Just in case anyone was still in doubt as to South Korea’s position on whether North Korea should be permitted to operate a peaceful nuclear energy program, Unification Minister Chung Dong-young has just made things crystal clear.
“Even before the recent six-party talks, we have said that if North Korea returns to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and allows inspections, it should have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy as a member of the treaty,” said Chung, who also serves as chairman of the National Security Council.
I’d be nonplussed if I didn’t believe non-proliferation to be a joke, and an untenable joke at that.
44 Comments
Nulji, your argument allows a murderer to do his trade because murder happens. Your argument is nonsense. Your argument can be used to justify any sort of terror because its happened elsewhere. North Korea has a long track record of terror sponsorship; of selling nuclear technology to Iran, Pakistan and Libya. This country could care less if a nuke went off in America or anywhere else. Seek therapy.
If comrade Chung DDong young said it then it must be true.
Keep em coming Marmot. I’m with you.
Here’s the thing, Kimbob. I actually agree with Chung in a way. I mean, doesn NK have the “right” to a nuke program? Sure. Owing to its currently non-member status to the NPT, it also has a “right” to a military-use nuclear program as well. But this whole thing was never about “rights” — North Korea’s a sovereign state, so it has a “right” to do whatever the hell it pleases. Heck, even Afghanistan under the Taleban had a right to a peaceful nuke program, and the Afghan power grid is probably just as suited to handle nuclear power as North Korea’s. This is about conflicting national interests and power, namely, what the United States is willing to do (both in terms of carrots in sticks) to prevent North Korea from exercising its “rights,” and how far North Korea believes Washington is willing to go to do it.
North Korea is a sovereign state, but it is certainly not a “normal” sovereign state, so why should it be treated as one? Terrorism, gulags, counterfeiting, arms smuggling, drug production and smuggling, provocative military actions, and contempt for international treaties and law are just some of the reasons North Korea should not be treated as a normal state.
The world has already seen the lack of respect North Korea has for nuclear treaties and agreements, and how easily she can take a peaceful nuclear program and turn it into a non-peaceful one, and that after getting caught trying to secretly develop nuclear weapons.
South Korea seems to want to give North Korea everything it wants in return for what amounts to yet another pledge not to take its peaceful nuclear program and turn it into a non-peaceful one. Well, the US has already been down that dead-end road and does not want to go down it again.
The US wants a tangible commitment by North Korea, not just a pledge, to give up the development of nuclear weapons. The dismantling of its nuclear research reactors could be that tangible commitment. In return, North Korea would get the diplomatic and economic relations and the aid money it wants. If North Korea gets something tangible, then she should give something tangible in return.
Yes, North Korea may have the right to a peaceful nuclear energy program, but the US and others have the right to refuse to normanlize economic and diplomatic relations and to withhold aid and assistance.
South Korea seems to be acting as a proxy negotiator for North Korea. For example, why is the Roh administration arguing for North Korea’s rights under international law while remaining relatively silent on her obligations and her violations?
Kissing Kim Jong-il’s butt does not work. When is South Korean going to learn that?
I don’t like Chung and I don’t like Chung’s tactics (like this kind of grandstanding), but a few days ago, just before the recess, the U.S. side was supposedly saying that North Korea could have a nuclear program as long as it accepted very tight scrutiny. If the “source” is correct, then this ??vital stance?? of the U.S. may not have been so vital a few days ago.
From the article:The source said the United States had proposed this week that North Korea could possess a nuclear program for civilian use if it returned to the NPT, abided by all international rules and obligations and accepted full inspections from the International Atomic Energy Agency.
NK’s version of “peaceful nuclear power” is a heavy water plant not hooked up to the power grid.
Eberstadt was right when he said China and South Korea are NK’s “main backers.”
i understand what you’re saying marmot when you say that as a sovereign state NK does have a “right” to do as it wishes but when a nation has more than once demonstrated that it does not respect international treaties and agreements, esp. in regards to nuclear energy, do they not essentially “lose” some rights, at least in the eyes of the international arena? i mean, legally speaking i suppose they lose nothing, but as far as how other nations are willing to view it, this is an example of a country that hasn’t demonstrated that it can be trusted to adhere to international monitoring standards, etc. and because of their past irresposibility, they have in a sense, lost any “rights” they previously had (as far as other nations are concerned).
or am i not making any sense?
If NK is a sovereign state right to have nuclear energy.. hmm.. if that’s the case, why stop there? NK is also a sovereign state right to have nuclear missiles. Do you see where this logic fails? The problems is, NK can’t be trusted to have any kind of nuclear program.
Kushibo:
I think you’ve got the facts right, but that you’ve missed the point. Hill started out by insisting on complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization across the board.
The NORKS resisted, but didn’t walk; because, in my opinion, another couple of wheels are going to fall of their human ox-cart economy this fall, including, in particular, a significantly failed harvest, and they are desperately going to need aid - at the very least what they can salvage from the international ading and abetting, i.e., humanitarian agencies. If they don’t at least make a show of being cooperative in the talks, donor fatigue will be multiplied by donor suspicion, and they won’t even get much in the way of those slim pickings.
The US for its part couldn’t be seen to walk just because the NORKS have demonstrated once again their complete disinterest and unwillingess to denuclearize, because the other knuckleheads at the table (excepting the Japanese) will put the political onus on the US for the talks’ failure unless the NORKS are seen to do or demand something something preposterous on its face..
So Hill served up the idea of letting the NORKS retain their ostensibly peaceful nuclear programs, subject to strict international supervision designed to ensure beyond any doubt that there is no diversion to military applications. Of course, Hill knew when doing so that this would be a non-starter for the NORKS, but by having first put it on the table he got the US credit for being flexible and put the NORKS on the defensive.
Hence the three week recess, so that the NORKS could marshall a counter-strategy - in which they have now aopparently succeeded in enlisting Chung as their official spokesman.
The problem with their “rights” strategy is that it proves too much. If it’s plausible at all, it justifies not only peaceful weapons programs but military ones as well. Hell, Chung knows this and his boss, Roh - who has previously spoken out about the reasonableness of the NORKS’s development of nukes for security purposes - knows it too.
Now, if the talks do resume, the trick for the US will be not to get the NORKS to agree to an international inspections for any “peaceful” nuke program — that will be a given if the talks recommence as anything more than a formality — but to ensure that the inspection regime is designed to be really robust and in practice in fact is.
In the meantime, of course, no substantial aid or other benefits of any kind should be forthcoming - otherwsie the NORKS will have got what they truly only really wanted simply by showing up for the talks.
This is where the ROKS and the Chinese, especially the South Koreans, are themselves going to have to make strategic choices. Unfortunately for them, the South - if Chung’s rematks are any indication - already have made the wrong one.
North Korea is a sovereign state and naturally should enjoy all the rights of a sovereign state. Therefore it shouldn’t exist as a state at all.
To me what’s annoying about Chung’s comment is not the comment itself, but that it came at a time when the six-party talks were trying to get NK to give up everything nuclear, and when the current round of talks are in a three week recess.
As of this morning the gov’t is trying to quiet the storm over the comment, and the US State Dept says there are no differences between SK and the US on the issue.
Hm.
‘do not respect international treaties.’
you mean like respect for international law? you mean like following the npt? the ‘haves’ of that treaty all have ageed to rid their nations of nuclear weapons yet bush has ordered that more nukes be built not less. the pentagon says it will keeep nukes in it’s arsenal and does not have any current plans to reduce it’s stcokpile. of course, this is the kind of contradiction that folks like you and bush MUST ignore. don’t think the other side doesn’t see the double standard.
‘koreans are nationalistic…’paul h
and you aren’t? you got the red, white, and blue painted all over your writing. i’ll bet you have flag underwear.
Off topic.
Jodi, I think I know why Korean food has never taken off in the west. Few reasons.
1) Korean food has always been Korean way or no way. Look at the Chinese food, how they’ve been modified to suit the taste of Westerners. Korean food is too strange, pungent, garlicky, spicy, and unfamiliar to Western taste buds.
2) Korean restaurants in the West lack service. Their ideal of service is to bring all the side dishes and plop them down on the tables, throw around dishes, forks and chopsticks at customers who are treated like hungry peasants. Waitresses (most of the time grumpy frumpy ajummas in typical gaudy matching uniforms and slippers) don’t smile nor are they friendly. When was the last time a waitress or a waiter come to our table and ask if we need anything, or is the food OK? In Korea all this doesn’t matter. But in the West, people expect friendly service.
3) Go to any Korean restaurant 9 times out of 10, the environment is distastefully decorated (if at all decorated other than ugly looking posters), nor do you get the feeling of cleanliness and class. 9 times out of 10, it feels like a hole in the wall with some old ajumma slaving away cooking up some witch’s brew from the back. In Korea, it’s believed old ajummas make the best tasting food - like mom’s cooking. In the west, that concept just doesn’t fly as it’s believed Chefs with white hats make the best tasting food.
4) Look at the menu of any Korean restaurant in the west, and then laugh your head off on some of the description of the food that the customer who knows nothing about Korean food is about to eat. I mean, who the hell wants to eat “cow tail bone soup”? Anyone care to try “cabbage soup with meat”? And what the hell is “Korean green onion pizza”? Christ, at least try to make the menu sound appetizing.
5) Aesthetics: or lack of in Korean dishes. Look at any popular ethnic dishes like Chinese, Japanese, Thai or whatever. They immediately give you that appeal that if they look good, they must taste good. Even if the food tastes terrible, with aesthetics people are often fooled into believing that they taste good. Korean food? Forget it. It’s mounds of something piled upon each other in 50 cents plastic bowls and dishes. The food maybe delicious but first impressions are very important and many non-Korean non-Asian people are turned off.
6) In a part of the world where food sanitation and food safety are of upmost importance, Korean way of sharing dishes with everyone on the table can be a complete turn off.
7) The problem with Korean food in the west is the problem of Korean attitude of Korean way or no way. All the restaurants when they open, have Koreans as their clientel. All the restaurants are the same, same looking, same dishes, same way of serving people, same myopic way of doing business. Nobody’s bold enough to try something new, have a vision to appeal to non-Korean customers who make up a much bigger potential customer base.
Don’t get me wrong, the potential of Korean food has always been there. But it’s the presentation or the lack of (and stubborness of choosing not to cater to western customers), that will always keep Korean food for Koreans only.
Hey, where is the little trackback thinging around here?
um thanks for your insight kimbob!
but out of respect for the marmot, you can post your comments on my site under the appropriate story. because as much as i like korean food, i lose my appetite when chung is discussed in the same context! :p
Mr. Marmot, sovereignity only goes so far, as you know–after all, you’ve often nodded to realpolitik, and in this case it seems more in S. Korea’s interest to not allow the norks their nuclear fun, because the provision of electricity by the South would allow it a greater say in what goes on up there. But Chung and his fellow potatoheads are undercutting what was beginning to look like one of the few truly practical, winning proposals the South has made to deal with the North in years. And now they’ve bolloxed it. These guys are true amatuers.
I see a great PR opportunity for Wyeth Consumer Healthcare, makers of Chapstick. This guy Chung’s lips have to be seriously chapped from kissing Nork ass as much as he does. During his next speech Wyeth should show up with a gross of Chapstick and get it on film.
But seriously, with the 60th anniversary of the Allies liberating Korea coming up, the complete lack of acknowledgement of said Allied effort, and now this - it’s time to bail. Note to Rummy - Egress!
Speaking of North Korea: Pyongyang has announced an amnesty to mark the 60th anniversary of Kim Ilsung’s liberation of the Korean people.
I guess the salt mines of Aoji are getting backed up.
I always ere on the side of sovereignty. I have NO love for Chung. I have even less for the DPRK. BUT when it comes to sticking to international treaties and the like, I take very few countries at their word.
If they want Nuclear power, let them have it. If they want the weapons, well they just might develop them. I think there are few countries in the region that can actually do something about it.
I really don’t like Chung. I don’t like that he did this because, even if Washington, Seoul, and Tokyo somehow agreed that they would offer peaceful nuclear power under strict supervision, it is dumb of him to tip their hand.
He’s a former broadcaster, and from my experience that means he probably thinks he is the smartest person in the room, even though that’s only sometimes true. He probably thinks he knows what is best, and in his grand scheme, he thinks he is playing to the North, being their buddy BUT also getting stuff for the south, and in the end everyone will think he is a great political genius and overwhelmingly elect him instead of the mayor of A River Runs Through It.
But most people I know don’t trust the guy. He comes off as slimy and manipulative, and people will remember this at the ballot box.
Speaking of the nukes, though, is Chung suggesting that the KEDO project be continued? I mean, is that what he wants Pyongyang to be allowed to operate? Can there be any rhyme and reason to this idea, that they want this half-built plant to be of some use in the future, a future when the ROK will likely be responsible, somehow, for the entire peninsula?
Jodi: “…when a nation has more than once demonstrated that it does not respect international treaties and agreements, esp. in regards to nuclear energy, do they not essentially ??lose?? some rights, at least in the eyes of the international arena?…”
Congrats, you have stumbled upon the “weakness” of so-called “international law”. The argument against NorK possession of nukes has to therefore be essentially a moral, not a “legal” one IMHO.
Though I think I can make a “legal” one. Nulji shrewdly anticipated my potential counterargument though. Well done, Nulji, I say you’re just as good as your pal “W” at “pre-emption”.
If you wanted to make some sort of technical legal argument against NorK possession of nukes, Jodi, you’d have to go to the specific conditions of the Non-Proliferation Treaty of 1968 to which NorK was a signatory until they “renounced” their memberhship a couple years ago. As I understand it, the NPT (unlike many other treaties) has no specific provisions allowing such a “withdrawl”. Once a country signs and ratifies, that’s supposed to be it, period.
(Note: I have only a general knowledge of NPT from reading secondary sources but I suppose the complete text in English must be online somewhere).
If I’m right and “withdrawl” from the NPT is not covered in the text, I’m pretty sure there is no penalty specified for “withdrawl” either. It was an insoluble problem for the negotiators so they just ignored it, one of the many problems routinely encountered in “international” law.
Even if there was a “penalty”, what “court” do you suggest we take North Korea into and who is the “cop” who will enforce the law on North Korea by
“arresting” them? International law has never solved this problem (and probably never will).
Nulji’s point is that under the NPT, the five “recognized” nuclear powers at that time made a general commitment to “work toward” getting rid of all their nukes too. This was something politically necessary at the time as a concession to the non-nuclear powers, who undoubtedly insisted on this provision as a “concession”; the five nuclear powers agreed to it in order to move the treaty process along. However, this provision was vague — no date for final denuclearization, or timeline to get rid of specific amounts of nukes, was specificied.
However I would argue that in the years since the treaty, both the US and the Soviet Union (now Russia) have in fact disassembled substantial numbers of their own nukes, under the various arms reduction treaties concluded between them. (PRC, Britain, anf France haven’t but their total numbers of nukes were extremely small compared to the US and USSR and have remained stable for years, although PRC may now be building more).
Particularly notable to me was the relatively unnoticed announcement by the first President Bush, when he announced his intention (1991?) to unilaterally get rid of a lot of unneeded US nukes (to include, I think, all the US nukes that could be fired out of conventional artillery tubes).
With the result that I believe these are all gone now. Indeed, shortly after this announcement the US withdrew all of its nuclear weapons previously physically present in the ROK.
So my answer to you Nulji is that the US has in fact made considerable progress in lowering the total number of nuclear warheads in its arsenal and therefore is not in violation of the treaty as written. While the DPRK clearly is violating the treaty by “withdrawing” from it.
Nulji’s contention that “Bush has built more nukes” is just plain wrong.
It’s true that there is a proposal currently in the administration to build more effective “bunker buster” type nukes, ones that could be able to more effectively attack deep cave/tunnel facilities of the type favored by Iran and North Korea to protect their own arsenals from US airstrikes. But I think this proposal (still only just that) also includes a “one for one” swapout with current nukes, so that the US total number of nukes will not be increased.
In fact I think the problem is that the current US aircraft delivered tactical nuclear warhead that would have to be used in such a strike (B61 warhead?) is too big (500 KT?). The idea is that a smaller KT warhead, one mounted on some sort of deep penetrator bomb (like the large special conventional penetration bombs developed for GW II) will be more effective and also cause less “collateral damage” and fallout.
I don’t think this would be a violation of NPT, Nulji, in fact I argue that replacing a big nuke with a smaller one is consistent with the general “reduction” goals of NPT as specified for the 5 recognized nuclear powers.
Of course Nulji won’t concede this point. Neither will DPRK, perhaps not even all of the rest of the world, not even our “allies” who ultimately count on the US possession of such weapons as part of their own final line of protection.
Remember the US presidential debates last year? I only saw Kerry really get passionate about something once and that was this particular proposal for nukes. Like Nulji, he chose to portray such a proposal as one of “mad dog Bush panting to get more nukes so he could terrorize the world” (my paraphrase, he didn’t put it like that of course though his tone definitely went up at least one octave).
Nulji’s implication though is that since the US hasn’t gotten rid of all its nukes yet (by now, 2005, 37 years since 1968 is plenty of time according to Sir Nulji), therefore DPRK has a perfect “right” to build their own.
It’s an unanswerable argument if you agree to Nulji’s unstated assumption that the US and the DPRK are legally “equivalent” states. I say they are not morally equivalent (and not even legally equivalent in this particular issue) but of course this comes down to a matter of politics. International law will always lack binding jurisdiction if treaties are only something to be obeyed when they are convenient, standard practice for totalitarian Stalinist states like DPRK.
So say “W and me, red white and blue through and through”. It goes deeper than my underwear layer, Nulji, it’s right down to the bone.
Well done, the Uni-Ministor, Chung Dong Young. Every time you speak up something, or decide something, the peninsulla steers towards a correct way. Do whatever your Korean DNA orders you, as long as you stay in the peninsula.
Please don’t involve Japan into your Korean-style plan….
Chung is thoroughly nukihada. His dumbass statement totally undercuts the leverage of the South’s electricity provision, which would allow the South to control and direct the North’s economy to some degree. I saw that the foreign minister is now in damage control mode, but it’s plain that Chung is derailing the process with his idiocy.
Washington denies rift with Seoul over Chung’s comments. (Bloomberg)
Kushibo — Did you check out State Department deputy spokesperson Adam Ereli fielding question on Chung’s comments? Good grief, someone wanted to make Adam earn his money.
Chung is a former television news commentator/reporter.
He’s a byproduct of the 1980’s democracy movement and the leftist leaning Korean media. This generation grew up protesting the old military governments of Park Chung Hee, Chun Doo Hwan, and Roh Tae Woo. This generation did not trust what was then, the establishment. They also never trusted the US, particularly after the Gwangju massacre which they perceived as the failure of the US to side with the democracy rebellion in Kwangju. They accuse the US of propping up and supporting the military regimes and dictators throughout the decades. This is the same generation of sometime radicals who grew up protesting and fighting with the riot cops. Now they are in power and they want their day in court.
And so the “sometime radicals” side with a military dictatorship and say nothing about the human rights abuse in N. Korea. Hypocrites.
I can’t really honestly accuse they were all radicals (those who fought for ‘democracy’ in the 80’s), that would be broad brushing and unfair. Thus the term ’sometime radicals’. The problem with them is that they grew up during the dictatorship eras and remember the fanatical military government propagandas about North Korea. The military governments did acutally many times exploited the situation with North Korea to stay and abuse their power. Their distrust of military governments lead them to believe that what they have been told about North Korea all their lives, are all lies. They think North Korea isn’t that bad, and that much of bad news about North Korea have been orchestrated by the old remnants of the old era who are passing away.
I’m not going to write the same stuff again, so I’ll try to cut ‘n paste it:
Furthermore, the Foreign Ministry offered a clarification of Seoul’s position which, while still calling for the right of ‘peaceful use,’ stated:
…South Korea’s position is also conditional on North Korea not possessing uranium-enrichment or plutonium-reprocessing facilities and graphite-moderated reactors which experts say produce greater amounts of plutonium, the key material for nuclear bombs.
So South Korea’s position is that North Korea must first give up it’s nuclear weapons program, it’s Pakistani-built uranium enrichment equipment, it’s plutonium-reprocessing facilities, it’s graphite reactors (including Yongbyon and the two larger facilities they are trying to build) the KEDO plants and summit to full IAEA inspections. Unless Pyeongyang has a light-water power plant tucked away somewhere, Seoul’s position is that Plyeongyang must give up every nuclear facility and piece of equipment it has. So when the Foreign Ministry and the State Department say that their positions are not that far apart, I agree.
And this (#27) brings us back to Bruce Cumings, who scrutinized and cast aspersions on everything the U.S. and ROK governments did, while making the North look like they were just misunderstood freedom fighters. These students just ate up his work.
Kimbob I do understand where they would believe the previous S.K. regimes exagerrated the “evilness” of N. Koreans–I’ve heard stories about the propoganda from Koreans around Chung’s age. But today you have a situation in which an unprecedented amount of information on the oppression and human rights abuses is coming out of the North, and the Roh administration does not acknowledge it. In fact, it’s the opposition GNP that’s pushing for a N.K. human rights act like the one the U.S. Congress passed. Maybe they think they should not “demonize” North Koreans like they did in the past–who knows what thay’re thinking? But the actual words and deeds of Roh, Chung and their crew are morally bankrupt when all they do is condone and make apologetics for the North.
The SK government will stand up for NK’s right to a nuclear program but not for NK human rights?????
foreigner, make no mistake about it. Roh’s government reminds me of the 1930’s Chamberlain’s British government who tried to avoid war by appeasing Hitler. It will have an intended opposite effect.
That’s exactly what I’m afraid of, Kimbob–I’m more nervous with Roh in power than I am of Kim Jong Ill.
Roh’s overall approval rating is low. But his foreign policy rating on North Korea is high (the last time I read). Why? South Koreans have a North Korean fatigue. Korea’s the only nation on earth, still stuck on Cold War mode. Many Koreans are tired, they want peace, no matter what the price. Flood of shocking news coming out of North Korea doesn’t faze them anymore because they heard it all before, and are numb with indifference. It’s like you reading news about shocking crime day after day, and pretty nothing shocks you anymore. You become immune, sick of hearing about it, you tune out.
Andy (The Yangban),
This is what Chung said, according to the article:
“Even before the recent six-party talks, we have said that if North Korea returns to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and allows inspections, it should have the right to pursue peaceful nuclear energy as a member of the treaty,???? said Chung, who also serves as chairman of the National Security Council.
Chung mentioned only that North Korea had to return to the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and allow inspections (to satisfy Seoul.) He did not mention anything about North Korea getting rid of its current nuclear reactors, something I consider to be a very big omission.
I believe what happened was that Chung either let slip Seoul’s true feelings on the matter, and the feelings that she is secretly communicating to Pyongyang, or else that Chung disagrees with Seoul’s official position.
And then there is the remarks of Song Min-soon, South Korea’s top negotiator:
“Our position is that North Korea should abandon its nuclear program and then we will adjust differences (with other countries) to pave the way for them to pursue a peaceful nuclear program as a sovereign state.”
Song also did not mention anything about North Korea’s getting rid of her nuclear reactors, but did acknowledge that there are differences of opinion (with other countries; i.e. the US?) over North Korea’s having a peaceful nuclear program.
I think the South Korean Foreign Ministry “clarification” is either evidence that there is a big difference of opinion among South Korea’s ministers in regard to dealing with North Korea or evidence that Seoul is trying to pull the wool back over the eyes of the United States.
Another thing that makes me think that it was not just a simple omission on the part of Chung is that the US State Department spokesman seemed quite touchy and confused when answering questions on the matter, as if he was embarrassed and trying to hide something.
So the Chosun says that some “pundits” think Chung “was sending a message to Pyongyang, as encouragement to return to the talks after the recess because South Korea will try to convince the U.S. on the point (of allowing a “peaceful” nuke program).” So what happened to the electricity provision from the South? Chung’s completely sabotaged the proposal.
Chung was a MBC reporter and anchor. He became a star journalist when he covered the atrocity of the sampoong department store in 1995 (?). The department store collapsed in the middle of a day (thanks to Korean bureaucracy, corruption…) and killed more than 500 Koreans. He did quite an impressive work. He hardly ate and slept but reported the story almost 24/7 for a week. Chung became the most popular TV journalist and also one of the hottest Korean men among the older generation of Korean women. His popularity among the women was almost parallel to singer Rain (??), ???????, or yonsama today! If a journalist achieved star status, his or her next step would be to get in the politics (the same thing happened to ms. ????????? too)
I don???t care for his political crap anyway, but I trust more Mr. Hill than Chung. Honestly, I think that Chung should keep his former job. He was pretty hot back then…
June’s description (#37) sounds like pretty flimsy qualifications for political office. Maybe they should start requiring graduate degrees for people who want to be president.
Thanks June for the background. Chung is a male bimbo, that explains his preening sense of entitlement.
No foreigners killed?
One guy from New Jersey was killed in that one.
Does anyone know how much time Lee Joon actually served of his 7 1/2 year sentence? Was he relased as part of the following Aug. 15 amnesty?
Still OT: Has anyone seen the Discovery Channel program on Sampoong? I keep seeing it advertised but haven’t managed to catch it.
You can’t hide what you use.
The department store collapsed in the middle of a day (thanks to Korean bureaucracy, corruption??) and killed more than 500 Koreans.
Dang? No foreigners killed? Only Koreans?
It was in 1995, and at least on French was killed… Could be other foreigners were there too…
foreigner “I??m more nervous with Roh in power than I am of Kim Jong Ill.” Slight exaggeration maybe? That’s the equivalent of those SK people who say that they fear George Bush more than Kim Jong-Il.
Another amazing thing with the lefties in power now, who fought against Park Chung Hee, and still loath him is that (at least according to Bradley Martin’s book) their best-case sunsgine scenario for the North is that it would morph into a a Park style dictatorship.