Put the terms “Korea” and “foreign relations” together, and what comes to mind? The Korean Peninsula itself, where the Cold War has never ended; oscillating and historically complex relationships with China and Japan; six-party talks; ongoing discussions on the future of the USFK. Northeast Asia is the “hot zone” as far as the two Koreas’ relations with each other and the rest of the world are concerned, but a couple of recent stories about Africa remind us that both South and North have interests far afield.
In the Asia Times Online piece “Seoul cleans up in Africa” (Sept. 6, 2006) Aidan Foster-Carter notes that a little-observed milestone has just been passed, when on August 28th, “Ban Ki-Moon and [Guinea's Foreign Minister] Mamady Conde signed an agreement to establish ambassador-level relations between” South Korea and Guinea:
So what’s the big deal? Conde’s signature closes a chapter in inter-Korean competition, and the Cold War more broadly. For Guinea, which had recognized North Korea way back in 1960, was the last of Africa’s 53 states hitherto to have no relations with South Korea. With this last piece of the jigsaw now in place, Seoul can boast a full house in Africa.
Foster-Carter goes on to chronicle the relative rise and fall in fortunes of South and North Korea respectively in their relations with African nations, with a number of very interesting and relevant historical details. He covers not only Africa, but also South Korea’s relations with Cuba (economic only; Cuba is one of the few countries with which the ROK does not have formal relations), with some more interesting insights and anecdotes. The article is very much worth reading, especially for Foster-Carter’s inimitable combination of humour and deep analysis.
The other article is almost a year old now, but still relevant. (Mr. Foster-Carter mentioned it in another forum, presumably in the course of doing research for the above article.) Frank Agyekum, the Ghanaian Assistant Government Spokesperson on Governance (at least at the time of writing), wrote up a piece for GhanaHomePage entitled “South Korea: A Success Story Worth Emulating” (Oct. 16, 2005). Alas, I am not up to speed on Ghanaian government policy initiatives (actually, I’m out of my depth as far as African politics in general are concerned), but it would appear that Mr. Agyekum was part of a fact-finding mission to see how South Korea industrialized so rapidly, and how the country’s techniques could be applied back home.
Over the years, a number of African countries emulated the North Korean model (although as far as I know, Ghana was not one of them Update: according to this comment, the Ghanaians did in fact experiment with North Korean ideas at one time), much to their ultimate dismay. Here’s why the South Korean example is so critical to development-minded African policymakers:
Ghana’s per capita income at independence in 1957 was equal to that of South Korea and Ghana with its rich and abundant natural resources, efficient civil service and a well structured education system was seen as the more viable economy of the two. South Korea, then coming out of a three-year war with the north and with very little natural resources did not amount to much in the eyes of economists.
Forty years or so on, the two countries tell an entirely different story. South Korea has moved on to become the 13th largest economy in the world. It is second in the world in shipbuilding, and sixth in both steel production and vehicle manufacture.
…
Today the same statistics which held true for both South Korea and much of Africa in the 1950s are still true for Africa, while South Korea as moved on in gigantic leaps and bounds. So what happened to us?
Now, a lot of this article may come across to the cynics among us as the sort of “typical” wide-eyed fascination that foreigners new to Korea have with the place. But the article is written by someone who seems to earnestly want to take what he’s seen and apply it to his own country’s comparatively unhealthy economy. And the article has a couple of free bonuses. Firstly, the author provides a glance at the privations that even members of today’s South Korean elite and intelligentsia had to endure at one time:
South Korea is a relatively young republic and most of those who lived through the hard times of the 1950s and 1960s are now in their 60s and in very important positions.
I met three of them who are all professors in various fields. One of them, now a professor in education told me times were so hard for her family that most times, she drank only water and slept.
“When l was going to primary school, my parents could not afford girls’ school uniform for me so l used to wear that of my elder brother which was already suffering from wear and tear.
“Many people thought l was a boy. They only saw the difference when l had to urinate,” she said.
The other, now a professor in international relations said: “In those days everything was regulated. Even the amount of food one took to school was regulated and you were punished if you brought more than the required amount.
“This was because things were so tough and the government advised that we saved some of what we had for tomorrow.”
Secondly, the comments (click on each comment’s link individually to read it) provide some critiquing, and extra reading for those who want more background and insight into Ghanaian policy matters, especially if the comments can be taken as indicative of the sorts of discussions that no doubt take place in many countries in sub-Saharan Africa.
All in all, a couple of interesting takes on the two Koreas’ (especially South Korea’s) place in the world, in a context that’s refreshingly different from the usual one.
7 Comments
Mr. Agyekum, here’s crib sheet.
Limit population growth. Penalize those who have more than 2 kids. And export your surplus population.
1) Have a repressive regime with a legal system that forbids everything unless the very thin law book says otherwise. And crack skulls frequently.
2) Cultivate “we wuz victimized”. The sacrifices the people will make to rights wrongs are immeasurable.
3) Get your women folk in the factories and keep them there 14 hours a day.
4) Beg, borrow and steal any technology you can get you hands on.
5) School up the kiddies with rote memorization and obedience.
6) Find a deep-pocketed benefactor who will defend you, pour in economic aid, and buy the stuff you manufacture. Even better if the benefactor looks the other way when the warehouses are emptied and the goods enter the black market.
7) Send your troops overseas for big money. But don’t let anyone else go overseas because it’s just a waste of money.
9) On the weekends fly in Japanese engineers to consult on advanced manufacturing processes. Pay them a lot, but have a sex industry in place so that they don’t take all that money back to Japan with them.
10) Place loudspeakers throughout the country to wake everyone up at 5AM. No more of this morning calm nonsense; there’s work to be done.
I am surprised that any African country could consider North Korea as a model for anything except on people control.
seouldout, I thought you were talking about NORTH Korea until I got to No. 9. That’s spot on man.
Re #2 shakuhachi:
Keep in mind that right through the 1960s was richer per-capita in the South; they were well-industrialized and Soviet aid was effective; education, health care and other social-welfare-indicators were better. In most Communist countries (not including Southeast Asia), the first decade was usually pretty good, actually — average standard of living climbed very well, most people lived better than they ever had, and the benefits spread quite fairly. It’s what happens after the first decade or so that gives communism the bad reputation it now has…
to add to sanshinseon’s point - It’s easy to forget that up until the mid-70s, at least, there existed a very real sense, amongst ‘2d World’/non-aligned countries, that it was possible to industrialize and raise standards of living through mutual cooperation, not on the terms set forth by the global financial institutions. N. Korea and Cuba for instance were sending civil engineers and doctors to help develop certain African countries, and N. Korea was also, for a period, in a position to offer interest-free loans to such nations as Ethiopia.
I didn’t get into an analysis of why Ghana’s or South or Korea’s economies have ended up the way they have, but seouldout’s comment reminds us that emulating South Korea might require more than the blandishments of simply starting with export subsitution, moving into heavy industry, etc. In this regard, Mr. Agyekum comes across as having been somewhat naive (though in his defense, I’m sure his hosts conveniently glossed over or omitted inconvenient details like the fact that it took the drive (positive) and coercion (negative) of the Park Chung Hee regime to make the South’s current state of affairs a reality). A couple of his commentors, however, did delve into details like that, and one really needs to read the comments to balance out the original article.
“Soviet aid was effective”
Aye, there’s the rub. Without it, would any of these countries have gotten anywhere in the first place?