RK ARCHIVE - Korean-American Community Discussion on N. Korea in Annandale

Here's some YouTube video of last night's "First Town Hall" meeting (and kickoff) of former Webb super-volunteer Annabel Park's Korean American Community Corps. The event was held at the George Mason Regional Library in Annandale, and was attended by at least 50 people, mainly from the area's Korean community. The featured speaker was John Feffer, an expert on North Korea who has written numerous books on the subject.

From what I could see, the event was a great success, with enthusiastic participation and a lively discussion from the community. Congratulations to Annabel and to everyone else involved with KoAmCo for making a great start at accomplishing their goal of "[b]ringing together community members, elected representatives, policy experts, community leaders & journalists for an informed exchange." I look forward to future forums, covering important topics like immigration (2/28) and the Iraq War and Terrorism (3/28).

P.S. Yes, that's me asking a question on Japan and North Korea... Also, more notes on the "flip."
*Annabel talked about how the Webb campaign was a life changing experience, how it made her realize she could make a difference, how she saw the results of her efforts in the election, and how she wanted to pursue community outreach full time.

*Annabel said that KoAmCo intended to work with existing community service organizations ("We can all be stronger if we all work together").

*According to Annabel, the overall goal of her effort is create a stronger Korean American community. That means a "cultural change" for the community, getting more active, voting, demanding better representation from government, "speaking in one voice, not allowing ourselves to be so divided." Annabel added that "for too long, we've allowed ourselves to feel like we're guests in America" but that it is now time to "take on the responsibility of being full citizens."

*On North Korea, John Feffer said that there was "nothing more confusing" than that country. He added, however, that North Koreans were "real people, not just an abstraction."

*Feffer reviewed the history of the 6-party talks and also bilateral discussion between the U.S. and North Korea. Basically, there has been no progress on 6-party talks because of a financial dispute (over money laundering and counterfeiting) between North Korea and the United States.

*The goal now is to get back to the September 19, 2005 agreement that appeared to be a breakthrough (denuclearization of N. Korea in exchange for a package agreement). That deal fell apart because of varying interpretations not consistent with each other. Today, the situation has gone from a high point to one of the lowest points ever. In July 2006, N. Korea ended its missile moratorium, and in October, it tested a nuclear weapon.

*What does N. Korea want from its nuclear program Three things: 1) deterrence of a possible U.S. attack; 2) a bargaining chip to trade for lots of capital and political normalization; and 3) a civilian nuclear power program as part of the country's "Juche" (self-reliance) strategy.

*Paradox #1: How does North Korea keep a nuclear weapon for deterrence while trading it away as a bargaining chip?

*Paradox #2: How does the US simultaneously negotiate with a government and try to change that government at the same time?

*What does the US want? Basically, the Bush Administration wants quiet for 2 years so it can hand the problem over to the Democrats. Unfortunately for them, "that probably won't happen."

*What will be most effective in getting rid of N. Korea's nuclear program, carrots or sticks? Diplocamcy or pressure?

*Are we seeking "regime change" or a "change in the regime"'s behavior? Dick Cheney says you don't negotiate with "evil."

*What does South Korea want? Engagement, gradual change in North Korea, continuation of the "sunshine policy," a "slow motion reunification." Why slow-motion? Because everyone in South Korea knows how much reunification will cost, maybe $1 trillion, and worries about regime collapse leading to refugee flows and war.

*The South Korean government is unpopular, even more so (if that's possible) than the Bush Administration. Conservative criticism within South Korea is that the government has not demanded enough concession from North Korea.

*Upcoming elections in the US and South Korea; what's going to happen, will policies change?

*What direction is North Korea headed? Is North Korea today more like China in 1975, as it embarked on capitalism, or Burma today (no change at all)?

*What about famine and other humanitarian problems in North Korea? What can we do to deal with this crisis?

*What about the US-South Korean alliance? The US mainly sees a threat from N. Korea, while S. Korea sees BOTH a threat and an opportunity. Basically, S. Korea HAS to deal with N. Korea.

Comments

Some thoughts about the North Korea discussion (hahn - 1/23/2007 3:37:00 PM)

First of all, thanks for the rundown, Lowell.

Secondly, I was at the meeting and whether it's from a need to continue last night's discussion or if I simply want to use this board as an attempt to organize some thoughts on this matter, I'm not sure, but here are some quick thoughts:

There was discussion about whether North Korea would or would not nuke South Korea. The gentleman that matter-of-factly claimed that the north would never nuke the south was immediately nuked, himself, and called naive. His accuser said, quite rightly I think, that the north has historically showed intentions to attack and has verbally said so on many occassions.

My personal opinion is that there is a clear distinction between "nuke" and "attack" that is being overlooked here. The north has and would attack the south if given a favorable opportunity, imo, but that would be an attempt to conquer not annihiliate, which is what nuking assumes. No, I agree with John Feffer when he says that the nuke represents a deterrent and a bargaining chip more than an offensive weapon.

There was also a comment from a gentleman in the audience equating North Korea to Iran in the sense that both have an active youth that are ready to overthrow their oppressive governments. I disagree with this and suspect this is a case of we, as Americans, projecting our American values onto a population that is completely strange to us.

Iran very well might be a hotbed of potential revolution but I think it's a mistake to make the same assumption about North Korea for one reason: media exposure. Iranians have access to it and North Koreans don't. And in a country where no one but the highest levels of the hierarchy have access to the internet/foreign radio/tv broadcasts, the population is taught to think of the oppressive government as a benevolent caretaker and the western world as the true enemy, and demonstrated commitment to the communist party is the only tangible path to success, i think it would be hard to cultivate and support rebellious intent.

Remember, North Koreans don't grow up watching films like The Shawshank Redemption and Braveheart. They might not want to rebel. They might want to sacrifice themselves for what they think is the greater good.

Lastly, China's involvement. China's probably our best shot at dealing with North Korea but the unfortunate truth, to me, is that with China as a broker, the issue will never be resolved. The cynical part of me can't ignore how much China benefits from North Korea's unpredictability and tormenting whining. There's no other issue that makes America genuflect to China, hat in hand, giving China leverage on trade and other foreign policy matters. Sadly, there's no other alternative at the moment and we have no choice but to let them string us along.

Would North Korea kill its fellow Koreans? (Lowell - 1/23/2007 3:47:36 PM)

I thought that part of the discussion was rather odd. Would North Korea not attack South Korea because they are of the same ethnic group? Aside from the fact that many ethnic groups have had vicious civil wars and even mass killings (Cambodia's "killing fields," for instance), the fact is that North Korea kills, represses, and tortures ITS OWN people in large numbers! So why wouldn't it kill South Koreans? Finally, as if any other evidence is needed that North Korea would have little compunction about killing South Koreans, it is important to remember that North Korea attacked South Korea on June 25, 1950; during that conflict, 673,000 South Koreans were killed. So yeah, North Korea would kill its fellow Koreans.