four weeks at a time, twice a year (until 1998), so I would just have been getting back from one of those trips. This trip, though, was preceded by a trip to Italy where I tried to woo (re-woo?) my then-fiancée to come back to me. It did work, eventually, and I was enjoying a rekindled relationship. I had also just seen my newborn niece (the first 조카 in a series of five so far), my sister's kid; the baby looked like a raisin (and my sister was asked regularly for the next year or so when the next one is due).

After a series of crazed roommates ("Psycho Bi--h Helen," aka "Hormonal Helen" and "Naked Chick"; Greg the Nazi; and "The Guy Who Wouldn't Leave") I finally had my old but sizable apartment with the huge terrace all to myself, and I let my dogs Nanjido and Kunpo roam around there. Unfortunately, the owner of the building kept trying to jack up my rent, so I was always feeling I was on the verge of leaving.

2. Five years ago -- Still in Seoul. After accountants took over the Jesuit-run university, someone got the idea in their head that they should kick the Jesuits out of the administration. They then decided that they could make money hand over fist by raising tuition and cutting salaries. Imagine their surprise when the good profs/lecturers left and the students stopped ponying up good money to take bad extracurricular courses. After my boss, Father N, got fired and the guy who hired me, Mr. H, was forced to retire, I decided to leave. Them telling me they wanted to redo my contract and cut the "overly generous" salary I was making did have something to do with it.

So I went to work-- temporarily--at another university. Many of my students followed me (I was just like Socrates). A lot of my students had worked me into their Saturday and/or evening routines, and they really wanted to keep taking classes with me, which helped console the major loss of income (standing on principle can hurt the pocketbook). I ended up doing more and more work at the mom-and-pop network, and I was pushing them to make news programs in English, which they were convinced was crazy.

After tiring of the landlady's antics, I found another place to live, just up the street in that old neighborhood in central Seoul, which was a house-house. All to myself. It was two stories, with a small garden in front. It was built around 1935, but it was very sturdy and had since been refurbished. It was a nice, charming place with character. The owner was one of the original occupants, but after her husband died a few years earlier, she decided to live somewhere else.

I was driving around a new LP-gas-powered Kia minivan my company had purchased the previous Christmas. It was big enough to drive around all our performers to on-location shoots (and it was tinted dark so people could change their clothes there instead of in bathrooms that had wet floors that you hoped were covered with water and not something else), and I would sometimes sleep in it or use it as an office.

A few months later I would "audition" to write a language guide for a major travel guide publisher; the audition would be successful and writing the book would end up occupying most of the next year. I was also about to enter a well-known Graduate School of International Studies, seeking an M.A. in Korean Studies, so I would have something tangible to show for my time spent in Seoul.

3. One year ago -- One year ago this weekend, I was just getting done with our mom-and-pop network's "English camp" (which we radio personalities called "stalker camp"). I was doing an evening news program, since the network finally tried my proposal and it turned out people loved the idea of listening to news in English. I was busy applying to teach college-level courses about Korea to military folks at the education center Yongsan Garrison.

I was now living in an apartment I had actually bought (the wonderful old house, which I had hoped to live in until I no longer lived in Korea, was sold when the owner's daughter decided to make some quick money), and I was busy fixing it up.

4. Yesterday -- Yesterday I spent the entire day in the studio doing the pilot and first two episodes of a TV program for our mom-and-pop network. On my feet all day, with hair that looked funny because the k'odi (coordinator) had put too much hair spray in my coif. Between takes I checked my cell phone for word that the script for a documentary translation I was working on would come through. Afterwards I and the other on-camera people went to the local mall and ate "Sizzling teriyaki." It was delicious. I went home by subway and passed out, from exhaustion, on the bed all sweaty-like.

5. Today -- After breakfast at the Dragon Hill Lodge with a friend who is leaving Korea for a while, and then an unrelated trip to the dentist, I "snuck" into the commissary and bought $90 worth of hard-to-find items. Including ice cream sandwiches and decaf General Foods International Coffees. Now I am working on some network stuff. It never ends!

6. Tomorrow -- Documentary translation (this documentary hypothesizes that some concepts of work will change, like people working for twenty hours straight and then not working for three days). I might drive someone to Kwangju.

7. Five snacks I enjoy -- Though I look quite slim to the naked eye, when I am naked, there is a slight pudge. I try to get rid of it with regular exercise and by not eating the following delicious foods I enjoy: ice cream sandwiches; Mother's brand iced macaroons; Mrs. Field's cookies of any flavor, but especially Debra's Special; tiramisu; pumpkin pie; and that rich chocolate dessert thingy that they serve at Starbuck's that has more calories that a box of Mrs. See's candies, which is what I would write down if this asked for seven snacks instead of six.

8. Five bands (or singers??) I know the lyrics of most of their songs -- This would have to be stuff from when I was very young or somewhat young, because I sort of gave up memorizing lyrics after college: the Beatles (which I know because of my parents playing tapes), Johnny Cash (again, the 8-track tapes), Prince (my choice, not my parents', t this applies only for certain albums); and possibly the Cars. I can't think of any more, but it's okay, since I wrote down six desserts.

9. Five things I would do with $100,000,000 -- Huge-ass houses for my immediate family, my aunt in Vegas who is like a second mom, plus my closest friends; nice cars for the same people; some serious money donated to help fight some disease that isn't getting the money it needs; a scholarship fund (in my name, of course) for people studying how medical issues in Korea or among Korean-Americans are affected by traditional mores and modern socio-cultural norms; my own damn network.

10. Five locations I’d like to run away to -- Tuscany and/or Lazio, Italy; Kyoto; an isolated part of Cheju (if there still is such a thing); Orange County; Hong Kong.

11. Five Bad Habits -- Procrastination, including taking too long to do things I promised to do; paying too close attention to the people on the side of the road while I'm driving; eating more than I exercise off; not writing to people who deserve email/snail mail from me; letting my apartment, car, and office get too cluttered.

12. Five things I like doing -- Eating, watching movies, sex/snuggling with someone I love, writing/reading, traveling. Or any combination thereof.

13. Five T.V. shows I like -- I'm going to sound like I'm parroting Space Nakji but: The Simpsons (I'm even the moderator of a major Simpsons-related list and Futurama), Friends (it seemed to dovetail my life, including a serious relationship with a woman very confused about her sexual orientation), M*A*S*H, and either St. Elsewhere or Scrubs (that's three medical shows).

14. Famous People I’d like to meet -- Prior to February 25, 2005, I would have said Bill Clinton first, but I met him when he came to Seoul for a book-signing. Al Gore, Harrison Ford, Gabriel Garcia-Marquez, Marissa Tomei, Halle Berry. I think I have to think about this more.

15. Biggest joys at the moment -- Finishing a load of work, eating, getting out of Seoul (whether it's to a place inside Korea or outside), doing the news, writing something people thought was thought-provoking or funny.

16. Favorite toys -- Rubik's Cube, Go-stop cards, my Macintosh.

17. Five people to tag -- Well, I would have tagged Space Nakji, but she already did this. I think it would have to be people I know would possibly read my blog, but who haven't been tagged already. Curious, Jodi, Nora, Plunge, and Baduk (just because I want to see his nutty answers).

Friend or foe of freedom in North Korea?

US News & World Report has an interview with the Seoul-based head of World Vision and his efforts to help feed people in North Korea. It's a somewhat interesting read because he does go into detail about changes he sees in the lives of North Koreans.

But with so many critics of South Korea painting the ROK into a damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't corner, I also started wondering what side the critics would say Mr. Oh Jae-shik is on.
Is he a true defender of the North Korean people, helping them get fed when their own vicious government has left them to die? Or are his efforts helping prop up the regime in Pyongyang? Is he a symbol of South Koreans who are concerned about the dignity of people stuck within the DPRK, or is he a symbol of South Koreans willing to make deals with the devil to keep the North from imploding?

If he were based in Los Angeles, New York City, Washington, or Tokyo, would I be asking this question? Would the answers be any clearer?

What's on the table?

UPDATE:
I'm not trying to jinx things, but on the second day of talks, the mood is said to be "upbeat."

ORIGINAL POST:
The long-anticipated talks begin today. Already the pundits are polishing their dual sets of articles, one talking about the amazing breakthrough, and the other with self-satisfied talk of "I told you so." And North Korea is up to its old rhetorical tricks of bashing anyone but themselves and their benefactors in Beijing.

I'm cautiously optimistic. I think the Bush administration has realized the same thing Clinton did before, that negotiation is the only real way out of this. Hold your nose and talk to the fat man. If they really are worried that North Korea has nukes and might use them or sell them, this may not be the time to stand on an inconsistently applied principle; rather, sitting down and trying to really do something about the real nuclear issue might be the most prudent thing to do. If, that is, they really believe the North is a threat.

And I do believe they are a potential threat. I'm not so sure the rest of the world does, though. This is the unspoken cost of Bush's adventurism in Iraq: the rest of the world doesn't believe us when we really need them to. The Bush administration laid down the evidence they said they were sure of, but after occupying all of Iraq for quite some time, they have finally admitted they didn't find anything and likely won't.

The "evidence" and the talk of a smoking gun in the form of a mushroom cloud now appears little more than a pretext for invasion. And that "intelligence failure" in Iraq means that in the back of their minds, many around the world simply don't believe the Bush administration's claims about Pyongyang.

Call me naive, but I fear the U.S.'s intelligence on the North may be right. But I also believe that North Korea's goal in getting a nuke is probably nothing more than regime survival. I am far less convinced that they would export a weapon, for it would likely lead to their destruction. Selling opium and heroin is easier and quicker. Printing $100 bills is more practical.

I think the Bush administration has pragmatically realized they need to reach a deal, but what would that deal entail? South Korea has already offered electricity; Japan has said they would help out (which might involve a deal over the kidnappee issue, though I'm concerned this topic could derail a deal on the nukes, as could the human rights issue; both topics, perhaps, should be addressed later).

The American and North Korean delegates are going to meet separately before the six-way talks, which might give them a chance to learn more precisely (and without as much spin) what the other side is willing to accept.

So what does North Korea want? Most pundits say regime survival, and I agree. Survival means no invasion or attack from the U.S. more than it means getting aid, which Seoul, Washington, and Tokyo are all set to provide in exchange for real assurances about Pyongyang's nukes. South Korea, which would inherit a huge headache when and if Pyongyang implodes, explodes, or throws in the towel, is set to provide a Korean Marshall Plan.

But people in Washington are loath to provide aid. But do they have to? Pyongyang wants something that would cost very little money to Washington: a peace treaty and normalization. In other words, an official end of war and the establishment of diplomatic relations. They also want something similar from Tokyo.

Normalization could mean more trade for Pyongyang, but it could also mean a lesser likelihood that Washington would attack an independent, sovereign state that it recognizes.

But would Washington ever recognize a DPRK led by Kim Jong-il? Why not? We recognize China, which is rife with human rights abuses (and while I believe Beijing is culpable for propping up Pyongyang, their own abuses of their own people pale in comparison to the horrors committed in North Korea). Under Republican pressure, Clinton even dropped our annual dance of debating the fundamentally economic issue of Most-Favored Nation status in the context of human rights.

Are we ready to recognize we may have more sway over a country we engage than a country we have isolated and don't speak to? I'm glad that Christian groups are pressing the issue of human rights; but I don't agree that isolation is the way to address them. Not in Pyongyang at least.

I'm a firm believer in the law of unintended consequences (who would have guessed that a bunch of nerds at DARPA would cause porn stars to become household names or lead to the near downfall of the music industry?). Pyongyang may think that it can control what goes on within its borders, but the more variables that are added to the mix (in the form of foreign government representatives, foreign citizens, foreign companies, foreign tourists, etc.), the weaker that control potentially is. Engaging North Korea is the key to loosening that grip. Plus, it erodes the fear of the outside that the North has instilled in its people.

I just hope that Washington (and Tokyo) seriously considers this. Yes, it involves holding one's nose. For Tokyo it probably involves resolving the kidnapee issue. But ultimately it is the best way to pull North Korea toward being a normal country.

George W. Bush as a Simpsons character

Anyone who knows me off-line knows that I am a huge fan of the Simpsons. Sure, there were a few seasons that really sucked and it's only now on the upswing again, but there are few television programs ever that match the witty satire of The Simpsons. So great is my love of OFF (Our Favorite Family) that besides Korea-related blogging, my other major on-line time consumer (not counting work, of course) is co-monitoring the mailing list attached to the premier on-line source of information related to the show. In fact, as co-monitor, I have even been interviewed by the American press in relation to shows (here's an example [see here if that link doesn't work] which originally appeared in the Baltimore Sun).

So when this silly little quiz came through the pipeline, I thought I would check it out. Who wouldn't want to know what Simpsons character they're most like? Well, I already know I'm a mixture of Bart's mischief, Lisa's intelligence and unwillingness to bend to the will of the masses, and Smithers's dedication to ass-kissing (though not his sexual orientation).

So instead I thought I would plug in what I presume to be the answers by someone else, in this case the President. Finding out who Dubya most closely resembles could be a hoot, especially if he turns out to be the nefarious Mr. Burns, the closeted Mr. Smithers, or the incompetent Chief Wiggum.

Now, you may think it unfair for me to answer questions for George on his behalf, but in my defense, Dick Cheney and Karl Rove do it for him all the time. So here goes.

For each question, select the option that best describes your personality then.
1. Brave?
I wrote "disagree." If he were brave, he would have ended up in Vietnam instead of defaming those who were there (I'm talking about Senator McCain as much as Senator Kerry).

2. Loyal?
I wrote "strongly agree." By all accounts, he is very loyal to his friends and associates, almost to a fault (I'm looking your way, KR).

3. Responsible?
I wrote "disagree." Playground name-calling with egomaniacal dictators? Egging on terrorists with "Bring it on!"? Calling the War on Terror a "crusade"? The War in Iraq? Only his attempts to actually do something about illegal immigration prevented him from getting "strongly disagree."

4. Materialistic?
I wrote "agree." The guy is rich, but that doesn't automatically make one materialistic. But using your connections to make truckloads of money, though, might suffice.

5. Scheming?
"Strongly agree." Using terrorism as an excuse to invade Iraq? Come on.

6. Easily confused?
"Strongly agree." If you don't know why, then you haven't been paying attention.

7. Lucky in love?
"Agree." She's not my type (though she might have been when she was younger), but Laura Bush seems like a class-act. Plus she pushed Dubya to get rid of a lot of his bad habits. She and Billy Graham (who is also credited with helping Bill Clinton end his womanizing). I would say Dubya is lucky to have her.

8. Lazy?
"Agree." He puts the lazy in lazy-faire.

9. Good sense of humour?
"Disagree." He certainly thinks he has a great sense of humor, judging by those clips on David Letterman. He sure can be a smug som-bitch, though.

10. Greedy?
"Agree." See #4.

11. At one with nature?
"Disagree." Sure, he likes to get his hands dirty when he weeds his ranch, but someone trying to promote drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge or who has made his millions from oil can't really be described as "one with nature." He has room for improvement (and there may be some hopeful signs in the future).

12. Smart?
"Disagree." A smart person would understand the importance of watching one's tongue in public.

13. What would be your ideal gift?
A pony
A cool, refreshing Duff
World domination
The ideal man
This one's too obvious: World Domination. And you're either for him or against him.

14. Open-minded?
"Disagree." You're either for him or against him.

15. Spiritual?
"Strongly agree." Jesus is his co-pilot. Just wish he'd listen to Him sometimes.

16. Irritable?
"Agree." When he talks about his personal feelings, sometimes it sounds like something's stuck in his craw. Whatever that means.

17. Misunderstood?
"Agree." And I don't just mean when he makes up new words or discards proper English syntax. All joking aside, I think his views on the importance of promoting democracy are misunderstood as rhetorical excuses to promote American dominance. (But then again, maybe I'm misunderstanding his evil intent.)

18. Incompetent?
"Strongly Agree." Besides the Iraq War and foreign relations in general, there are too many incidents with slow-moving vehicles, like Segways and bicycles, as well as with snack foods.

19. Generous?
"Agree." His efforts to give money to solve things like AIDS are commendable. At heart, I think he is probably a decent guy; I just don't want him for my president.

20. Affectionate?
"Agree." When I met him at the White House, he kissed me on both cheeks and gave me a two-minute bear hug. Also, he's very good with his children.

21. Do you like children?
"Yes." The extra seven minutes he spent with those elementary school kids when America was under attack by al Qaeda really underscores this point.

So, who does our president most closely resemble? The answer is Sideshow Bob.

Sideshow Bob (voiced by Kelsey Grammer of Frasier fame) is a bungling schemer who has also appeared in a Simpsons episode as a Republican candidate for office who uses his political connections to settle scores. He also went to Yale.

Sigh. Surely there are reasons for impeachment other than lying about having been fellated. 

Los Angeles Times on China's nuclear threat

The Los Angeles Times is carrying an op-ed piece inspired by the nuclear-tipped saber rattling by Chinese Major General Zhu Chenghu of the People's Liberation Army (mentioned on Marmot's).

According to the Times, Zhu "threatened to nuke 'hundreds' of American cities if the U.S. dared to interfere with a Chinese attempt to conquerTaiwan." Serious business. Editorialist Max Boot wonders if the U.S. is prepared for the Chinese threat, at a time when China "is building a lot of sabers" to rattle.

He warned that China's $90-billion military budget is growing, adding this:

Moreover, China's spending has been increasing rapidly, and it is investing in the kind of systems — especially missiles and submarines — needed to challenge U.S. naval power in the Pacific.

Boot quotes U.S. Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld as calling China's arms buildup as an "area of concern." Boot goes even further, warning of things more insidious:

But we shouldn't get overly fixated on such traditional indices of military power as ships and bombs — not even atomic bombs. Chinese strategists, in the best tradition of Sun Tzu, are working on craftier schemes to topple the American hegemon. In 1998, an official People's Liberation Army publishing house brought out a treatise called "Unrestricted Warfare," written by two senior army colonels, Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui. This book, which is available in English translation, is well known to the U.S. national security establishment but remains practically unheard of among the general public.

Unrestricted Warfare" recognizes that it is practically impossible to challenge the U.S. on its own terms. No one else can afford to build mega-expensive weapons systems like the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter, which will cost more than $200 billion to develop. "The way to extricate oneself from this predicament," the authors write, "is to develop a different approach." Their different approaches include financial warfare (subverting banking systems and stock markets), drug warfare (attacking the fabric of society by flooding it with illicit drugs), psychological and media warfare (manipulating perceptions to break down enemy will), international law warfare (blocking enemy actions using multinational organizations), resource warfare (seizing control of vital natural resources), even ecological warfare (creating man-made earthquakes or other natural disasters).

Cols. Qiao and Wang write approvingly of Al Qaeda, Colombian drug lords and computer hackers who operate outside the "bandwidths understood by the American military." They envision a scenario in which a "network attack against the enemy" — clearly a red, white and blue enemy — would be carried out "so that the civilian electricity network, traffic dispatching network, financial transaction network, telephone communications network and mass media network are completely paralyzed," leading to "social panic, street riots and a political crisis." Only then would conventional military force be deployed "until the enemy is forced to sign a dishonorable peace treaty."

Boot warns that this strategy is already being implemented. He sees the anti-Japanese riots in April as "psychological warfare against a major Asian rival." Ditto for the "stage-managed" riots against the U.S. Embassy in Beijing in 1999 after the U.S. inadvertently bombed the Chinese Embassy in Belgrade, Yugoslavia.

He calls the bid by state-owned China National Offshore Oil Company to buy Unocal "resource warfare." Attempts by China's spy apparatus to infiltrate U.S. high-tech terms and defense contrators are seen as "technological warfare."

China siding against the U.S. in the U.N. Security Council over the invasion of Iraq is "international law warefare" (though that might mean that many of our supposed allies are waging stealth war against us, too).

Boot claims that "once you know what to look for, the pieces fall into place with disturbing ease." He does acknowledge that there could be more benign explanations, like General Zhu being "an eccentric old coot who's seen Dr. Strangelove a few too many times."

I don't know. The evidence can be convincing, but I also know that the "yellow horde" can be easily painted into a nastier beast than it is.

But I do think caution needs to be exercised with China. Sure, they're Everybody's Economic Partner®, but they do not (yet) share our democratic values or our commitment to human rights. As I've mentioned before, they are the ones really propping up Pyongyang. In short, just because we do business with them doesn't mean they are our friends.

And considering that, how wise is it for some on the far right to goad South Korea into their corner? Do we really want to push Seoul into their sphere of influence, just because we don't like what a bunch of leftist radicals have to say about the United States or President Bush?

Some in Washington don't like to admit this (or maybe they don't realize it), but our elective war in Iraq, fought under false pretenses, has made many people around the world, including amongs our allies, question our values as a country. The ideological reason for being in a U.S.-dominated camp has taken a serious hit. Koreans are not the only ones reeling from it. Add to that a U.S. president (once) seeming hell-bent to ratchet up tensions by engaging in name-calling with Kim Jong-il. These are not reasons to join Beijing, but they do make one question the wisdom of Washington.

This is not a good thing. The United States government needs to realize that it needs to keep its current friends in order to hem in China. Japan, Mongolia, Russia, Taiwan, and South Korea. Maybe even Vietnam. As with North Korea, engagement and containment should go hand in hand.