Yonsei Professor Moon Chung-in — who is actually a rather cool guy in person — leaps to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s defense following the harsh attack on the Banster by Jacob Heilbrunn in Foreign Policy.
This part, however, is a bit baffling:
Why is Heilbrunn targeting Secretary-General Ban? It is difficult to think of any reason, besides the fact that Heilbrunn is a well-known Jewish neoconservative. During the situation in Gaza last January, Ban was the first foreign leader to visit the scene. While denouncing Israel’s barbaric actions and expressing the position that those responsible needed to be found and punished legally, he requested an immediate unilateral cease-fire from the Israeli government. The world, and Arabs in particular, sent an unprecedented message of praise to the Secretary-General. Ban also visited the U.S. Congress in March and criticized the nation as a “deadbeat donor,” for not having submitted its 1 billion dollars in UN dues. This kind of behavior would be enough to generate objections from a neoconservative like Heilbrunn who regards the benefits of Israel as paramount and argues that the UN is useless.
Jacob Heilbrunn? A Jewish neocon? And a well-known one at that?
This, Professor Moon, is where that newfangled Google thingamajig comes in handy. Sure, he’s a senior editor at National Interest, which has traditionally been linked to the neocons. But he also blogs at the Huffington Post — not exactly Neocon Central — and is perhaps most famous for his book, “They Knew They Were Right: The Rise of the Neocons,” which is a critical analysis of the development of neocon thought. Does his latest column in National Interest sound like a neocon to you?
Oh, and if you haven’t seen it, here’s Mark Leon Goldberg and that Jewish neocon Jacob Heilbrunn debating his Foreign Affairs piece at bloggingheads.tv:
{ 30 comments… read them below or add one }
This post is stupid. Sure, Heilbrunn isn’t strictly a “neocon.” But you and everyone else knows what Moon meant. “Jewish neocon” in this context is redundant. The point Moon is trying to make is that Heilbrunn is a Jew, and it’s a valid one. Appending “neocon” is just a courtesy.
You read Taki’s Mag, so you’re not stupid or deluded enough to think that Moon is that off base here.
I envy Moon. It’s a shame that we don’t have that kind of freedom in the US, where a statement along the lines of what Moon said is liable to get you fired, blacklisted, etc.
Just like the UN Secretary general, Yonsei Professor Moon Chung-in is Korean. And with that comes surrounding yourself by trusted ‘yes’ men, leading closed door meeting where important decisions are made usually after drinking lots of soju, and leading high profile public meetings where lauded celebrities (like Al Gore or Bill Clinton) hold court, all of which eliminates discussion, consensus and intelligent debate. Discussion in Korea is done with fire extinguishers and steel poles.
문교수님 has given further evidence for why you don’t want to get a degree in Korea and why advanced countries should not accept them.
Yes, I suppose it would be valid… if Moon had backed up his point by presenting some evidence that Heilbrunn hates Ban because he considers Israel’s interests paramount other than his last name. Sure, I suppose I could argue Harold Koh wants to apply international law in US courts because he considers Korea’s interests paramount… but it’s not a very valid point if all I point to is Koh’s name.
And appending “neocon” is not a courtesy — it’s an inaccurate description of his politics, a mistake I will generously attribute to Heilbrunn’s position at National Interest.
But, to guys like Prof. Moon, the fact that Heilbrunn is a Jew (is he?) is in and of itself conclusive proof of Heilbrunn’s national consciousness and Volk-before-patria loyalties. As it is for Prof. Moon and his defense of the underwhelming Ban Ki-Moon, and his expectations of Harold Koh — of course Koh should be glad to sell America out. He’s Korean, isn’t he? God willing, Harold’s parents didn’t do their job…
Professor Moon may be a rather cool guy in person, but it seems that the Secretary General is not the only one with an unsteady grasp of English. Evidently he misinterprets Heilbrunn’s opening sentence, suggesting that the UN Sec-Gen is an important post, when in fact he is setting up the rest of his argument that even throughout, the largely undignified leadership of the recent past, the world has kept on spinning, suggesting that the UN is perhaps not quite as important as others seem to think.
But that is beside the point. I will admit that the South Korea, Inc. comment was probably unnecessary, not because it is untrue (unlike Professor Moon, I don’t pretend to have intimate knowledge of the housekeeping duties in the UN offices), but because it is largely irrelevant. Were he, in fact, an effective spokesman for something… anything… I don’t think this would be brought up at all.
However, Ban has proven disappointing, even by the low standards of the position. He was supported BECAUSE he was ineffectual, and by that measure he has succeeded exactly as much as would be expected.
Yes, the role is largely a symbolic one, except when brave leaders actually seek to carve out a position for themselves, as Hammarskjold did. But for Professor Moon to say “There is probably no moral message stronger than the anguished human face Ban has shown at the scenes of grisly tragedies taking place in Gaza, Sichuan, Myanmar and Sri Lanka,” is to reduce the whole argument to farce. Somebody needs to tell Ban that being a leader means doing more than showing up like a beauty queen at a car dealer opening.
Yes, he has certainly made a difference in those places. Except that Gaza is still a mess, Myanmar won’t even show him enough respect to give him a meeting, and Sri Lanka basically laughed at the UN’s litany of human rights positions in defeating the Tamil Tigers. Heck of a job, Ban.
And certainly the Koreans are underrepresented in the UN diplomatic corp, given the long history of successful negotiation that they bring to the table. Oh, and as for that argument that “considering the scale of South Korea’s UN dues, South Koreans actually suffer reverse discrimination” sort of, well, against the whole point of an international body? Certainly Professor Moon isn’t agitating for a UN dominated by American interests, since they are far and away the largest contributor, right?
And finally, the real crux of the argument. “Also, can only people who speak English well become a secretary-general of the UN? This is the arrogance and prejudice of an English supremacist view.” Um… sorry, but no. This is not an English supremacist view; this is a realist’s view. The UN has, I believe, six different official languages, but realistically, English is the international language. When a Romanian converses with a Pakistani, you can be reasonably sure that the language of communication is going to be English, not Russian or Arabic. So, yes, Professor Moon, I think that only people who speak English can become Secretary General, not because I am an arrogant English (language) supremacist, but because I hold the crazy notion that the leader of an international organization ought to be able to communicate with others.
As for the Jewish connection, I see no point in commenting further on such nonsense, except to say that I, too, judge people on their last names, and I have concluded that Professor Moon must be a Moonie, right?
LB
Ban’s English is pretty good, all things considered, if you can get through his accent. The underlying vocabulary and grammatical usage are sound. It’s just that — after you pick through the words to the underlying meanings — Ban has nothing whatsoever to say. And he delivers that nothing with such an absolute lack of passion or conviction that it becomes less than nothing.
Heilbrunn may not sound like a neocon. But maybe a review of his book can convince you that in he was one in the past.
“Heilbrunn is well-placed to tell this story, as a former writer for the National Review, the magazine that sustained conservatism in its long wilderness years, and someone who drank the Kool-Aid when the neocons were up and coming. He still relishes their ancient arguments, paying Talmudic reverence to obscure essays from the early days of the Partisan Review and Commentary.”
“At other times, Heilbrunn seems defensive, as if a trace of the virus remains in his bloodstream. He suggests that the United States should have overthrown Egyptian president Gamal Nasser in 1956 to let democracy bloom, an act that would have been illegal and insane.”
“Heilbrunn tries acrobatically to defend Reagan’s Iran-Contra mess, and Elliott Abrams in particular, while denouncing the specific crime (withholding information from Congress) that Abrams was convicted of, and he argues that El Salvador became a “thriving democracy” as a result of Reagan’s policy, a lofty claim. These neocon thought bubbles can be disorienting inside a book that is generally critical of the movement.”
The full Wapo article
Who give a shit about them?
Jacob Heilbrunn, eh? Look at that name . . . “Heilbrunn.” Two ens. Like one en isn’t enough. He’s gotta go and add another en. What kind of con is this? New to me. Ah . . . now I’ve got a hold on Moon Chung-in’s reasoning. New con. Neo-con. Got it. (Makes about as much sense . . .)
But what can you expect of a man who thinks that Russell Kirk was a neoconservative? (“The Syrian nuke connection” Joong Ang Daily, November 26, 2007, page 10)
Maybe Moon Chung-in’s an archaeo-conservative. That would explain things.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Professor Moon–like most Korean professors–really needs to READ the scholarly literature in which he professes expertise instead of schmoozing away his days angling for a political appointment.
As someone who has had a subscription to the National Interest on and off for almost two decades, I can testify that the National Interest is hardly neoconservative. It is run out of the Nixon Center, one of the (last) bastions of traditional, realpolitik conservatism. Moreover, the journal has taken a particularly realist turn since Fukuyama and other neocons left its editorial board to form the American Interest a few years ago. Finally, even when the journal was run by the neoconservative godfather Irving Kristol (and Owen Harries), it wasn’t that neoconservative. Remember, Irving is not Bill; the older generation of the neoconservatives were more moderate in their foreign policy outlook.
Finally, isn’t Professor Moon close to the DJ/Roh crowd? If so, that explains his animus toward anything perceived as neoconservative or perhaps Jewish.
I met Moon Chung-in at a political science conference in 2005 or so, when he was Ambassador for International Security Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade — in the Roh administration.
He was charming, expansive, articulate, and very political. I actually rather liked him, for he enjoyed laughing and drinking and could therefore be quite entertaining, but when he called Russell Kirk a neoconservative, I knew that this was a guy who doesn’t do his homework . . . yet doesn’t seem embarrassed to make bold, confident claims.
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
“[H]e called Russell Kirk a neoconservative.”
LMAO.
Speechless.
Jeffery Hodges wrote (#11):
Name-dropping kiss ass.
Marmot,
That was one of the most boring videos I have ever seen, and Goldberg’s thought fillers were trying me crazy. I want that 34 minutes of my life, Robert. NOW!
I too think that Jeffrey Hodges is a preening, name-dropping, self-absorbed tosser.
At the risk of incurring the charge of name-dropping (go ahead, bring it on and get it over with), I’ll join Jeffrey Hodges in noting that I studied with Prof. Moon at Yondae in the late ’90s and found him to be an incredibly engaging, thoughtful, and serious academic.
That said, his identification of Jacob Heilbrunn as a “Jewish neo-con” is an example of the kind of subtle anti-Semitism that pervades Korean society — even, and expecially, Korean polite society. Prof. Moon’s reductionist attempt to dismiss Heilbrunn’s opinion as the result of identity politics is outrageous and offensive. As an acedemic, Prof. Moon should know better than to attack the messenger rather than the message. Then again, “Korean academics” is a still developing discipline.
Prof. Moon is not alone, of course. During my own ill-considered year at a big Korean law firm, I was constantly surprised to hear polished, well-educated Korean attorneys casually talking about “New York Jewish lawyers” and “international Jewish financiers,” as if their religious affiliation was in any way pertinent.
On the other hand, I’ve also heard Prof. Moon describe himself as a muslim in refusing to drink alcohol or eat pork, so maybe this is all just a bit of Korean chutzpah.
L’Chaim,
DLB
Yes, I agree that ‘neocon’ is probably an unfortunate choice of words. The correct term would be ‘Zionist’.
KrZ wrote: “I too think that Jeffrey Hodges is a preening, name-dropping, self-absorbed tosser.”
Don’t know about “Jeffrey Hodges,” but if you meant me . . . thanks at least for letting me know your opinion. I guess we’re enemies, but I don’t know you. Is there anything that I’m supposed to do?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
Won Joon Choe writes that:
“Remember, Irving is not Bill; the older generation of the neoconservatives were more moderate in their foreign policy outlook. ”
WJC is right that on a broader scale there are differences between the current crop of neoconservative writers/pundits than that of their parents (let’s be honest, neoconservatives are on oddly nepotistic bunch: Irving/Bill Kristol; Donald/Bob/Fred/Kimberely Kagan; Norman/John Podheretz). Namely, it seems that the older bunch tended to have a more refined intellectual approach to the issues of the day rather than the sort of raw, politically partisan approach demonstrated by their progeny. In other words, the initial generation of neoconservatives seemed less interested in so nakedly having their hands on the levers of political power. Consider a comparison of the leading neoconservative publication. In the 1960′s and 70′s it was Commentary, located in the heart of New York City-the mecca of City College alums and in general the locus of Jewish intellectual life. Come around to the 1990′s, we have The Weekly Standard. Located not in NYC mind you, but in the bastion of the American political arena: Washington, DC. One want to offer “commentary” while the other has pretensions of offering “the standard” line that DC power brokers should adhere to.
But to address WJC’s specific contention about how the current crop of neocon’s have a less “moderate” foreign policy than their progeny, I have to disagree. Frankly speaking, what individuals like Kristol, Podheretz, Midge Decter, and etc have been saying are essentially made up of the same memes and tropes that we here today. Namely that the United States is a nothing short of a force for good in the world, distrust of international institutions, an intrinsic tendency to project American power aggresively, maximalist positions on complicated and thorny geopolitical issues, an almost cavalier attitude toward the use of American military power. The list goes one.
For example, during the Nixon era, the older neocons loathed the idea of Detente and any sort of rapprochement with the Communist bloc. Come around to today, you see the same thing: abhor the idea that the US could possible come to some sort of more stable relationship with Iranian regime, self-righteously lecture America’s “enemies” over issues we’ll never, ever come to agreement on, all while neglecting those areas were amicable relations are possible. Moreover, if as WJC asserts, the older neocons held a more moderate view in foreign policy, then why would a old codger like Norman Podheretz write a book called “World War IV: The Long Struggle Against Islamofascism”? If you haven’t read the books I suggest that you do. Reading it and what his son John writes, it’s difficult to distinguish between the two. Furthermore, if older neocons are more “moderate”, it’s strange that these very “moderates” would pen what is essentially a hagiographic portrait of the poster boy for an un-moderate foreign policy: Don Rumsfeld (See Midge Decter’s book at this link: http://www.amazon.com/Rumsfeld-Personal-Portrait-Midge-Decter/dp/0060561106/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1246914380&sr=1-1)
“During my own ill-considered year at a big Korean law firm, I was constantly surprised to hear polished, well-educated Korean attorneys casually talking about “New York Jewish lawyers” and “international Jewish financiers,” as if their religious affiliation was in any way pertinent.”
Good one.
I love how people always advance the notion that its just a “religious” affiliation and nothing more. And how it has no relevance whatsoever, not even the slightest amount, and if you say otherwise you’re the second coming of Hitler or something.
I also love how ignorant and neutered Americans, having been deballed and having lost the courage and freedom to be able to recognize and speak the truth (or anything against PC orthodoxy for that matter), now can only find consolation in feeling “better” and “morally superior” to supposedly “backward” Koreans and other groups that still have the freedom and balls to notice and speak the truth against PC orthodoxy.
Ahem. Does “mkaplan” have the “freedom and balls” to identify himself, or are you just trolling here, sir?
Just an ignorant, neutered, and deballed American asking. Thanks!
DLB
Have a chuckle at one of my favorite commenters., KrZ, who picks on everyone, including himself. He once accused me of being as large as an elephant and having a pie face on some thread about a plasticized entertainer.
mkaplan, I feel your pain about the “pc orthodoxy” and some might even argue that there is a selective “pc orthodoxy”. Rest assured, stuff always gets through the cracks. I mean look at what is included in Heilbrunn’s critique of Ban Ki Moon (as already mentioned by a commentator above and printed in Marmot’s by Robert with the appropriate caption, “Don’t hold back, Mr. Heilbrunn! Tell us what you really think!”)
To DLBarchs issue with Prof. Moon using identity politics: but but the other dude started it!
Which PC orthodoxy do you mean? The one that frowns on mistakenly attributing political views to a person simply based on his last name? Or the one that frowns on people saying, “We don’t have to listen to Mr. A because he’s a Jew.”
I guess it would also help to know which truth it is that we ignorant and neutered Americans have lost the courage and freedom to be able to recognize and speak.
Sonagi, you mean KrZ isn’t serious? Damn, my irony meter must be out of whack! Still, he was half right — I am a self-absorbed name-dropper. Just not a preening tosser.
Not an ass-kisser, either . . . though I know Bevers was just kidding about that. Or was he? If my irony meter’s really out of whack . . . how would I know?
Jeffery Hodges
* * *
I’m clearly talking about all of the above. The orthodoxy being the frowning of associating a persons perceived short comings with the person background.
As for the second part, I don’t speak for mkaplan.
Told ya so.
Jeffery Hodges (#24),
I was only half kidding because I do not like your kiss-ass views on Dokdo.
DLBarch wrote (#15)
Koreans used to love Israel and the Jews because they felt a kind of kinship since both Korea and Israel were surrounded by hostile countries and since Jewish mothers were also highly concerned about their children’s education. Koreans wanted to emulate Jews because they considered them to be brave and intelligent, so books were written about the Jewish education system and other Jewish ways of life. However, when the threat from China and Russia eased and business in the Middle East picked up, Koreans started talking trash about Israel and the Jews because it was more profitable to be anti-Israel.
Korea’s education system is full of nationalistic propaganda, so even “well-educated” Koreans are pretty stupid in many areas.
Well, according to below chosun article, koreans didn’t just sit and admire israel. Apprently, while Park Chung Hee was president, the blue house sent at least one bodyguard (?) to the Mossad for training purposes.
http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/26/2009062601243.html
Interesting observation about Korean Israel relations. How does one arrive at the conclusion that Koreans use to love Israel but now trash Israel because it is more profitable to be anti-Israel? At least the part about business picking up for Koreans in the Middle East seems like a sound statement given the fact that Israel is in the Middle East. Israel seems to be getting along just fine with those stupid Israel hating Koreans.
Institute for Global Jewish Affairs
More evidence of why Korean “intelligentsia” (sic) should have pillows held against their faces for five minutes or more? I mean. come on, I have an MA in the discipline and even as a lowly private sector analyst, am of more interest than your average Korean prof!
You must log in to post a comment.