Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, contributed a short but very thoughtful essay on Seoul’s drive to become a Northeast Asian balancer that looks at the motivations behind it and how the initiative influences the interests of various players. Foreign policy wonks will definitively enjoy it. Here’s the introduction, just to give you an idea of what to expect:
Ruediger Frank, Professor of East Asian Political Economy at the University of Vienna, writes: “The recent efforts of South Korea’s president Roh Moo-hyun to establish the country not only as a mediator, but as a “balancing power in Northeast Asia to prevent possible disputes in the region” ??? are an expression of the dissatisfaction with the progress made under the current arrangement and could be interpreted as a change of the Status quo that benefits Beijing at the expense of the alliance with Washington, which will nevertheless not be given up. Quite remarkably, this position of being an independent actor in international relations corresponds very well with the North Korean position and opens one more field of possible future cooperation of both Koreas.”
A tasty part from the actual essay:
Neorealism regards states as power-maximizers in an anarchic world. The concept of “International Community” must be viewed critically from this perspective, if it is to be more than a propagandistic tool to isolate the enemy (as in “the International Community versus North Korea”). Nevertheless, in reality there are multilateral approaches by interested parties such as the Six Party Talks and KEDO, so there is momentum for concerted actions. Every single involved nation has its own strong interest in the North Korean issue. It would, however, be naive to expect a congruence of these interests, although any successful multilateral approach towards a solution must take these interests into consideration. Therefore, instead of acting based on the smallest common denominator, it might be useful to turn the diversity of views, goals and potentials into an advantage by allowing multiple individual, i.e., bilateral initiatives under a broader multilateral framework according to the relative weight of the individual party’s preferences.
These actions must be coordinated. In particular against the light of the recent South Korean initiative to establish itself as a balancing power in the region, this could be one way to execute this policy. A coordinator is more active than a mediator, and has the chance to introduce his own policies. South Korea would be a good coordinator in the sense that (1) its interest in a resolution of the North Korean issue is recognized as legitimate, (2) there are no fears that South Korea would use the issue to elevate its own status to that of dominance in the region, (3) the ROK is economically strong enough to create its own input into the process. A close cooperation with the EU appears highly reasonable, since Europe shares with Seoul such important goals as a peaceful solution and the readiness to change the status quo.
Read it on your own.
(Hat tip to the reader who kindly gave me the head’s up)
81 Comments
“Neorealism regards states as power-maximizers in an anarchic world.” Inflated pomposity like that make me glad I decided not to become a university professor. Anyway, sure S.K. would benefit from closer ties with the EU and China (while watching its back on that one) but in what way can it “coordinate” or “balance” anything? It has minimal influence in the region, and just as much of an agenda as China or Japan. The one role it can play, that of N.K.’s “conscience,” bringing to world attention the oppression of people its Constitution says are its citzens as well, it totally abdicates from.
The argument that Korea could become an effective coordinator to resolve the issue with North Korea has merit and I agree with his premise that South Korea has an interest in seeing the issue peacefully resolved. I also agree that South Korea is arguably affluent enough to be able to put forth its own ideas but I have serious doubts about South Korea?€™s ability to refrain from using its role as coordinator to raise its own status. I see how the Roh administration has handled the Tokdo issue and cannot help but come to that conclusion. There is a fundamental conflict that is not addressed here: what future of the Korean peninsula that South Korea is committed to? If it is peaceful coexistence with North Korea leading to strengthened economic ties that is one thing but if it is a reunified single democratic and capitalistic Korean nation I see that as being in direct conflict with the neutral role that the coordinator nation would have to play. I do not see that South Korea has any sort of benefit to offer that will make China, Japan, Russia and the US want to cooperate. At this point, South Korea is having a hard time keeping its diplomatic relations with Japan civil, how can they possibly lead other countries like the US, China and Russia. What?€™s more, what is there that will make North Korea want to work with South Korea in this type of role? I like the idea of a much looser framework but think that China, not South Korea is in the best position to play the role of coordinator. Not only does China have relatively good relations with both North and South Korea but it also has significantly growing economic ties to both countries and from a political point of view has much to gain from effectively coordinating as solution to the issue with North Korea. Just think, if they could get North Korea to walk away from nuclear weapons, maybe Hu Jintao might nominated for the Nobel Peace prize.
James basically hit it–S.K.’s lacking ability to be neutral (or even rational sometimes) on regional issues. Also, it keeps insisting, for reasons we all understand, that it wants “peaceful coexistence with North Korea,” but that’s impossible when your dance partner keeps stepping on your foot. As for Hu getting a Nobel: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05.....hina.html? He should do a little hard time in one of China’s work prisons first, then maybe….
Actually, the ROK’s close trading ties with China and Japan, and its position as the world’s 10th largest economy, argues that Korea could play some role as a balancer precisely for the reasons that professor Frank outlines. Lets just take trade for starters: South Korea is the world’s #5 importer of copper, lead, zinc, tin, nickel, and aluminum. It is the 9th largest producer of synthetic rubber, and the 7th largest importer of natural and synthetic rubber. It likewise ranks 7th in raw wook, and is a major producer of synthetic materials. Much of this is imported into the ROK, and re-exported several months later as either finished products, or major product components to China, Vietnam, or other Asian countries for assembly into larger components to be re-exported elsewhere for further assembly or sale. Whatever the faults of the current ROK government, it merits a respected voice in regional, and some international, affairs. Qualifying it a “minimal voice” in regional affairs is contradicted by the evidence.
While Korea?€™s ascension up the list of economies of the world is admirable, that alone is not qualification to effectively fill the role of regional coordinator dealing with the NK issue proposed here. You seem to argue that the scale with which South Korea imports certain raw materials somehow entitles them to this role and that doesn?€™t make sense. Certainly, excluding Russia, any of the other nations have larger economies and by default either import more products, finished or raw, or export more than South Korea. I am not saying that South Korea does not deserve a voice in the solution. Rather, I am saying that they have so far shown themselves incapable on a regional level. Remember, this is a country that has sought to take legal action against the Olympic committee as a result of an outcome they didn?€™t feel was fair. This is the same country that had to pay KJI to meet with their leader presumable because he couldn?€™t get KJI to meet otherwise. Tokdo? Need I remind you of how that has been handled? One need not look beyond this forum to find other examples that demonstrate that while the economy of South Korea is significant, its leadership is incapable of any sort of regional leadership, much less statesmanship that would be required for such a project. The Chinese are not really trustworthy but I think they are the best choice at this point in time. The US flip-flops between declaring NK part of the axis of evil and proclaiming that the US recognizes their sovereignty. Japan has yet to deal with its past aggression in a way that would make the region comfortable with any sort of Japanese brokerage and Russia does not have very strong footing on any level to fill that role. I am not a fan of China but I believe realistically they are best suited to fill the role as it is outlined here.
Roh’s motivation behind his desire to be a “balancer” has little to do with practicality or “goals for a peaceful solution” and everything to do with image.
He wants to ease the guilt he feels for kowtowing to America after promising he wouldn’t. Also he wants to lessen the collective guilt South Koreans carry for relying so much on outside (imperialistic, capitalistic) help in their side’s origins and development. Especially in contrast with the juchetastic North.
I am tempted to agree with Lierlou’s comments, but “raw wook”? wood? wool? wooj? I’m guessing wool, since k and l are adjacent on the keyboard?
“raw wookie?”
If there can be no forgiveness for inevitable typos then we are all doomed. It would help immensely, M, if there was an “edit” function on this blog to provide a last chance for corrections before “submit comment”.
The columns of Mark Steyn on the ineffectual posturing of most of the “non-Anglosphere” West provide the best possible antidote to this type of EU “pomposity” as Michael so aptly described it.
“A close cooperation with the EU appears highly reasonable, since Europe shares with Seoul such important goals as a peaceful solution and the readiness to change the status quo.”
Ah yes, the EU is ready to dispatch whatever number of college professors, bureaucrats, and politicians are needed, to bestride the squabbling nations of Asia like a colossus and bring enlightenment like so many Louis XIV’s. With the American military playing the role of the royal French Army and Navy of course.
But who knows, perhaps even the French fleet might find time for a port call or two in the troubled waters. Especially if there are any lucrative contracts in the offing.
Whatever you do though, don’t even think of asking “them boys” in the EU for a military commitment that actually involves a substantial amount of resources to accompany the advice. We sophisticates understand implicitly not to raise such a distasteful subject, but if some rube were actually rudely inquire along those lines an elderly EU type might have a heart attack.
When I get through wiping the tears of laughter from my eyes, perhaps I’ll get around to going back and actually reading the rest of the wisdom Herr Doktor is pleased to share with us.
For now, though, I immediately recommend that Secy Rice scrounge around in the petty cash of her State Dept budget and come up with the funding for a 6 month sabbatical for the professor at the University of Pyongyang, followed by 6 months at the University of Seoul (or maybe the reverse order would be better?) Maybe he’ll find an opportunity to present his theories to the ruling elites in both capitals; I’m sure they’d be interested.
If their combined solution as a result is to get together under Chinese/EU tutelage while sending the Americans packing, it might just turn out to be the best commitment of funds by the State Dept ever.
“He wants to ease the guilt he feels for kowtowing to America after promising he wouldn?€™t. ”
nah, your using too much black-n-white logic.
” One need not look beyond this forum to find other examples that demonstrate that while the economy of South Korea is significant, its leadership is incapable of any sort of regional leadership, much less statesmanship that would be required for such a project. ”
true, however, that is why sk needs to work on that. refusing some kind of international leadership project because they are unexperienced, unseaseoned and incompetant is not really an acceptable reason to critic this project.
Dr Frank predicates this on South Korea solving the reunification problem, which makes sense long term as a population of 70+ million would give Seoul more ballast.
But my problems with that start with doubts about Seoul’s desire for unification. As many point out in these blogs, current policy in South Korea, both Sunshine and Peace and Prosperity versions, appear designed to postpone the trauma of unification as long as possible. This approach is not without merit, but runs the risk of being ever more coopted by North Korea as a way to survibve in its current form, even into a third generation of the Kim dynasty.
Secondly, when unification happens, it will be costly to South Korea in terms of cash and policy-making energy. I don’t see how a habitually inward-looking country like Korea can pull it off, even if it can overcome a strong penchant for frequent national tantrums (anti-U.S., anti-Japan….) that engulf the media, the public and the political class.
Then we come to the actual capacity of Seoul governments, especially those going forward as the 3-8-6 generation replaces elders who have a more realistic world view and actual experience building their country. Uri may be an aberration here, but its performance does not inspire confidence. If South Koreans themselves increasingly don’t want to place their fate in the hands of people like Roh and his possible successors, why would any outsiders?
James wrote:
If there can be no forgiveness for inevitable typos then we are all doomed. It would help immensely, M, if there was an ?€œedit?€? function on this blog to provide a last chance for corrections before ?€œsubmit comment?€?.
Hey, I make typos too. If I want to disagree with something someone writes, I will argue the points, and not pettily pick on typos. For some reason, “raw wook” just stuck with me. I agree an “edit” or “preview” function would have its merits.
Slim brings up a key point here: it is not clear what South Korea, let alone the other participating countries in the 6 party talks have in mind for the future of the Korean peninsula. Is the goal to officially recognize North Korea and try to socialize (and indefinitely put off if not give up on reunification) or is it to reunify the Korean peninsula as one country that is reasonably democratic and free? I have not seen anyone address this clearly and I believe all other arguments about the future of the peninsula are somewhat irrelevant with this question unanswered. I agree with Slim, the actions of South Korea indicate that it is interested in reunification in theory but not in a hurry (less than committed) to make it happen anytime soon. The US is so contradictory on the issue it would be futile to ponder what their goal might be. China has much to potentially gain from a unified Korea but I think they only want it to happen under certain circumstances. I would imagine they certainly are NOT interested in having the 40,000 or so US troops in South Korea on their border.
As for South Korea being inexperienced and unseasoned on the world political stage, you are correct; I would not use that to justify preventing them from participating. Just for the record, I have never advocated South Korea being excluded from any political discussion. They are incapable, however, of effective statesmanship and I am arguing that South Korea is not the smart choice to make for a country to fill the role of the regional coordinator to solve the issues with North Korea. Let me liken this to a mechanic-would you trust your Porsche or even your old VW to a mechanic that can?€™t even fix a bicycle? That is what putting them in charge of this kind of project would be like. The current administration does not have the leadership skills to take the idea and do anything meaningful with it or else it probably already would have. Certainly Bush does not. I think Paul has the most productive idea for Condi?€™s time. As for the argument that South Korea should still be allowed to take on this role because of the scale of their economy I would like to put things in perspective. There are a number of corporations and organizations in the world that have economies of scale larger than some countries. The argument that South Korea should take on this role because of their trade volume could also be used to argue that a few of these large and economically powerful organizations could come together and collectively have a larger economy and trade more than South Korea and so they should be placed in the role of regional coordinator. It is just not a logical argument.
I don’t see how any of the countries with interests in Northeast Asia can participate if we hold them to the outrageous standards people are proposing.
Dokdo? A bit unsightly, but certainly democratic. Roh has been a bit emotional about it, but I don’t see it as any less statesmanlike or more irresponsible than labeling an “Axis of Evil.” or referring to vital allies as “Old Europe”.
South Koreans are too internally focused? How many Americans can even find their own humonguous country on the globe?
There is not a “clean” player anywhere. Everyone is conflicted in their interests. Why does SK want a more independent, forceful role in regional affairs? Let’s see. Where were the initial battles for East Asian suzerainty fought in the last 150 years? If Korean states are not strong economically, diplomatically and militarily, what does history teach us will happen? It’s pretty simple — foreign dominance or at least dependance.
This is good…A lot of “South Korea”. I believe the only way to peacefully solve the North/South problem is to keep calling South Koreans, “South Koreans”. Never call them “Koreans”, always call them “South Koreans”. This will solve the problem within two years - Guaranteed!
South Korean, South Korean, South Korean..this is the peaceful solution.
‘koreans are incapable…’
uh-huh, how many times have i heard that one?
‘koreans can’t make ships….’
‘koreans can’t host international events….’
‘koreans can’t build cars….’
‘koreans can’t export their cultural products…’
blah, blah, blah….
‘we don’t know what sk wants with regards to the north…’
well, yes, we do; they want reconciliation and then gradual and measured reunification. that’s no secret.
‘why should korea lead here?’
because it’s about korea.
hey listen, many of you who think you’re experts on korea always seem to get it wrong. haven’t you noticed that? koreans can do anything they put their minds to and the proof for that is the last 50 years of your failed predictions.
good day.
H T wrote: This is good?€?A lot of ?€œSouth Korea?€?. I believe the only way to peacefully solve the North/South problem is to keep calling South Koreans, ?€œSouth Koreans?€?. Never call them ?€œKoreans?€?, always call them ?€œSouth Koreans?€?. This will solve the problem within two years - Guaranteed!
South Korean, South Korean, South Korean..this is the peaceful solution.
You’ve been making this point on a couple of different threads…yes, it’s accurate to refer to SK and NK as SK and NK respectively, but could you elaborate?
noolji
?€?koreans can?€™t make ships?€?.?€™
?€?koreans can?€™t host international events?€?.?€™
?€?koreans can?€™t build cars?€?.?€™
?€?koreans can?€™t export their cultural products?€??€™
korea makes ships with stealing mitsubishi heavy indurty, how many mitsubishi guys have been paid while they were treated betraial to japanese.
korea hosts world-cup in ‘02 by briberying fifa officials, and thanks to mr. jung
korea builds cars using mitsubishi auto engine for export or copying nissan
korea exports its cultural products like yeon sama..
having said that i am certain every ordinary korean worked so hard to materialize those. well, no we dont need any credit for them. just be nice to us, japs.
corrections
“korea makes ships with stealing technology from mitsubishi heavy industry. how many mitsubishi guys have been paid for providing technology seacrets while they were treated as betrayers to japanese”
Umm.. mae what exactly is your point? Everything Korea has accomplished was the result of stealing and bribery? While you do raise valid points the means that you present them is unfair. Many countries during their underdeveloped years go to great lenghts to learn technology. (Yes they even steal ‘em when they can.) Also corruptions are quite rampant during those years. Of course this is not right. But this is a pretty universal picture of developing countries. Yes, Japan also went through the same stage and did pretty much similar things, Japan just graduated a lot earlier. Yes Koreans should give credit where credit is due, I totally agree with that. (As a matter of fact so should the Japanese).
juan
my point is just childishly make fun of noolji.
rok has achieved so much particularly in terms of economy, but naturally not by itself, with the us, japan, and even china recently.
anyway they need to work closely with their friends and allies to achieve their goals. cant do it alone even for nk issue.
There is little possibility of the European Union having much influence in East Asia. Believing EU can do so without possession of hard power in Asia is wishful thinking. While western European states can exercise their influence over central and eastern European countries, outside the EU they have little influence. For supporters of rapprochement regarding the Iranian nuclear problem, the EU is gaining legitimacy in the short-run because they’re pursuing a path that is attractive to the heavily anti-war/dovish population in developed countries. However, that won’t last long. What progress has there been? When it comes down to it, the EU has little ability to punish any actor on the international stage for breaking rules or misbehaving. Case in point, “NATO” forces in the Balkans, which were mostly American soldiers, American airmen, and American-made precision-guided munitions. The French had to beg the Clinton administration to bypass the UN Security Council and act, because Europe was unable to provide sufficient military power to deal with a regional contingency.
This isn’t to say America has more legitimacy than the EU. Unfortunately, America enjoys little legitimacy nowadays. However, America has the ability to offer a combination of economic opportunities and a military shield, both of which many Asian countries desire.
That said, any avenue of EU assistance with South Korea in aiding South Korea’s positioning is as good as false hope. Also, while most Asian governments are remaining mum about the EU’s efforts to lift the arms embargo on China, the EU should remember that a slew of Asian countries still have border and territorial disputes with China. They include India, Vietnam, Indonesia, Malaysia, and the Philippines. In the past, aside from India, the Chinese have used their navy to intimidate these countries. The EU’s assistance in arming China won’t help the EU’s veiled and preliminary attempt at power politics in Asia.
As for South Korea’s “balancer” act, it should be questioned whether South Korea has much legitimacy and influence in South East Asia and South Asia. Compared to China and Japan, it has little. Should there brew a conflict between China and Japan, I find it difficult to believe whether any Asian country would rally behind South Korea.
South Korea certainly has an impressively large economy. However, aside from East Timor, when was the last time South Korea really devoted itself to aiding developing countries in the region, which dominate the region? The scale of South Korean assistance and benevolent behavior in Asia is dwarfed many many folds by Japanese Official Development Assistance and related programs. South Korea’s foreign aid has been appallingly small. When they enter developing countries to do business, South Koreans easily garner negative reputation. For instance, South Koreans in particular are notorious in the Mekong region, such as Vietnam, for physical abuse of local employees.
Most importantly, South Korea can’t be a balancer because it is a democracy whose foreign policy decisions often sway with the wind of nationalism, often sacrificing pragmatism. It would be nearly impossible to see the South Korean government, at least under left-wing rule, exercise pragmatism in lieu of thinking with their hearts. For instance, consistent growth in rapport with Japan has been impossible. Japan is also at fault. However, as was the case recently, the South Korean Blue House and foreign ministry reacted to an act committed by the Shimane Prefecture. Preliminary South Korean reaction should have been at a more local level. However, nationalist sensitivites, which isn’t necessarily a negative trait, blew a prefecture’s actions out of proportion at a very early stage. In turn, anti-Japanese sentiments spread to Chinese streets. Certainly, this cannot be viewed as responsible behavior by a country that is trying to balance and prevent conflicts in the region.
Discarding nationalist fervor is a pre-requisite for anyone trying to mediate and balance between potentially hostile states. I find it difficult to imagine South Koreans taming their nationalism for anything. One cannot intentionally tame nationalism in the first place and expect it to last.
Most of all, Frank’s essay is flawed in that he fails to mention that South Korean foreign policy under a right-wing administration may turn out to be quite contrasting. This “balancer” policy may be one of the numerous wrongs that the Grand National Party will be looking to set straight should they step into office. 2007 certainly looks like a possibility.
I went off tangent. Please ignore the last paragraph in my comment above.
Mingi, who’s the statesman in your gravatar?
Curious, he is Rear Admiral Alfred Thayer Mahan. This should give you a good background on Mahan, whom I admire greatly.
Curious, that link doesn’t work. Please go here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Mahan
I am skeptical of EU’s chances of success in NE Asia as well, since so many of the international relationships in that region are so deeply rooted in longstanding historical precedent. China, Korea, and Japan have coexisted for millennia, while even the latecomersthe States and Russiahave been there since the mid 19th century. (Well, okay, there’s the former European presence in Hong Kong, Macau, Shanghai, and Tsingtao (home of good beer, by the way!), but that’s dwindled from a significant influence early in the last century to nothing today.) Certainly, France, the UK, the Netherlands, and Portugal did enjoy some limited interaction with Korea and Japan until the late 19th century, but they haven’t been major players in the region at any time since then.
Re Mahan, I am a fan of great former naval strategists as well, going all the way back to the ancient Mediterranean (none of whose names I can recall now). They are in a class all their own. It’s hard to believe the concept of “sea power” was such a novelty when he published his work!
Curious, I think one of the things that makes East Asia quite interesting is that the idea of “sea power,” which seems outdated elsewhere, is still essential and the recent naval buildup in the region is like no other happening in the world. For sea power enthusiasts, I’d say East Asia is certainly worth watching.
Noolji:
You are right that Koreans have always proven Western conventional thought wrong in the field of economics. However, Economics and effective statesmanship are two entirely different concepts.
Economic development is aided by nationalist spirit
Diplomacy is hindered by nationalism.
Cases-in-point: French Revolutionary Wars, WWI, WWII, Koguryo, Dokdo, China-Japan, etc.
Not only is SK particularly nationalistic itself, but the unique structure of its poltical system makes the government particularly sensitive to popular pressure and civil movements.
While sheer nationalist willpower has made Korea economically strong, it cannot be channeled into responsible statesmanship.
Mingi, your last comment is very interesting. I follow the stories of boundary disputes between various navies (especially between SK and NK), but I really had no idea there’s a major naval buildup afoot there.
Curious,you should obviously visit the Marmot’s Hole for news about the Korean peninsula, but please visit my blog (http://asiansecurity.blog-city.com) if you want to read about naval developments in Asia. I mention it here and there.
John wrote:
Not only is SK particularly nationalistic itself, but the unique structure of its poltical system makes the government particularly sensitive to popular pressure and civil movements.
I would agree that the government tends to be sensitive to popular pressure and civil movements, but what in Korea’s “unique structure of its political system” makes it that way?
How would you go about changing it?
Wow, you’ve got a lot of stuff there. I’ll keep an eye on it.
And I would say, so do you, Kushibo (I was replying to Mingi), but Blogger is down right now.
I must apologize for failing proofreading. Yes, raw wool. However I did enjoy Rhesus’ raw wookie in training gravatar. Maybe that’s a young Chewbacca. More seriously, my point is that Korea should not be simply written off just because many of us know its warts. When it comes to statesmanship and international prestige, where was the United States in 1904-5 when T.R. offered to broker peace between Japan and Russia? We were on the cusp, but not yet recognized as a real contender in world affairs. (Bloody colonials, somewhat ambitious, heh? Hell, even the Argentines enjoyed a higher standard of living in those days). Reference Korea’s alleged theft of technology. The Economist ranked Korea #6 on its innovation index in 2003. Korea also ranked #5 (along with Switzerland and the U.S.) in terms of the amount of its GDP that it expended on research and development. In 1999, it ranked third worldwide in the number of patents granted to its residents (but was somewhere below #20 in the number of patents in force per 100K inhabitants). These statistics (from the 2003 “World in Figures” published by the Economist) suggest that Korea does more than copy others. For those of us who either reside in Korea, or study it on a daily basis, we need to remember that it is a moving train. Whatever it was 50 years ago, it is not at present. As the innovation indicators suggest, that train continues to barrel forward. As Paul pointed out, (I paraphrase) economic indicators are not necessarily a measure of capabilities in statesmanship. I agree. And some of these posts cite cogent reasons why Korea may not be up to the task. Yet others have cited valid reasons why they may. Korea does, after all, have a proverbial “dog in this fight”, and as a regional political power with world economic status, they might just be acceptable in a “balancer” role to the major powers.
Ah, Mingi, I love your gravatar. I’ll have to see if there is one for Bigeard or Capitaine Cazeaux
Those stats are impressive. I’d be the first to give South Korea credit where is credit is due, but even I had no idea it was doing that well by international standards (especially its R D ranking), especially coming from a source such as The Economist.
I recall that during the 1997 crisis, quite often in the media South Korea would be described thus: “South Korea, which was the 13th largest economy….” The thing is, they never really fell below their pre-1997 ranking, and even appear to have gone up a notch or two since then.
Regarding the gravatar, I concur. I’m going to have to searching for a suitable historical personage as well now.
Lirelou, I really don’t get your argument. Even on your terms, Japan should be the regional “balancer” because it ranks higher than Korea. I think I know what you’re getting at, but Roh just pulled that “balancer” line out of his ass and it represents his inchoate desire to be independent from the U.S. without actually having to work at it. The consideration it’s getting here is unwarranted.
Perhaps I should clarify myself; when I argue that SK is incapable I am of course referring to the political leadership of the country and not to the people. Yes, South Koreans (the people) have much to proud of in terms of the growth they have enjoyed over the past 50 years. That said, Mingi brings up and excellent point in that there are issues that people that work for Korean companies have to deal with. Globally, there seems to be a four tier structure to the preference that most people have for who they work for. On the top are the Americans and Europeans. Below them are the local companies with the Japanese companies coming in on the third tier. The last tier is occupied by the Korean companies due to, among other reasons, the way they are treated by the Korean managers. In the US and Canada there are lawyers that focus on Korean companies because there are so many opportunities for law suits as a result of the expat managers not understanding or caring to understand the basic rules much less follow them. That is my argument-it is not that Koreans do not have a legitimate interest nor is it that Koreans do not work hard to achieve goals they set but rather that there is no effective leadership that I have seen yet. One could argue that this lack of leadership has haunted SK since the end of WW2. Up to this point in the history of the ROK, they have not had anyone that I would characterize as a great leader, much less a statesman and for SK to take on the role of balancer, that is what they need. There are those that hope Park Geun Hye will be elected and perhaps she will. If she has the leadership skills and statesman ship that would be great but I am not going to hold my breath.
Michael,
The presumption is that, in the region, Japan and China, and possibly Russia, will butt heads. How can Japan be the balancer in that? If you assume the US will be one of the head-butters, and Japan is not, then maybe Japan is a candidate, but that puts Japan in the same boat as Korea, and Korea has fewer bones to pick with China, the US, or even Russia.
Well, that’s an arugment anyways.
True, the 2 critical wars that established Japan’s prominence on the world stagethe Sino-Japanese war of 1895 and the Russo-Japanese war of 1905were both fought on the key issue of control of the Korean Peninsula. And of course, Korea became the site of the first Cold War proxy war. For better or worse, history has repeatedly placed Korea in the centre of international events.
Thank you mae for the clarification
Yes, some people do bring out the worst in us… 
Mr. Troll, what country in the world plays a “balancing” role in its region? What the hell does that even mean? That was my point–the stuff about Japan was in response to Lirelou, not my endorsement of it balancing anything.
Curious,
You are right. Korea is always in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Let’s just hope Rho and his gang can keep Korea out of destruction.
For those who accuse Korea of stealing technology, “Sue Mi”(you have to be around this blog for a while to find out what or who this means).
Michael, I suspect that “balancing” act here means some sorta mediating role, and if you assume that the main confrontation in the region is/will be between Japan and China (and maybe Russia), then Korea can conceivably play some such role, as she occupies a geographically pivotal location. Whether that’s a likely scenario or not, or Roh meant something more/else by “balancing,” I don’t know. Btw, I don’t mean to put words in Lirelou’s mouth (or is that keyboard) - just writing what I think Lirelou was getting at.
From Michael:
and it?€™s only a geographically pivotal location to Koreans, frankly.
The Sino-Japanese War, the Russo-Japanese War, the Pacific War, perhaps even the Korean War. Even going back to the Imjin Waeran (Hideyoshi Invasion), Korea has been a pivotal geographic spot for conquest one direction or the other, not just to Koreans but to its neighbors as well.
…Not to mention the failed attempt by the Mongols to conquer Japan, which was launched from Korea….
Mr. Troll, it seems like Korea is not up to playing any sort of mediating role (about what issues anyway? trade disputes? the Kuril Islands? Taiwan?) and it’s only a geographically pivotal location to Koreans, frankly. And I’m with you on not knowing what Roh meant by “balancing”–he seems unable to balance much without dropping the ball.
Dinky little NK MAY have built a few abombs, and they call up 6-party talk, 3 of which are permanent UN security council members, 2 of which are the world’s No. 1 and 2 economies. Is that pivotal enough for you?
Korea is the 10th largest economy? You’re forgetting that it is an economy in rapid retreat and that it keeps shooting itself in the foot. Yes, we developed a shipbuilding industry and other manufacturing industries, but manufacturing is the technology of the 19th century and we lack the know-how to enter the 21st century as a global player. Park Chung Hee is gone and we unfortunately have fallen into something worse than mediocracy - regressive thinking. An obsession with history and the inability to rise above grudges, isolationism, fear and misunderstanding of the outside world, rabid nationalism (also a 19th century trend). The balancer role is truly hilarious. We can’t even mediate between our own regionalist polititians, eliminate social injustice, uproot corruption, ensure transparency, or innovate technologically. Our influence is dwindling along with our economy. It’s a house of cards.
One assessment of the writer was on the mark, however:
“Seoul would be well advised to prevent a setting in which Washington has to rely solely on Tokyo to remain involved in East Asian affairs. Expecting a lasting solution without consent of the U.S. would be naive; a redefinition of the Korean-American alliance has to be preferred over a break of this relationship. The latter would not only be very costly in the short run; in the long run, it would only shift dependency from one strong partner to another.”
Alienating the benefactor of our economic miracle…like I said - we love to shoot ourselves in the foot.
Like rats on a sinking ship we are scrambling to give up citizenship to avoid defending our nation. What does that tell you about the emotional and moral balance of our people? And we have the gaul to presume to be a balancer of the region? How immature…
And I’m…logged in? Hmm, Marmot, have you imposed a login policy without letting us know? Looks like I’m the first logged in poster, too. Now, on to what I was going to write….
Mizarv, absolutely no offense, but are you really Korean? It’s not that I’m surprised to read such critical views from a Korean, but some of your opinions seem to be harsher than even some of the non-Korean critics on this blog. Don’t mind me: you are entitled to your views and you argue your points well, but I’m just wondering….
Curious — I’m about to post why I’ve chosen to impose a login policy. Sorry about that.
No problem. I had a feeling something like this was coming, for reasons that you’ve mentioned in various places.
apologies for the bold text.
Mizarv wrote: “And you should surely know by now that Koreans are capable of extremely critical views. What you probably mean to say is that Korean criticism tends to run in one direction - anti-foreign, anti-glaobal, mindlessly pro-Korean race, and herein lies the disconnect you sense.”
No, that’s not what I meant at all! Yes, there is a certain strain of thought that tends in some of those directions, but it is one view among many, and certainly doesn’t fully represent the nuances, complexity, and diversity of views and opinions among Koreans. And yours is certainly not the only critical Korean voice. I really just meant that you sometimes come across as being rather too critical.
That said, however, your contributions should help to shatter any stereotypes some people do have of how Koreans think, thus fostering the “disconnect” you mentioned.
if you have made a close acquaintance with a korean, you may have found out that koreans tend to be pretty harsh critic of korean people, but normally it’s considered ugly form to share such criticism with non-koreans (or at least with people you don’t consider close friends) - keem’em in the family and sort out the problems internally, so to speak.
on the other hand:
mizar5, you are thinking too much and may be over-compensating.
Well, even just reading, for example, the Op/Ed pieces in some of the more conservative online Korean newspapers will indicate that for Koreansas for any other nationalitythere is not a single, monolithic point of view on issues.
For those who have doubts about Korea’s position in the world, consider the following from the English Chosun:
“The American Chamber of Commerce in Korea (AMCHAM) advised the U.S. government on Thursday to consider Korea’s inclusion in the G7 club of leading industrialized nations given its strength and geopolitical position.”
The full story is here: http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....30011.html
troll wrote:
if you have made a close acquaintance with a korean, you may have found out that koreans tend to be pretty harsh critic of korean people, but normally it?€™s considered ugly form to share such criticism with non-koreans (or at least with people you don?€™t consider close friends) - keem?€™em in the family and sort out the problems internally, so to speak.
That has been my experience so many times it’s not funny. Airing dirty laundry and all that.
This is why I loathe Arirang so much.
I really just meant that you sometimes come across as being rather too critical.
Thanks for the criticism, Curious. I do not reject it. I probably do come across that way. But I am not really. I am only attempting to strike a balance by countering something that is recklessly askew.
mizar5, you are thinking too much and may be over-compensating.
Thanks for the advice, trol. I’m probably overthinking but I’m not sure whether I’m overcompensating or not, but since that’s a rather general statement, there may well be some truth in it.
mizar5,
indisciminate “compensation” doesn’t do much to balance things. knocking what south koreans managed economically from the ravages of the korean war doesn’t balance other shortcomings of korea and her people - it only insults the people who put in the hardwork so that she is now able to at least feed her people. credit where credit is due, including koreans, and the same goes for this “compensating” - direct it where it’s warranted.
no advice, just an opinion.
cheers,
much for balancing view points.
should be directed where it’s warranted and not indiscrimately
geeze, i am not even drunk - ignore rubbish at the bottom.
…Although it’s nice to be able to attribute the occasional “rubbish” to a few bottles of soju….
Yes, South Koreans can thank major infusions of capital early on from the US and Japan for kickstarting their economic boom, but without the hard work of Koreans and foresight and incorruptibility of people like Park Chung Hee,* the country might still be in the same bad shape it was in the 1950s.
(That’s not to defend everything that happened under President Park’s dictatorial regime, butas unpopular as it might be to say it these dayshe is a large part of the reason that South Korea became as successful and prosperous as he did.)
…er, “as it did.”
?€?Although it?€™s nice to be able to attribute the occasional ?€œrubbish?€? to a few bottles of soju?€?.
i’m working on it as we speak (i mean type)
i wrote:
knocking what south koreans managed economically from the ravages of the korean war doesn?€™t balance other shortcomings of korea and her people - it only insults the people who put in the hardwork so that she is now able to at least feed her people
then Curious wrote:
Yes, South Koreans can thank major infusions of capital early on from the US and Japan for kickstarting their economic boom…
the insult would extend also to those who helped korea along the way and feel that their efforts have not gone to waste (whether they like the koreans today or not is different issue entirely - screw them
Er, I’m a bit lost now. South Korea’s current economic success is due first and foremost to the hard work of Koreans. Period.
But it is also true that this success was not achieved entirely alone, insofar as the economy was in quite bad shape in the late 50s/early 60s, and needed to be bootstrapped with financial help from outside.
Okay, I think I see what you were getting at. Indiscriminate overcompensation insults not only the Koreans who worked so hard to get where they are today, but also those outside the country who helped it get where it is today?
So quiet on the Marmot’s hole now. What is the sound of one blogger posting? I guess all the expats in Korea are at work right now, it being 10:40 on a weekday morning….
Thank you mizarv for a very illuminating post. Curious, I don’t wish to knock Koreans for their success either, but it does seem that often it is described as having been achieved because “Koreans are the best race to do detail work with their hands,” or “Koreans are the world’s hardest working people,” or “Koreans are the smartest race”, etc. All of which ignores the fact that while Koreans in the south of this peninsula have indeed progress far at a very quick clip, Koreans in the north have performed abysmally. Therefore, I find it ludicrous to success that the performance of South Korea was not jumpstarted and supported to a quite significant extent by others.
Listen up, all you low-life scums, a member of the Best Race speaking here:
Who let the dog in??
I’m merely saying that one can’t have it both ways.
Dogbert, I agree that “no man is an island” (Donne). No country can go it alone. Of course, South Korea has received outside help and investment. So did the countries of western Europe, for example, in the form of the Marshall Plan. Many large economies maintain sizeable foreign debts, as in the case of the US of A (and other countries as well).
I’m not saying that Koreans are specially unique. Some Japanese sometimes say this about themselves, and I find it hard to stomach coming from any nationality. But I will say that, generally, Koreans (and Japanese too, for that matter) are hard workers. There’s certainly no such thing as a 40-hour work week in Korea for business or office people. And witness the gruelling years of preparation for entrance exams students have to go through. (It’s quite possible that many Koreans are working harder than they would like to work, since there isn’t really much choice in the matter….)
Regarding the difference in economic performance between the South and the North, I would have thought it was a question of the management philosophies of the people in charge. Non-market economies lack the incentives to encourage people to do their best or to contribute their talents to society in the best way possible. In the North’s case, economic activity appears to be largely centred on funding the guy in charge, as well as the military. So the economy doesn’t properly harness people’s talents, and a lot of its output is being channelled not into profit and reinvestment, but into non-revenue-generating sectors of the economy.
Mizar5 - excellent post (#54). I look forward to reading your future comments on this blog. Cheers
dogbert wrote:
I?€™m merely saying that one can?€™t have it both ways.
well, that goes without saying. and those that go around yapping “best race” and “smartest race” are clearly drunk or morons, koreans or no. koreans do seem to work pretty hard, though. but i hear the same about japanese and others.
sorry for the sarcasm - it’s obnoxious practice.
mizar5,indisciminate ?€œcompensation?€? doesn?€™t do much to balance things. knocking what south koreans managed economically from the ravages of the korean war doesn?€™t balance other shortcomings of korea and her people - it only insults the people who put in the hardwork so that she is now able to at least feed her people. credit where credit is due, including koreans, and the same goes for this ?€œcompensating?€? - direct it where it?€™s warranted. no advice, just an opinion.
Thanks, trol. And even though I did not take your well-pointed comment as an insult, I don’t really mind insults either. Sometimes they do some good.
The truth be told, non Koreans are constantly kissing our arses in the media. The only remarks we are interested in hearing from outsiders are these: “Korea is a beautiful country. It has a wonderful culture. The people are gracious. The food is delicious. Korea is dynamic.” Considering how many times we have braodcast this, it’s truly a testiment to our insecurity that we never tire of rebroadcasting it. It seems that the foreigners have found and exposed our weakness. It’s too obvious for them to miss and too painful for us to admit. We want to be praised and we bridle at criticism. We start diplomatic wars over this nonsense.
We constantly assure ourselves that “foreigners are interested in our culture.” We emblazen our TV screens with meaningless phrases of self-praise like “Wonderful Korea”. The North may have a personality cult, but we have a racial cult.
Perhaps we don’t really want to improve. It seems we only want to be enabled.
sorry for the sarcasm - it?€™s obnoxious practice.
Direct some of that delicious sarcasm my way if you like, trol. I enjoy it.
dogbert: Thank you mizarv for a very illuminating post. Curious, I don?€™t wish to knock Koreans for their success either, but it does seem that often it is described as having been achieved because ?€œKoreans are the best race to do detail work with their hands,?€? or ?€œKoreans are the world?€™s hardest working people,?€? or ?€œKoreans are the smartest race?€?, etc. All of which ignores the fact that while Koreans in the south of this peninsula have indeed progress far at a very quick clip, Koreans in the north have performed abysmally. Therefore, I find it ludicrous to success that the performance of South Korea was not jumpstarted and supported to a quite significant extent by others.
Yes, and there’s no shame in that. Americans benefited from their openness to world cultures. They got Einstein, Bell and a host of other self-made Americans, people who were proud to become Americans and willing to work for and defend their adopted country. America gave them something to believe in - individual betterment, opportunity, social causes.
America disproved the myths of racial and cultural supremecy by allowing all races and cultures to contribute to its greatness. Those who have to resort to racial supremecy for a sense of self worth are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
America disproved the myths of racial and cultural supremecy by allowing all races and cultures to contribute to its greatness. Those who have to resort to racial supremecy for a sense of self worth are truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
I could not agree more.
Koreans can be harshly critical of their own society, my friends and wife are proof of that. The public chest-beating and boasting comes from lingering shame of colonization and civil war, but at this point, (South) Korea has made very real accomplishments in many areas, so maybe it’s time to chill and promote the reality (like the advances in cloning) and drop the bullshit like “Koreans are more dextrous because they use metal chopsticks” http://oranckay.net/blog/?theDate=20040222 But then maybe this is a hard habit for a country that loves to number and rank everything to break.