Speaking before the World Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates in Rome on Wednesday, former Korean President Kim Dae-jung took some time to bash U.S. foreign policy — especially Bush administration Unilateralism ™ — and offer his own vision of a peaceful, prosperous world united by perpetual dialogue and, one would assume, large quantities of under-the-table Hyundai money. I care not to debate DJ’s criticism — needless to say, I don’t appreciate being lectured to about “unilateralism” by a man who felt not the need to discuss his June 2000 trip to Pyongyang to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-il with his allies, including the one that had 36,000 troops stationed in his country under a mutual defense pact, but that’s a whole other post. Besides, guest blogger Hamel did a good job discussing similar DJ wisdom/tripe in a previous post. What does require mention here — or at the very least, an English translation — were some other comments he made that were found in a separate section of the Korean-language article that for reasons unknown didn’t make OhMy International’s version of the story. Anyway, here it goes:
In an address for the opening ceremony of the World Summit of the Nobel Peace Laureates held at Rome City Hall on Wednesday, Former President Kim Dae-jung made a “sudden overture” in which he said, “In the name of democracy and human rights, I ask that you strongly press the military regime of Myanmar to immediately grant security and freedom of political activity to Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers.”
In his address before 350 participants including former Nobel Peace Prize laureates like former Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, the Nobel Committee and Italian President Carlo Ciampi, Kim made an urgent plea, telling the listeners, “In particular, there is an individual I would like to ask this conference to generously support. This would have to do with none other than Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi’s safety and freedom of political activity.”
Kim slammed Myanmar’s military rulers, saying, “Suu Kyi is a Nobel peace laureate just like us… Despite having come close to triumph in elections, she is being prevented by the military regime to participate in politics and has been under long-term house arrest… Today, in which democracy has become a universal value, this is something that absolutely must not be.”
Receiving tremendous applause from the participants, he said, “In the name of democracy and human rights, we ask that this assembly strongly press Myanmar’s military regime to immediately grant security and freedom of political activity to Aung San Suu Kyi and her followers.”
Meanwhile, during his address, he also called for the establishment of a permanent body, saying, “Nobel peace laureates and all other Nobel laureates, we need to accept the spirit of founder Alfred Nobel and consider the establishment of a permanent body for a united world, a peaceful world, a world without nuclear weapons and a world that heals the causes of terrorism and poverty.”
About this, Kim said, “We have received the Nobel Peace Prize, and this is the highest honor… In that the bigger the honor, the bigger the responsibility as well, let us all gather our devotion and strength.”
Look, I think it’s great that DJ is trying to get the Nobel community to take an active interest in the human rights situation in Myanmar, and yes, I can see how he might take a personal interest in Aung San Suu Kyi’s plight. The two have much in common, both being from families of Japanese collaborators and all (utterly disgusting cheap shot, I admit). Besides, DJ being an older man, I guess it would be easier for him to sympathize with someone like Suu Kyi, who despite being 58 and having spent God knows how long under house arrest, still looks pretty good for a woman her age. But all kidding and low blows aside, how is it that Kim could — in the very same speech — give an impassioned plea “in the name of democracy and human rights” for political freedom and basic human decency in Myanmar, while at the same time fail to plead likewise for his compatriots in North Korea, and even call on the U.S. to guarantee the security of a regime that’s one of the world’s final outposts of Stalinism? Is the SLORC that much worse than Kim Jong-il and crew? Heck, even Suu Kyi said she was never cruelly treated by the SLORC while under house arrest. What would a woman like Suu Kyi get for challenging that “dogged reformer” in Pyongyang? Obviously, there’s a lesson to be learned here for Myanmar’s new rulers, and it’s that when you got even guys like DJ taking shots at your human rights record, you need to start moving on getting a nuclear program running fast. And if you’re lucky, Uncle Sam might even build some light-water reactors outside Rangoon.
For what its worth, DJ’s other speech in Europe that was mentioned in the OhMy piece — the one at the Olof Palme Center in Stockholm, Sweden — has been posted on the center’s webpage in English. If you’re looking for impassioned pleas for human rights in North Korea, you won’t find any. You will get this, however:
Sphere: Related Content{T}he result of such dramatic progress {in intra-Korean relations} is changing the mindset of the people of the South and the North altogether. South Korean people now differentiate between opposing communism and having affection for their North Korean brothers and sisters. The North Korean people are gradually shedding their previous propaganda-driven prejudice towards the South, replacing it with trust and envy.
8 Comments
He’s a liberal. I’m a conservative. Grrrr.
I thought it was funny how during the trip he called on Italy to help resolve the crisis in North Korea (while simultaneously calling for direct talks between the U.S. and DPRK. If that isn’t ironic I don’t know what is. I mean asking for international help while trying to say one nation needs to deal with the problem).
Not to mention when I think of nations that could play a major role in diffusing the North Korean nuclear crisis Italy is the first one that comes to mind followed closlely by great nations like Dijibouti and Honduras. Once we get them on board the problem will practically take care of itself.
Hey south korea, your minjok brothers to the North have created the most evil government on the planet. Why dont you criticize them and prove true to your “pro-democracy” ideals instead of trying to cover it up you hypocrites?!
I have very little understanding of why there isn’t more criticism of the NKs in the south (in response to MagnumPI…dude, get another blogname, you’re dating yourself horribly, and the name hasn’t been cool for about 19 years). Maybe it’s because south Koreans might feel that if there is more criticism, there will be more openess to the idea of invading the north (back to ol’ Syngman Rhee’s agenda) and that would mean, in the end, a DPRK regime no more, but also an overbearing US influence yet again in Korea, since the Americans will of course be involved. Let’s also not forget about the power vacuum that might take place when that regime is gone. Will China respect Korean territorial sovereignty if this takes place; how about Russia? If NK is a bad place, will we be making the overall situation for Korea worse by taking such action? I think there just may be too many factors to consider (and ones I have no understanding of) for a clear analysis of such an eventuality.
That’s the great thing about the Dororthy Land of Oz philosophy of geopolitics/security —
You get to close your eyes while hopelessly clicking your heels together saying, “There is no place like home. There’s no place like home. There’s no place like home” desperately praying you will be miracaliously transported to Never-Never Land (if I can mix references here).
It allows blockheads to ignore the evil of the nation they want to embrace, criticize those actively protecting them and giving them a life far superior to the enemy they want to embrace, and doing nothing to change the fundamental problems except blowing out feel-good hot air.
No……in fact…..it is worse than that……As a couple of people in the expat Korea blogging community have pointed out…….the actions of the KDJ crowd actually actively work AGAINST solving the problems they use against their allies through their efforts to prop up their enemies — keeping the Pyongyang regime alive, and doing so, in my opinion, not because they belive it is the way to make NK their friend and end the problem, but instead because they have calulated in a cold blooded manner that keeping the status quo is economically and socially better for themselves. They fear the effects of a collapse in North Korea much, much more than they fear a NK invasion.
They fear the effects of a collapse in North Korea much, much more than they fear a NK invasion.
Yes. I think the above quote is a highly reasonable assessment. I also think it’s an opinion that many average Korean citizens hold(!) Now, if S.Korea was YOUR country and you were as Korean as much as you are an American, would you be willing to have your country piss away all of its “comparative advantages” for a highly uncertain (and potentially destabalizing) future following a collapse of NK?
…yes, I know some of you guys are idealists, but be honest with yourselves. If you still believe you would march North to fight “the good cause”, then I take my hat off to your display of integrity…
On Mark’s point, I’d answer the question with a yes.
It is a tough call, but I would embrace the world rather than prop up North Korea.
Ultimately, I think I’d view unification as a key item for continued prosperity well into the future despite the initial big hits taken after a NK collapse.
I would try to align myself so closely with the United States, Japan, and the global community that loves so much to talk about human rights and world government.
I would stay so close to them that when NK did collapse or explode outward in a last gasp effort - the world community would have to hide their heads under a paperbag if they didn’t do much to help South Korea absorb the North.
In short, I’d put my faith in the world community bailing us (Korea) out when the North ceased to be.
Regardless of how unification comes about, the South will not be able to handle it by itself.
So the choice is to decide against unification period or trying to set the stage for making South Korea’s trouble post-collapse the world’s problem. And since South Korea does truly want unification as a long term goal, I would hope I’d decide to have a long term outlook in my policy formulation rather than the short term benefits of avoiding collapse by strengthening Pyongyang and thus perpetuating the division of the two nations.
Interesting, but you’re obviously not very highly educated.