SHAME ON ROH MOO-HYUN
Korean Human Rights Attorneys... Oxymoron?
Article and comments sent from my family friend, Mingi:
"There is word going around that the NIS (South Korean CIA) planned the beatings of the anti-North Korean human rights activists. No surprises there. After all, the current head of the NIS, Koh Young-Koo, is a former human rights lawyer who helped free an accused North Korean spy from jail. That spy was found with $2.1 million in cash and weapons, all of which he admitted receiving from North Korea and he's living freely in a suburb of Seoul."
From an editorial from the Asian Wall Street Journal a few days ago:
"Alas, none of these sensible, creative efforts to help North Koreans are welcome in the one place in the world where you'd expect them to be greeted most warmly: South Korea. The government in Seoul -- led, ironically, by a president who was a human-rights lawyer -- seems more worried about the potential costs of resettling refugees in the South than it is about the plight of their brothers and sisters in the North."
South Korea's Spoilers
THE ASIAN WALL STREET JOURNAL
By NORBERT VOLLERTSEN
SEOUL -- For three years now I have been active in lobbying for human rights in North Korea. My associates and I provide detailed information to Western journalists. We organize protests at the Panmunjom border with North Korea, help North Korean refugees rush past guards and enter Western embassies in China, and coordinate the flight of North Korean "boat people." We also attempt simple, utilitarian projects such as the sending into North Korea -- by balloon -- of small radios, which those lucky enough to retrieve might use to learn about the world outside their Gulag-state.
Some of these projects have failed, many of them have succeeded. But never could I have imagined that the most difficult part of creating an awareness of human rights abuses in North Korea would be to raise a voice in South Korea.
Here in Seoul, I get around 1,400 hate-e-mails per day. As a result of an e-mail campaign organized by South Korean students, my e-mail account is often sabotaged. I am caught in the middle of an Internet campaign titled, ominously, "How to get rid of Norbert Vollertsen." Suggestions include "Execute him," "Kill him," etc. People -- South Korean people -- shout and even spit at me on the street. My activities to help the enslaved people of the North -- such as my boat-people project -- are sabotaged by South Korean intelligence. My telephone is tapped, and I have minders following me the whole day. All in all, although I'm here in Seoul, I feel like I'm in Pyongyang!
Yet for all the horrors I witnessed in North Korea , where I once worked for 18 months as a medical worker for Cap Anamur, a German aid organization, I was never beaten by the police -- not even in my last days there as persona non grata, just before my expulsion for the expression of pro-human rights views.
Here, in South Korea , I have been beaten by the police -- among others.
During our balloon-launching attempt on Aug. 22, a young South Korean (well-fed, wanting for nothing) attacked me, threw me to the ground and escaped with a bundle of radios intended for his starving, destitute brothers across the border -- an assault carried out right under the noses of the riot police. Then I was attacked by the police themselves. One officer jumped on my twisted knee while I was lying on the ground. But even that was not as painful as the incident in March this year when some riot policemen kicked me in the groin while I was standing in the middle of their crowd during a protest in front of the Chinese embassy here in Seoul.
On Sunday, I was attacked by North Korean "journalists" at the World University Games in Daegu, while holding a peaceful press conference in front of the convention building there. The South Korean newspapers reported that I "exchanged punches with the North Koreans." In reality, I was standing on my crutches, still suffering from my injuries from the balloon-launch assault, and could barely stay upright. I was also wearing a neck-brace, and so was unable even to swivel my head to face my North Korean attackers.
Afterwards, the same newspapers called me an "extreme ultra-right-wing activist," even "fascist," which is ironical, given that I am doing what I am doing for the North Koreans mainly to atone for the shameful fascist history of my home country, Germany. The local government in Daegu apologized to the North Korean delegation for my "grave offence," and promised to punish me and get me expelled.
Mine is a small, insignificant story, a speck on a big canvas. Currently, in Beijing, the so-called six-party talks are taking place -- talks in which officials from the U.S., Japan, Russia, China and South Korea meet with counterparts from North Korea. To my consternation, the talks are only focusing on nukes. But the evil regime of Kim Jong Il is the real cause of all the military problems.
Kim Jong Il has to fight for survival like the leader of a religious cult -- he can only do so by blackmailing the world: "Feed me or I will kill you with my nuclear weapons." He will never abandon these weapons, his only real "security guarantee." (There is only one security guarantee for the starving children in North Korea : When there is no more security for Kim Jong Il and his evil regime!)
The only way to get rid of the nukes is to get rid of Kim Jong Il, and the best way to do that is by creating an inner collapse of the North Korean regime started by a flood of refugees -- just as in the former East Germany. During the six-party talks, China can prove that it really deserves to be a member of the international community by opening its border to North Korean refugees and in this way become the "Hungary of the Far East."
In order to achieve this flood of refugees we first of all have to inform the ordinary North Korean people about the outside world. Because they do not have any access to foreign media they do not know anything about Western societies. They are brainwashed into believing that we are all homeless, drug-addicted and depraved.
Because of this non- and misinformation there are no uprisings like those in former East European countries and no defections on a mass scale. That is why our project to send radios by balloon is so potent -- and why friends of Kim Jong Il in South Korea are determined to foil us.
Seoul is proving to be the real external obstacle to freedom for North Korea. Many people in foreign countries wonder about the general South Korean attitude toward Pyongyang, the increasing anti-Americanism here, and the perverse likelihood of pro-North Korean diplomacy by Seoul during the six-party talks and the whole nuclear discussion.
The truth is, South Korea is infiltrated by Pyongyang's agents. According to the NIS, the South Korean intelligence, there are up to 6,000 secret agents from North Korea operating in South Korea's establishment; and the main targets, besides the government, are the NIS itself, the military, the student organizations, the workers' unions -- and the media.
Until now I have been talking about human-rights violations in North Korea , and the need for regime change there. Maybe it is time now to talk about rights violation in the South too -- and even regime change as well. Basic civil rights, the freedom of speech and mainly the freedom of the press, are endangered by the current administration. The government of President Roh Moo Hyun is cracking down on critical journalists.
I will continue my activities in South Korea even though I feel more and more insecure in Seoul. (Recent attempts to intimidate me have included death-threats against my family in Germany.) In introspective moments I wonder if I will be expelled from South Korea , just as I was from North Korea. The irony should make me shake my head in disbelief. Instead, I redouble my small efforts on behalf of the people, the children, in the North.
Dr. Vollertsen, a physician from Germany, worked in hospitals in North Korea from July 1999 to December 2000. He is currently based in South Korea, where he organizes rescue and asylum efforts for escaping North Koreans.
Sunday, August 24, 2003
Living Together Before Marriage
"A Baby Doesn't Walk Before It Crawls" Doesn't Apply Here
It was a busy weekend for me. My close friend, Mike Joo, had his 30th birthday. Mike is the one person I probably spent the most time with in Seoul, which I don't know is a good thing for me (out of love, mike). On Saturday I had to juggle Mike's birthday party with Andy O's bachelor party. With Andy's wedding coming up, along with a few others, I decided to post my recent letter to the Korea Herald. It was in response to a reporter's article on a growing trend of people living together before marriage in Korea. It probably didn't get published because it was in response to a cub reporter's article and I don't think it had much significance compared to all the recent turmoil on this peninsula. I really dont' know how strong of a growing trend it is in Korea, but I thought it was generally stupid if it was more in response to the increasing divorce rate in Korea because there are more important factors in consider in the equation. I couldn't link or paste the article here since the Korea Herald now asks for a fee to access archived articles, but you get the general content from my letter below:
______________________________________________________
Dear Korea Herald,
I was somewhat amused by your short article, "Living together before marriage" (8/13/2003), on several levels. This new trend in Korea is bound for failure. In the U.S., where this custom and notion has been practiced for several decades now has been shown to lead to a higher rate of divorce. A couple major studies, one by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sampled thousands of couples and found that those that lived together prior to marriage had a significantly higher divorce rate. One reason discovered was that those who lived together had a lesser sense of commitment towards the institution of marriage.
Before even going down this road, I generally believe Koreans have missed a few steps in examining the increasing divorce rate. They should look at how people search and decide on a spouse. "Sons" and "sogaetings" with the added time pressure of family members might not lead to the best decisions for such a serious commitment. How can you really know someone after five dates? Or a couple months? The culture of dating and the factors involved in finding a spouse probably need to change and liberalize before such silly notions of living together are explored in this society and culture.
I especially found it amusing that the experts interviewed for the article "warn that this new trend of 'unmarried cohabitation' can result in many social problems, such as abortions, unwed mothers and a decreasing number of people marrying". Would this really be the effect of such a trend? I honestly was laughing. Maybe it's factors such as the lack of protected sex in Korea and other things?
In some ways, I believe the increasing divorce rate is a good sign because it is somewhat reflective of the growing power that women hold in this country. Less and less, they are restricted by economic factors to stay with an unfaithful or abusive husband. They are slowly increasing their positions in the workforce, so they are more independent and free to choose on whether to work through a bad marriage or just leave. Women have more options now and can fight the stigma of divorce in this country.
But these are the after-effects of bad decisions, forced marriages, those based on socio-economic factors, or a desparate sense of urgency. People need to reexamine the reasons for marriage, their own definition of love and how to find it.
Bernard Moon
______________________________________________________
I wrote a short response due to time constraints, and wanted to write a more detailed response at the time. I really don't want to add more to my response now, but I found an article from iVillage called "3 Reasons Why Researchers Say Living Together Before Marriage is Risky" on this topic that supports my response. Here's an excerpt:
3 Warnings: Living Together Might Not Be Smart
1. Higher Divorce Rate
Perhaps the most compelling and widespread argument against living together before marriage is that several researchers say it increases the risk of breaking up. Virtually all studies of this topic have shown that the chance of divorce is significantly greater for married couples who lived together first. And in 1992, the National Survey of Families and Households found that, in 3,300 families, married couples who had lived together first were judged to be 46 percent more likely to get divorced.
2. Lower Quality of Life
When it comes to living together, more research suggests that the quality of life for unmarried couples is far lower than for married couples. Researchers David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead say cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents. Annual rates of depression are more than three times higher. And, finally, cohabiting women are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse.
3. Living Together Doesn't Necessarily Lead to Marriage
After five to seven years, 21 percent of most cohabitating couples are still doing just that -- cohabitating, without getting married. In a new study by Popenoe and Whitehead, one of the top 10 reasons why men said that they are reluctant to get married at all is because they can simply live with a woman -- and enjoy the same benefits.
It was a busy weekend for me. My close friend, Mike Joo, had his 30th birthday. Mike is the one person I probably spent the most time with in Seoul, which I don't know is a good thing for me (out of love, mike). On Saturday I had to juggle Mike's birthday party with Andy O's bachelor party. With Andy's wedding coming up, along with a few others, I decided to post my recent letter to the Korea Herald. It was in response to a reporter's article on a growing trend of people living together before marriage in Korea. It probably didn't get published because it was in response to a cub reporter's article and I don't think it had much significance compared to all the recent turmoil on this peninsula. I really dont' know how strong of a growing trend it is in Korea, but I thought it was generally stupid if it was more in response to the increasing divorce rate in Korea because there are more important factors in consider in the equation. I couldn't link or paste the article here since the Korea Herald now asks for a fee to access archived articles, but you get the general content from my letter below:
______________________________________________________
Dear Korea Herald,
I was somewhat amused by your short article, "Living together before marriage" (8/13/2003), on several levels. This new trend in Korea is bound for failure. In the U.S., where this custom and notion has been practiced for several decades now has been shown to lead to a higher rate of divorce. A couple major studies, one by the University of Wisconsin-Madison, sampled thousands of couples and found that those that lived together prior to marriage had a significantly higher divorce rate. One reason discovered was that those who lived together had a lesser sense of commitment towards the institution of marriage.
Before even going down this road, I generally believe Koreans have missed a few steps in examining the increasing divorce rate. They should look at how people search and decide on a spouse. "Sons" and "sogaetings" with the added time pressure of family members might not lead to the best decisions for such a serious commitment. How can you really know someone after five dates? Or a couple months? The culture of dating and the factors involved in finding a spouse probably need to change and liberalize before such silly notions of living together are explored in this society and culture.
I especially found it amusing that the experts interviewed for the article "warn that this new trend of 'unmarried cohabitation' can result in many social problems, such as abortions, unwed mothers and a decreasing number of people marrying". Would this really be the effect of such a trend? I honestly was laughing. Maybe it's factors such as the lack of protected sex in Korea and other things?
In some ways, I believe the increasing divorce rate is a good sign because it is somewhat reflective of the growing power that women hold in this country. Less and less, they are restricted by economic factors to stay with an unfaithful or abusive husband. They are slowly increasing their positions in the workforce, so they are more independent and free to choose on whether to work through a bad marriage or just leave. Women have more options now and can fight the stigma of divorce in this country.
But these are the after-effects of bad decisions, forced marriages, those based on socio-economic factors, or a desparate sense of urgency. People need to reexamine the reasons for marriage, their own definition of love and how to find it.
Bernard Moon
______________________________________________________
I wrote a short response due to time constraints, and wanted to write a more detailed response at the time. I really don't want to add more to my response now, but I found an article from iVillage called "3 Reasons Why Researchers Say Living Together Before Marriage is Risky" on this topic that supports my response. Here's an excerpt:
3 Warnings: Living Together Might Not Be Smart
1. Higher Divorce Rate
Perhaps the most compelling and widespread argument against living together before marriage is that several researchers say it increases the risk of breaking up. Virtually all studies of this topic have shown that the chance of divorce is significantly greater for married couples who lived together first. And in 1992, the National Survey of Families and Households found that, in 3,300 families, married couples who had lived together first were judged to be 46 percent more likely to get divorced.
2. Lower Quality of Life
When it comes to living together, more research suggests that the quality of life for unmarried couples is far lower than for married couples. Researchers David Popenoe and Barbara Dafoe Whitehead say cohabiting couples report lower levels of happiness, lower levels of sexual exclusivity and sexual satisfaction, and poorer relationships with their parents. Annual rates of depression are more than three times higher. And, finally, cohabiting women are more likely than married women to suffer physical and sexual abuse.
3. Living Together Doesn't Necessarily Lead to Marriage
After five to seven years, 21 percent of most cohabitating couples are still doing just that -- cohabitating, without getting married. In a new study by Popenoe and Whitehead, one of the top 10 reasons why men said that they are reluctant to get married at all is because they can simply live with a woman -- and enjoy the same benefits.
Wednesday, August 20, 2003
THE NEW GROUND ZERO
What's that about no link between Saddam and terrorism?
(good editorial. no comments for now. - bm)
The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal: Featured Article
Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Yesterday's bombing at the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad is a bloody reminder that the epicenter of the global war on terror is now Iraq. This isn't new, but it's taken on new meaning as increasingly desperate terrorists realize just what's at stake.
Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s top official in Iraq, put it well in June when he arrived in Baghdad to take up his post. "I have been sent here," he said, "with a mandate to assist the Iraqi people and those responsible for the administration of this land to achieve . . . freedom, the possibility of managing their own destiny and determining their own future." The U.N. envoy was among those killed yesterday.
Mr. Vieira de Mello's vision of Iraqis running a free Iraq is global terrorism's worst nightmare. And it explains why American defeat in Iraq has become its top terrorist priority. Yesterday's bombing was notable in that it wasn't against U.S. soldiers but against non-American civilians trying to restore normalcy to post-Saddam Iraq.
As a "soft-target" the U.N. was of course more vulnerable to a truck bomb. But the U.N. was no doubt also chosen to intimidate countries that are now contemplating the dispatch of either troops or civilian experts to help rebuild Iraq. The persistent attacks on water mains, oil pipelines and other essential infrastructure are also designed to prevent stability from returning to Baghdad.
In an important sense, of course, this is merely validating what some of us have said all along about the war in Iraq. The link between Saddam and al Qaeda might not have been provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but they shared the common purpose of ousting the U.S. from the Middle East. Now the foreign jihadis flooding the country are proving the point by joining up with Baath Party remnants that want to restore Saddam's terrorist rule.
We don't know yet who was responsible for yesterday's attack, but one possibility is Ansar al Islam. This is the al Qaeda-linked group that was rooted out of northern Iraq last March and is now making a comeback. Ansar's signature is truck bombs of the ilk that exploded yesterday and on August 7 at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad.
The head of the Kurdish security forces in the north was quoted as saying a few days ago that Ansar al Islam followers have been sneaking across the border with Iran and are setting up cells in Baghdad. Iraq has become a "terrorist magnet" for foreign fighters, the commander of the U.S. ground forces in Iraq also said last month. American troops have found numerous foreign passports--from Saudi Arabia, among other countries--on the bodies of terrorists killed on some of their raids.
While this terror threat can't be ignored, it also shouldn't be overestimated. The terrorists lack a superpower patron, as well as a foreign sanctuary. The latter point puts a premium on U.S. efforts to pressure Syria and Iran not to provide such a foreign safehouse. Before yesterday's bombing, Baghdad's news of the day was L. Paul Bremer's statement to an Arabic newspaper that Syria was allowing "foreign terrorists" to sneak across the border. He also expressed concern about Iran's "irresponsible conduct" in meddling in Iraq's affairs.
It didn't help that hours later Mr. Bremer found himself at least partly contradicted in Washington. President Bashar Assad's government was making "limited progress" in restraining terrorists from crossing the border, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. If you were Assad, which American would you listen to? Sending mixed messages is exactly the wrong way to get Syria to cooperate.
It's better news that the U.S. is accelerating plans for Iraqi forces to start security patrols. The 7,000-man Iraqi civil-defense force will patrol with U.S. troops at first but then work independently. The new Iraqi militiamen--who know the language and the terrain better than U.S. soldiers--will be especially helpful in identifying foreign fighters. We only wish this step to involve Iraqis in defending their own country had begun months before, as the Pentagon had proposed but the U.S. State Department resisted.
We think that the American people have understood all along that winning in Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. "You can't separate the global war on terrorism from what is happening here in Iraq," Centcom commander General John Abizaid told us last month, in words his commander-in-chief could well borrow. "If we can't be successful here, then we won't be successful in the global war on terror. It is going to be hard. It is going to be long and sometimes bloody, but we just have to stick with it."
What's that about no link between Saddam and terrorism?
(good editorial. no comments for now. - bm)
The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal: Featured Article
Wednesday, August 20, 2003 12:01 a.m.
Yesterday's bombing at the United Nations headquarters in Baghdad is a bloody reminder that the epicenter of the global war on terror is now Iraq. This isn't new, but it's taken on new meaning as increasingly desperate terrorists realize just what's at stake.
Sergio Vieira de Mello, the U.N.'s top official in Iraq, put it well in June when he arrived in Baghdad to take up his post. "I have been sent here," he said, "with a mandate to assist the Iraqi people and those responsible for the administration of this land to achieve . . . freedom, the possibility of managing their own destiny and determining their own future." The U.N. envoy was among those killed yesterday.
Mr. Vieira de Mello's vision of Iraqis running a free Iraq is global terrorism's worst nightmare. And it explains why American defeat in Iraq has become its top terrorist priority. Yesterday's bombing was notable in that it wasn't against U.S. soldiers but against non-American civilians trying to restore normalcy to post-Saddam Iraq.
As a "soft-target" the U.N. was of course more vulnerable to a truck bomb. But the U.N. was no doubt also chosen to intimidate countries that are now contemplating the dispatch of either troops or civilian experts to help rebuild Iraq. The persistent attacks on water mains, oil pipelines and other essential infrastructure are also designed to prevent stability from returning to Baghdad.
In an important sense, of course, this is merely validating what some of us have said all along about the war in Iraq. The link between Saddam and al Qaeda might not have been provable beyond a reasonable doubt, but they shared the common purpose of ousting the U.S. from the Middle East. Now the foreign jihadis flooding the country are proving the point by joining up with Baath Party remnants that want to restore Saddam's terrorist rule.
We don't know yet who was responsible for yesterday's attack, but one possibility is Ansar al Islam. This is the al Qaeda-linked group that was rooted out of northern Iraq last March and is now making a comeback. Ansar's signature is truck bombs of the ilk that exploded yesterday and on August 7 at the Jordanian embassy in Baghdad.
The head of the Kurdish security forces in the north was quoted as saying a few days ago that Ansar al Islam followers have been sneaking across the border with Iran and are setting up cells in Baghdad. Iraq has become a "terrorist magnet" for foreign fighters, the commander of the U.S. ground forces in Iraq also said last month. American troops have found numerous foreign passports--from Saudi Arabia, among other countries--on the bodies of terrorists killed on some of their raids.
While this terror threat can't be ignored, it also shouldn't be overestimated. The terrorists lack a superpower patron, as well as a foreign sanctuary. The latter point puts a premium on U.S. efforts to pressure Syria and Iran not to provide such a foreign safehouse. Before yesterday's bombing, Baghdad's news of the day was L. Paul Bremer's statement to an Arabic newspaper that Syria was allowing "foreign terrorists" to sneak across the border. He also expressed concern about Iran's "irresponsible conduct" in meddling in Iraq's affairs.
It didn't help that hours later Mr. Bremer found himself at least partly contradicted in Washington. President Bashar Assad's government was making "limited progress" in restraining terrorists from crossing the border, State Department spokesman Richard Boucher said. If you were Assad, which American would you listen to? Sending mixed messages is exactly the wrong way to get Syria to cooperate.
It's better news that the U.S. is accelerating plans for Iraqi forces to start security patrols. The 7,000-man Iraqi civil-defense force will patrol with U.S. troops at first but then work independently. The new Iraqi militiamen--who know the language and the terrain better than U.S. soldiers--will be especially helpful in identifying foreign fighters. We only wish this step to involve Iraqis in defending their own country had begun months before, as the Pentagon had proposed but the U.S. State Department resisted.
We think that the American people have understood all along that winning in Iraq is crucial to winning the war on terror. "You can't separate the global war on terrorism from what is happening here in Iraq," Centcom commander General John Abizaid told us last month, in words his commander-in-chief could well borrow. "If we can't be successful here, then we won't be successful in the global war on terror. It is going to be hard. It is going to be long and sometimes bloody, but we just have to stick with it."
Tuesday, August 19, 2003
Is Man Determined or Free?... Freedom? Choice? God?
(continued)
"Choice. The problem is choice," Neo states.
"The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental faliure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother," said The Architect.
"The Oracle," replies Neo.
"Please. As I was saying she stumbled upon a solution on whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster."
This issue of choice is interesting and, as written in my prior blog post, explained well by The Old Oligarch:
St. Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis (often titled in English "On the Free Choice of the Will"). For Augustine, liberum arbitrium (free choice) is different from, but related to voluntas (the will).
...
Voluntas is what enacts our actions, but voluntas, for the classical mind, includes habits, the motivations of nature, personal history and free choice.
...
I like to compare the classical conception of voluntas and liberum arbitrium to a boulder-sized stone that is rolling on a playing field and a man who has sole charge of where it rolls. The stone has momentum. So, likewise, our will has its disposition. The environment can draw the stone in one direction more than the other, i.e. external circumstances partially determine appetites. The liberum arbitrium in this example, is the man, who can slow or accelerate the movement of the stone, and alter its course. But the stone is more massive than the man. Individual acts of exertion cannot completely alter the direction of voluntas and send it instantly careening in another direction regardless of past acts. If the stone is rolling in the wrong direction, a forceful push can avert it from its "inevitable" course, but the man cannot instantly stop it, pick it up, bring it back to its rightful place and trajectory, and send it on its correct path as if nothing had happened. He simply doesn't have the strength. Likewise our will when it gets accustomed to, or "disposed" to a certain way of behaving. Liberum arbitrium can prevent the necessity of running headlong into old behaviors, but it takes a long, concerted effort to undo the cumulative effects of the many half-witted, unconscious decisions we've made which created in us bad dispositions. End tangent.
...
I think the Oracle makes a similar observation about the will. What the will does -- especially in unconscious, unreflective people -- is 90% the product of decisions already made.
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Matthew 26:41
So what you want (free choice) and what you actually do (will) are two different things. The Old Oligarch actually has a better analogy for you gamers, so read the rest of the entry if you're interested.
This issue of free choice and will can be seen in other arenas of thought. One is General Semantics, which was developed by Alfred Korzybski, a Polish mathematician and engineer, over 50 years ago. "General semantics is the study of the relations between language, ‘thought’ and behavior: between how we talk, therefore how we ‘think’, and therefore how we act."
This system of thinking was a basis of my training with the Coro Fellowship and set out to improve our skills in relationships with people, communications, and critical thinking. It was interesting when I read The Old Oligarch's entry on St. Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis and was thinking about The Matrix: Reloaded because it reminded me of some of my old training materials which contained overlapping viewpoints:
"We were born into, and are immersed in particular environments (cultural, language, home, religious, social, work, etc). Our behaviors are usually automatic responses, generated by our uncritical acceptance and conditioning, by the demands and expectations, from these environments. The "woa of consciousness" (*wedge of awareness. tool to increase our wakefulness) gives us a chance to move from automatic, unwanted, unproductive, stress producing behaviors toward more creative and self-directed and self-managing behaviors." - Milton Dawes
From my perspective and experiences, these philosophical approaches have huge limitations. The boulder in our lives is always heavier and bigger than we actually think. Like Stephen Hawking's limited explanation for whether man is determined or free, the thinkers of the ages cannot close the gap between man's will and free choice without God in the equation. Obviously, I'm biased as a Christian, but He does create a more orderly and logical world. God makes a huge difference on the cosmic scale and on the personal scales of every man seeking to close the gap between will and free choice. The difference between God and the Architect is that God actual loves His creations and the world He built. The Architect oddly enough sounds more like Hawking or some omnipotent being from a sci-fi novel.
"Choice. The problem is choice," Neo states.
"The first matrix I designed was quite naturally perfect, it was a work of art, flawless, sublime. A triumph equaled only by its monumental faliure. The inevitability of its doom is as apparent to me now as a consequence of the imperfection inherent in every human being, thus I redesigned it based on your history to more accurately reflect the varying grotesqueries of your nature. However, I was again frustrated by failure. I have since come to understand that the answer was stumbled upon by another, an intuitive program, initially created to investigate certain aspects of the human psyche. If I am the father of the matrix, she would undoubtedly be its mother," said The Architect.
"The Oracle," replies Neo.
"Please. As I was saying she stumbled upon a solution on whereby nearly 99.9% of all test subjects accepted the program, as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware of the choice at a near unconscious level. While this answer functioned, it was obviously fundamentally flawed, thus creating the otherwise contradictory systemic anomaly, that if left unchecked might threaten the system itself. Ergo, those that refused the program while a minority, if unchecked, would constitute an escalating probability of disaster."
This issue of choice is interesting and, as written in my prior blog post, explained well by The Old Oligarch:
St. Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis (often titled in English "On the Free Choice of the Will"). For Augustine, liberum arbitrium (free choice) is different from, but related to voluntas (the will).
...
Voluntas is what enacts our actions, but voluntas, for the classical mind, includes habits, the motivations of nature, personal history and free choice.
...
I like to compare the classical conception of voluntas and liberum arbitrium to a boulder-sized stone that is rolling on a playing field and a man who has sole charge of where it rolls. The stone has momentum. So, likewise, our will has its disposition. The environment can draw the stone in one direction more than the other, i.e. external circumstances partially determine appetites. The liberum arbitrium in this example, is the man, who can slow or accelerate the movement of the stone, and alter its course. But the stone is more massive than the man. Individual acts of exertion cannot completely alter the direction of voluntas and send it instantly careening in another direction regardless of past acts. If the stone is rolling in the wrong direction, a forceful push can avert it from its "inevitable" course, but the man cannot instantly stop it, pick it up, bring it back to its rightful place and trajectory, and send it on its correct path as if nothing had happened. He simply doesn't have the strength. Likewise our will when it gets accustomed to, or "disposed" to a certain way of behaving. Liberum arbitrium can prevent the necessity of running headlong into old behaviors, but it takes a long, concerted effort to undo the cumulative effects of the many half-witted, unconscious decisions we've made which created in us bad dispositions. End tangent.
...
I think the Oracle makes a similar observation about the will. What the will does -- especially in unconscious, unreflective people -- is 90% the product of decisions already made.
"Watch and pray so that you will not fall into temptation. The spirit is willing, but the body is weak." Matthew 26:41
So what you want (free choice) and what you actually do (will) are two different things. The Old Oligarch actually has a better analogy for you gamers, so read the rest of the entry if you're interested.
This issue of free choice and will can be seen in other arenas of thought. One is General Semantics, which was developed by Alfred Korzybski, a Polish mathematician and engineer, over 50 years ago. "General semantics is the study of the relations between language, ‘thought’ and behavior: between how we talk, therefore how we ‘think’, and therefore how we act."
This system of thinking was a basis of my training with the Coro Fellowship and set out to improve our skills in relationships with people, communications, and critical thinking. It was interesting when I read The Old Oligarch's entry on St. Augustine's De Libero Arbitrio Voluntatis and was thinking about The Matrix: Reloaded because it reminded me of some of my old training materials which contained overlapping viewpoints:
"We were born into, and are immersed in particular environments (cultural, language, home, religious, social, work, etc). Our behaviors are usually automatic responses, generated by our uncritical acceptance and conditioning, by the demands and expectations, from these environments. The "woa of consciousness" (*wedge of awareness. tool to increase our wakefulness) gives us a chance to move from automatic, unwanted, unproductive, stress producing behaviors toward more creative and self-directed and self-managing behaviors." - Milton Dawes
From my perspective and experiences, these philosophical approaches have huge limitations. The boulder in our lives is always heavier and bigger than we actually think. Like Stephen Hawking's limited explanation for whether man is determined or free, the thinkers of the ages cannot close the gap between man's will and free choice without God in the equation. Obviously, I'm biased as a Christian, but He does create a more orderly and logical world. God makes a huge difference on the cosmic scale and on the personal scales of every man seeking to close the gap between will and free choice. The difference between God and the Architect is that God actual loves His creations and the world He built. The Architect oddly enough sounds more like Hawking or some omnipotent being from a sci-fi novel.
Monday, August 18, 2003
Is Man Determined or Free?... Thoughts From "The Matrix: Reloaded"
I recently saw Bruce Almighty which was entertaining at times, but overall a mediocre movie. Anyway, it jarred my thinking to a few months back after I saw The Matrix: Reloaded about the issues of whether man is determined, what is free will, and predestination. Bruce Almighty interestingly provided a simplistic yet smart and concise perspective on the issue of how God can predetermine and control the universe while allowing for man’s free will. Morgan Freeman plays God who bestows upon Jim Carrey’s character all his powers, but he cannot affect a person’s freewill. Later on in the movie, Carrey’s character truly learns about this limitation, but I won’t spoil it for anyone.
Severals weeks before watching this movie and after The Matrix: Reloaded, I was listening to an excerpt by Stephen Hawking on his lecture at Cambridge University on whether man is determined or free.
As you might know, Stephen Hawking is our modern day Einstein. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. This is an academic chair first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1669 by Sir Isaac Newton. His intellectual capacity and power can be rarely matched. His assistant once told of time when he was dictating volumes of notes and on the 46th page he recognized that there was an error 20 pages before and corrected it. Since the beginning of his academic career, Hawking has researched and studied about the laws which govern the universe.
At the lecture he concluded, ““Is man determined? Yes! But since we do not know what is determined, he may as well not be.”
To explain determinism, the PBS website explains:
“A far-reaching term, which most widely states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe sees all events in the world simply as effects of other prior effects, and has particular implications for morality, science, and religion. Ultimately, if determinism is correct, then all events in the future are as unalterable as are all events in the past. Consequently, human freedom is simply an illusion.”
So if you remember from The Matrix: Reloaded, the Merovingian (wine drinking French-wannabe, trafficker of information, and had Monica Bellucci as his wife:) was a determinist in the purest sense. He was preaching causality... everything is cause and effect so human freedom is nonexistent, especially within the matrix.
This is where Bruce Almighty describes determinism in a Christian context better than PBS since they assume determinism is expressed in the "Calvinist doctrine of predestination, wherein those elected to a divine eternity and those condemned to an eternal hell are already established prior to birth" and assume the lack of free will in this Christian doctrine. I believe the PBS definition related to Christianity is incorrect. Foreknowing does not imply forecausing. Calvinist doctrine and mainstream Christian thinking allows for the dual existence of pre-determined salvation and human free will. This doctrine is similar to the Oracle's viewpoint in The Matrix: Reloaded.
"Candy?" asks the Oracle.
"You already know if I'm going to take it," states Neo.
"I wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't."
"But if you already know, how can I make a choice?"
"Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to to understand why you made it."
(Neo takes the candy)
"I thought you would have figured that out by now," says the Oracle.
"Why are you here?"
"Same reason. I love candy."
So I guess you really shouldn't call the Oracle's perspective determinism. Let's say Calvinist or "Free Choicer" (excellent explanation by The Old Oligarch on May 28, 2003 Matrix Essays blog).
Back to Hawking, he continued by stating his fear for the long-term survival of our species, “My only fear is this. The terror that stalks my mind is that we have arrived on the scene because of evolution. Because of naturalistic selection, and natural selection assumes natural rejection, which means we have arrived here because of our aggression. And my hope is that somehow we can keep from eating each other up for another 100 years. At that point science would have devised a scheme to take all of us into different planets of the universe and no one atrocity would destroy all of us at the same time.”
Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, commented on Hawking’s lecture, “Hawking was unavoidably caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, if there is no God he could feel the hold of determinism from which evolutionary theory could not escape—out of flux, nothing but flux. What followed from that deduction was even more troubling. For on the other hand, if evolution held true, he could not further ignore the aggression and violence through which man has evolved. Therefore, Hawking offered mankind’s only hope—that the savior of technology would come riding on the wings of science to rescue us from the clasping teeth of determinism.”
“We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” – Malcolm Muggeridge
Zacharias quoted Muggeridge and went on to explain how even the greatest of minds in the world today should not ignore the logical and rational existence of God. Basically, Zacharias was criticizing determinism and how flawed it is and a more logical explanation is having God govern and control the laws and powers of the universe.
Continued... deeper into the matrix.
Severals weeks before watching this movie and after The Matrix: Reloaded, I was listening to an excerpt by Stephen Hawking on his lecture at Cambridge University on whether man is determined or free.
As you might know, Stephen Hawking is our modern day Einstein. He is the Lucasian Professor of Mathematics at Cambridge University. This is an academic chair first held by Isaac Barrow, and then in 1669 by Sir Isaac Newton. His intellectual capacity and power can be rarely matched. His assistant once told of time when he was dictating volumes of notes and on the 46th page he recognized that there was an error 20 pages before and corrected it. Since the beginning of his academic career, Hawking has researched and studied about the laws which govern the universe.
At the lecture he concluded, ““Is man determined? Yes! But since we do not know what is determined, he may as well not be.”
To explain determinism, the PBS website explains:
“A far-reaching term, which most widely states that all events in the world are the result of some previous event, or events. In this view, all of reality is already in a sense pre-determined or pre-existent and, therefore, nothing new can come into existence. This closed view of the universe sees all events in the world simply as effects of other prior effects, and has particular implications for morality, science, and religion. Ultimately, if determinism is correct, then all events in the future are as unalterable as are all events in the past. Consequently, human freedom is simply an illusion.”
So if you remember from The Matrix: Reloaded, the Merovingian (wine drinking French-wannabe, trafficker of information, and had Monica Bellucci as his wife:) was a determinist in the purest sense. He was preaching causality... everything is cause and effect so human freedom is nonexistent, especially within the matrix.
This is where Bruce Almighty describes determinism in a Christian context better than PBS since they assume determinism is expressed in the "Calvinist doctrine of predestination, wherein those elected to a divine eternity and those condemned to an eternal hell are already established prior to birth" and assume the lack of free will in this Christian doctrine. I believe the PBS definition related to Christianity is incorrect. Foreknowing does not imply forecausing. Calvinist doctrine and mainstream Christian thinking allows for the dual existence of pre-determined salvation and human free will. This doctrine is similar to the Oracle's viewpoint in The Matrix: Reloaded.
"Candy?" asks the Oracle.
"You already know if I'm going to take it," states Neo.
"I wouldn't be much of an oracle if I didn't."
"But if you already know, how can I make a choice?"
"Because you didn't come here to make a choice, you've already made it. You're here to try to to understand why you made it."
(Neo takes the candy)
"I thought you would have figured that out by now," says the Oracle.
"Why are you here?"
"Same reason. I love candy."
So I guess you really shouldn't call the Oracle's perspective determinism. Let's say Calvinist or "Free Choicer" (excellent explanation by The Old Oligarch on May 28, 2003 Matrix Essays blog).
Back to Hawking, he continued by stating his fear for the long-term survival of our species, “My only fear is this. The terror that stalks my mind is that we have arrived on the scene because of evolution. Because of naturalistic selection, and natural selection assumes natural rejection, which means we have arrived here because of our aggression. And my hope is that somehow we can keep from eating each other up for another 100 years. At that point science would have devised a scheme to take all of us into different planets of the universe and no one atrocity would destroy all of us at the same time.”
Ravi Zacharias, a Christian apologist, commented on Hawking’s lecture, “Hawking was unavoidably caught on the horns of a dilemma. On the one hand, if there is no God he could feel the hold of determinism from which evolutionary theory could not escape—out of flux, nothing but flux. What followed from that deduction was even more troubling. For on the other hand, if evolution held true, he could not further ignore the aggression and violence through which man has evolved. Therefore, Hawking offered mankind’s only hope—that the savior of technology would come riding on the wings of science to rescue us from the clasping teeth of determinism.”
“We have educated ourselves into imbecility.” – Malcolm Muggeridge
Zacharias quoted Muggeridge and went on to explain how even the greatest of minds in the world today should not ignore the logical and rational existence of God. Basically, Zacharias was criticizing determinism and how flawed it is and a more logical explanation is having God govern and control the laws and powers of the universe.
Continued... deeper into the matrix.
Wednesday, August 13, 2003
Ode To Bacon
You wonderful thing!
The tigers and lions
All rise and sing!
The grease that comes
From your rich loins
Are an unequal sum
To millions of coins.
Breakfast, lunch, dinner
Teatime, bartime, late night too!
Every meal is a winner
And more enjoyable with you!
Wrapped on scallops,
Or in Korean stew
Nothing makes me gallop
More than you!
Clogging my arteries and veins
With your beautiful juice!
You drive me insane
Like a bull cut loose!
No matter how filthy you originally are
No care to what Vincent Vega thinks
Bacon is the shining star
That kicks the ass of sausage links!!
(wrote this a few days ago when i felt inspired and hungry)
Tuesday, August 12, 2003
PLAYING POOL IS A MAN'S GAME... NATURAL ADVANTAGES OF MEN
When I was in Chicago a few weeks ago, I was hanging out with one of my close friends. He grew up in NYC and was the jack of trades in certain vices and games when he was young... gambled in underground poker rooms, played pool with some of the world's best, went to Nike Five-Star camp for basketball during high school, and only God knows what else (what up, jason!). Anyway, we were watching a pool tournament on ESPN and he began talking about how much of a gap there was between the top men and women pool players in the world. One of his buddies was ranked around 100th in the world for pool and got regularly ousted during the first round of the major tournaments, but he said that he regularly beat Jeanette Lee, who is consistently in the top 3 among women.
Jason said that shot for shot woman are just as good in pool, but it's when you run the tables there is a difference. His friend could run about 150 balls while Jeanette Lee could run about 75 balls. This was when she was ranked 1st or 2nd in the world among women several years ago. He said the top men could run about 300+ balls straight. (damn, i miss amsterdam billiards club!)
Jason explained from his experience that it was about the mental aspect of the game and that the concentration levels were the difference between men and women. Honestly, this was news to me because I thought the primarily difference between men and women in sports were due to size, strength, and speed. I really didn't think about the mental differences in athletics. I knew that men could shoot more consecutive basketballs, but I thought it was more due to muscle endurance. Now I'm thinking it might also have to do with the mental aspect of shooting a basketball. Not being a golfer, Jason also informed me that a similar difference between men and women exists in the short game of golf and it's not just the long game.
Of course, my truly sexist friends are loving this, such as Chris (Asian American male in the recent American Air testimonial commericals in the U.S.), but I am not coming from that angle. I just found it interesting to hear that in a sport that doesn't rely on strength or speed that there was such a large difference between the top men and women players.
As a disclaimer, I will state that one of my women friends use to regularly kick my ass in pool... straight, 9-ball, or whatever. And I am far from a sexist, so please don't send me hate email, ladies, because the title was written just to grab attention.
When I was in Chicago a few weeks ago, I was hanging out with one of my close friends. He grew up in NYC and was the jack of trades in certain vices and games when he was young... gambled in underground poker rooms, played pool with some of the world's best, went to Nike Five-Star camp for basketball during high school, and only God knows what else (what up, jason!). Anyway, we were watching a pool tournament on ESPN and he began talking about how much of a gap there was between the top men and women pool players in the world. One of his buddies was ranked around 100th in the world for pool and got regularly ousted during the first round of the major tournaments, but he said that he regularly beat Jeanette Lee, who is consistently in the top 3 among women.
Jason said that shot for shot woman are just as good in pool, but it's when you run the tables there is a difference. His friend could run about 150 balls while Jeanette Lee could run about 75 balls. This was when she was ranked 1st or 2nd in the world among women several years ago. He said the top men could run about 300+ balls straight. (damn, i miss amsterdam billiards club!)
Jason explained from his experience that it was about the mental aspect of the game and that the concentration levels were the difference between men and women. Honestly, this was news to me because I thought the primarily difference between men and women in sports were due to size, strength, and speed. I really didn't think about the mental differences in athletics. I knew that men could shoot more consecutive basketballs, but I thought it was more due to muscle endurance. Now I'm thinking it might also have to do with the mental aspect of shooting a basketball. Not being a golfer, Jason also informed me that a similar difference between men and women exists in the short game of golf and it's not just the long game.
Of course, my truly sexist friends are loving this, such as Chris (Asian American male in the recent American Air testimonial commericals in the U.S.), but I am not coming from that angle. I just found it interesting to hear that in a sport that doesn't rely on strength or speed that there was such a large difference between the top men and women players.
As a disclaimer, I will state that one of my women friends use to regularly kick my ass in pool... straight, 9-ball, or whatever. And I am far from a sexist, so please don't send me hate email, ladies, because the title was written just to grab attention.
Sunday, August 10, 2003
BOLTON IS "RUDE HUMAN SCUM"... GOTTA LOVE THE NORTH KOREAN PR MACHINE
Proving once again that North Korea is similar to a cave in remote Antarctica, their PR machine shot back at John Bolton's running commentary on the current regime. The North Korean's archaic language and oddball tactics brings further light onto their time warped position in today's world order and dangerous uncertainty if the situation escalates. This seems to be out of a twisted "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" with Kim Jong Il being a delusional Napoleon (without the comparable intelligence, military brilliance, or drive of the tyrannical Frenchman) misplaced in today's modern world.
From The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal:
Last week John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, offered some mild criticism of North Korea's horrific regime. As the Washington Post notes, Bolton "described life in North Korea as 'a hellish nightmare' and called Kim [Jong Il] a 'tyrannical rogue.' "
Yesterday, the Post reports, Pyongyang's preposterous potentate "fired back":
In a statement attributed to a spokesman for the North Korean foreign ministry, Pyongyang said: "We know that there are several hawks within the present U.S. administration but have not yet found out such rude human scum as Bolton. What he uttered is no more than rubbish which can be let loose only by a beastly man bereft of reason."
..................
On Saturday, the Associated Press reports, Pyongyang "warned that any moves to discuss its suspected nuclear weapons programs at the United Nations would 'hamstring' efforts for dialogue and be a 'prelude to war.' " Will the U.N. take this challenge to its authority lying down?
One of Bolton's recent articles below. Sent by a family friend:
A Dictatorship at the Crossroads
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By JOHN R. BOLTON
The brazenness of Kim Jong Il's behavior in the past year is striking. While nuclear blackmail used to be the province of fictional spy movies, Kim Jong Il is forcing us to live that reality as we enter the new millennium. To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him, and perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants around the world. One needs little reminding that we have tested Kim Jong Il's intentions many times before -- a test he has consistently failed. Since 1994, billions of dollars in economic and energy assistance have flowed into the coffers of Pyongyang to buy off their nuclear weapons program. Nine years later, Kim Jong Il has repaid us by threatening the world with not one, but two separate nuclear weapons programs -- one based on plutonium, the other highly-enriched uranium.
If history is any guide, Kim Jong Il probably expects that his current threats will result in newfound legitimacy and billions of dollars of economic and energy assistance pouring into his failed economy. In this case, however, history is not an especially good guide -- a page has been turned. Particularly after Sept. 11, the world is acutely aware of the danger posed to civilian populations by weapons of mass destruction being developed by tyrannical rogue state leaders like Kim Jong Il or falling into the hands of terrorists.
In 1994, North Korea could have chosen to enter the international community on a new and different footing. While communist dictatorships were collapsing or reforming across the globe, there was even hope that Kim Il Sung's North Korea would follow suit. When power passed to Kim Jong Il, the world hoped he would be more enlightened and recognize the benefits of participating in the global community -- as opposed to threatening and blackmailing it. Unfortunately, this still has not come to pass. Even a cursory glance of the first decade of Kim Jong Il's dictatorial reign suggests that he has done nothing but squander opportunity after opportunity, olive branch after olive branch.
Kim Jong Il, of course, has not had to endure the consequences of his failed policies. While he lives like royalty in Pyongyang, he keeps hundreds of thousands of his people locked in prison camps with millions more mired in abject poverty, scrounging the ground for food. For many in North Korea, life is a hellish nightmare. As reported by the U.S. State Department report on human rights, it is believed that some 400,000 persons died in prison since 1972 and that starvation and executions were common. Entire families, including children, were imprisoned when only one member of the family was accused of a crime.
There is still hope that Kim Jong Il may change course. All civilized nations and peace-loving people hope this to be true. But Kim Jong Il must make the personal decision to do so and choose a different path.
The United States seeks a peaceful solution to this situation. U.S. President George W. Bush has unambiguously led the way in mobilizing world public opinion to support finding a lasting multilateral solution to a problem that threatens the security of the entire world. The operative term is "multilateral." It would be the height of irresponsibility for the Bush administration to enter into another bilateral agreement with the Kim Jong Il dictatorship. The Clinton administration bravely tried with the Agreed Framework but failed because Kim Jong Il instructed his subordinates to systematically violate it in secret. To enter into a similar type of agreement again would simply postpone the problem for some future administration -- something the Bush administration will not do.
Postponing the elimination of Kim Jong Il's nuclear weapons program will only allow him time to amass even more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to develop even longer range missiles. Any doubts that Kim Jong Il would peddle nuclear materials or nuclear weapons to any buyer on the international market were dispelled last April when his envoy threatened to do just that.
This will not stand. Some have speculated that the U.S. is resigned to nuclear weapons on the peninsula and will simply have to learn to live with nuclear weapons in the hands of a tyrannical dictator who has threatened to export them. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is why the U.S. is working so hard on pursuing the multilateral track in Beijing. This track is alive and well, but the ball is in North Korea's court. The key now is to get South Korea and Japan, and ultimately Russia and others, a seat at the table. As crucial players in the region, and the countries most threatened by Kim Jong Il, the roles of Seoul and Tokyo are vital to finding any permanent solution. Those with a direct stake in the outcome must be part of the process.
While the Beijing track is on course, prudence suggests that the U.S. pursue other tracks as well. We seek a peaceful solution to resolve the threat posed by Kim Jong Il, but all options are on the table. There are two complementary tracks that we are pursuing now.
The first is action through the United Nations Security Council. As the U.N. body charged with protecting international peace and security, it could play an important role in helping to reach a peaceful settlement. Unfortunately, the council is not playing the part it should. It was six months ago that the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted overwhelmingly to report North Korea's violations to the Security Council.
To date, virtually nothing has happened. Appropriate and timely action by the Security Council would complement efforts on the multilateral track in Beijing. Just as important, it would send a signal to the rest of the world that the council takes its responsibilities seriously. When North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty the first time in March 1993, the council took action within a month. Ignoring this issue will not make it go away -- it will only reduce confidence in the council and suggest to proliferators that they can sell their deadly arsenals with impunity.
The other track is the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI. The last year has seen Kim Jong Il accelerate his WMD programs, particularly on the nuclear front. Brazenly threatening to demonstrate, even export, nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il and his supporters have defied the unanimous will of the international community.
If Pyongyang thought the international community would simply ignore its threats -- it was mistaken. The second meeting of the PSI, recently held in Brisbane, Australia, "agreed to move quickly on direct, practical measures to impede the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, missiles and related items." Specifically, on "defining actions necessary to collectively or individually interdict shipments of WMD or missiles and related items at sea, in the air or on land."
Just as the South Korean Ministry of National Defense recently defined North Korea as the "main enemy," the nations participating in the PSI put North Korea and Iran at the top of the list of proliferant countries. That North Korea has earned this dubious distinction should come as little surprise in light of Pyongyang's trafficking in death and destruction to keep Kim Jong Il in power. It is practically their only source of hard currency earnings, unless of course you add narcotics and other illegal activities.
Already, operational training exercises on interdiction utilizing both military and civilian assets are being planned. Kim Jong Il would be wise to consider diversifying his export base to something besides weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The international community's tolerance for actions that defy global norms is fast shrinking. There is growing political will to take concrete steps to prevent dictators such as Kim Jong Il from profiting in ill-gotten gains.
This choice is Kim Jong Il's and his alone. In coordination with its allies, the U.S. is prepared to welcome a reformed North Korea into the world of civilized nations. This would mean, however, that Kim Jong Il makes the political decision to undergo sweeping reforms. A good start would be to respect the human rights of his people and not starve them to death or put them in death camps.
It would also mean respecting international norms and abiding by international commitments and giving up their extensive chemical and biological weapons programs. And it will certainly require Kim Jong Il to dismantle his nuclear weapons program -- completely, verifiably, and irreversibly.
The days of DPRK blackmail are over. Kim Jong Il has already squandered the first decade of his rule. To continue down the path toward nuclear weapons will squander his legacy as well. The choice is his to make -- but whichever path he does choose -- the United States and its allies are prepared. Let us hope he makes the right choice.
Mr. Bolton is the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. This is an edited extract of his speech to the East Asia Institute in Seoul yesterday.
Proving once again that North Korea is similar to a cave in remote Antarctica, their PR machine shot back at John Bolton's running commentary on the current regime. The North Korean's archaic language and oddball tactics brings further light onto their time warped position in today's world order and dangerous uncertainty if the situation escalates. This seems to be out of a twisted "Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur's Court" with Kim Jong Il being a delusional Napoleon (without the comparable intelligence, military brilliance, or drive of the tyrannical Frenchman) misplaced in today's modern world.
From The Wall Street Journal's OpinionJournal:
Last week John Bolton, the undersecretary of state for arms control, offered some mild criticism of North Korea's horrific regime. As the Washington Post notes, Bolton "described life in North Korea as 'a hellish nightmare' and called Kim [Jong Il] a 'tyrannical rogue.' "
Yesterday, the Post reports, Pyongyang's preposterous potentate "fired back":
In a statement attributed to a spokesman for the North Korean foreign ministry, Pyongyang said: "We know that there are several hawks within the present U.S. administration but have not yet found out such rude human scum as Bolton. What he uttered is no more than rubbish which can be let loose only by a beastly man bereft of reason."
..................
On Saturday, the Associated Press reports, Pyongyang "warned that any moves to discuss its suspected nuclear weapons programs at the United Nations would 'hamstring' efforts for dialogue and be a 'prelude to war.' " Will the U.N. take this challenge to its authority lying down?
One of Bolton's recent articles below. Sent by a family friend:
A Dictatorship at the Crossroads
THE WALL STREET JOURNAL
By JOHN R. BOLTON
The brazenness of Kim Jong Il's behavior in the past year is striking. While nuclear blackmail used to be the province of fictional spy movies, Kim Jong Il is forcing us to live that reality as we enter the new millennium. To give in to his extortionist demands would only encourage him, and perhaps more ominously, other would-be tyrants around the world. One needs little reminding that we have tested Kim Jong Il's intentions many times before -- a test he has consistently failed. Since 1994, billions of dollars in economic and energy assistance have flowed into the coffers of Pyongyang to buy off their nuclear weapons program. Nine years later, Kim Jong Il has repaid us by threatening the world with not one, but two separate nuclear weapons programs -- one based on plutonium, the other highly-enriched uranium.
If history is any guide, Kim Jong Il probably expects that his current threats will result in newfound legitimacy and billions of dollars of economic and energy assistance pouring into his failed economy. In this case, however, history is not an especially good guide -- a page has been turned. Particularly after Sept. 11, the world is acutely aware of the danger posed to civilian populations by weapons of mass destruction being developed by tyrannical rogue state leaders like Kim Jong Il or falling into the hands of terrorists.
In 1994, North Korea could have chosen to enter the international community on a new and different footing. While communist dictatorships were collapsing or reforming across the globe, there was even hope that Kim Il Sung's North Korea would follow suit. When power passed to Kim Jong Il, the world hoped he would be more enlightened and recognize the benefits of participating in the global community -- as opposed to threatening and blackmailing it. Unfortunately, this still has not come to pass. Even a cursory glance of the first decade of Kim Jong Il's dictatorial reign suggests that he has done nothing but squander opportunity after opportunity, olive branch after olive branch.
Kim Jong Il, of course, has not had to endure the consequences of his failed policies. While he lives like royalty in Pyongyang, he keeps hundreds of thousands of his people locked in prison camps with millions more mired in abject poverty, scrounging the ground for food. For many in North Korea, life is a hellish nightmare. As reported by the U.S. State Department report on human rights, it is believed that some 400,000 persons died in prison since 1972 and that starvation and executions were common. Entire families, including children, were imprisoned when only one member of the family was accused of a crime.
There is still hope that Kim Jong Il may change course. All civilized nations and peace-loving people hope this to be true. But Kim Jong Il must make the personal decision to do so and choose a different path.
The United States seeks a peaceful solution to this situation. U.S. President George W. Bush has unambiguously led the way in mobilizing world public opinion to support finding a lasting multilateral solution to a problem that threatens the security of the entire world. The operative term is "multilateral." It would be the height of irresponsibility for the Bush administration to enter into another bilateral agreement with the Kim Jong Il dictatorship. The Clinton administration bravely tried with the Agreed Framework but failed because Kim Jong Il instructed his subordinates to systematically violate it in secret. To enter into a similar type of agreement again would simply postpone the problem for some future administration -- something the Bush administration will not do.
Postponing the elimination of Kim Jong Il's nuclear weapons program will only allow him time to amass even more nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and to develop even longer range missiles. Any doubts that Kim Jong Il would peddle nuclear materials or nuclear weapons to any buyer on the international market were dispelled last April when his envoy threatened to do just that.
This will not stand. Some have speculated that the U.S. is resigned to nuclear weapons on the peninsula and will simply have to learn to live with nuclear weapons in the hands of a tyrannical dictator who has threatened to export them. Nothing could be further from the truth.
This is why the U.S. is working so hard on pursuing the multilateral track in Beijing. This track is alive and well, but the ball is in North Korea's court. The key now is to get South Korea and Japan, and ultimately Russia and others, a seat at the table. As crucial players in the region, and the countries most threatened by Kim Jong Il, the roles of Seoul and Tokyo are vital to finding any permanent solution. Those with a direct stake in the outcome must be part of the process.
While the Beijing track is on course, prudence suggests that the U.S. pursue other tracks as well. We seek a peaceful solution to resolve the threat posed by Kim Jong Il, but all options are on the table. There are two complementary tracks that we are pursuing now.
The first is action through the United Nations Security Council. As the U.N. body charged with protecting international peace and security, it could play an important role in helping to reach a peaceful settlement. Unfortunately, the council is not playing the part it should. It was six months ago that the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency voted overwhelmingly to report North Korea's violations to the Security Council.
To date, virtually nothing has happened. Appropriate and timely action by the Security Council would complement efforts on the multilateral track in Beijing. Just as important, it would send a signal to the rest of the world that the council takes its responsibilities seriously. When North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty the first time in March 1993, the council took action within a month. Ignoring this issue will not make it go away -- it will only reduce confidence in the council and suggest to proliferators that they can sell their deadly arsenals with impunity.
The other track is the Proliferation Security Initiative, or PSI. The last year has seen Kim Jong Il accelerate his WMD programs, particularly on the nuclear front. Brazenly threatening to demonstrate, even export, nuclear weapons, Kim Jong Il and his supporters have defied the unanimous will of the international community.
If Pyongyang thought the international community would simply ignore its threats -- it was mistaken. The second meeting of the PSI, recently held in Brisbane, Australia, "agreed to move quickly on direct, practical measures to impede the trafficking in weapons of mass destruction, missiles and related items." Specifically, on "defining actions necessary to collectively or individually interdict shipments of WMD or missiles and related items at sea, in the air or on land."
Just as the South Korean Ministry of National Defense recently defined North Korea as the "main enemy," the nations participating in the PSI put North Korea and Iran at the top of the list of proliferant countries. That North Korea has earned this dubious distinction should come as little surprise in light of Pyongyang's trafficking in death and destruction to keep Kim Jong Il in power. It is practically their only source of hard currency earnings, unless of course you add narcotics and other illegal activities.
Already, operational training exercises on interdiction utilizing both military and civilian assets are being planned. Kim Jong Il would be wise to consider diversifying his export base to something besides weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The international community's tolerance for actions that defy global norms is fast shrinking. There is growing political will to take concrete steps to prevent dictators such as Kim Jong Il from profiting in ill-gotten gains.
This choice is Kim Jong Il's and his alone. In coordination with its allies, the U.S. is prepared to welcome a reformed North Korea into the world of civilized nations. This would mean, however, that Kim Jong Il makes the political decision to undergo sweeping reforms. A good start would be to respect the human rights of his people and not starve them to death or put them in death camps.
It would also mean respecting international norms and abiding by international commitments and giving up their extensive chemical and biological weapons programs. And it will certainly require Kim Jong Il to dismantle his nuclear weapons program -- completely, verifiably, and irreversibly.
The days of DPRK blackmail are over. Kim Jong Il has already squandered the first decade of his rule. To continue down the path toward nuclear weapons will squander his legacy as well. The choice is his to make -- but whichever path he does choose -- the United States and its allies are prepared. Let us hope he makes the right choice.
Mr. Bolton is the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security. This is an edited extract of his speech to the East Asia Institute in Seoul yesterday.
Tuesday, August 5, 2003
HYUNDAI'S CHUNG COMMITS SUICIDE... CONSPIRACY IN THE MIDST
The fifth son of the Hyundai group's founder supposedly committed suicide yesterday in Seoul. I didn't think I would comment on Korean politics on my blog since it doesn't interest me much, but naturally various conspiracy theories shot into my head.
Why would a heir of a chaebol (Korean conglomerate) family commit suicide? Unless he was very emotionally unstable, the pending charges and investigation wouldn't be enough to send him over the top. Was his company in more financial difficulty than people knew? Did he not launder enough money for his personal accounts like other chaebol families did to sustain his lifestyle even after the worst outcome of his investigations? Very unlikely. What did he know about North Korea and the Kim Dae Jung summit deal? How would such information possibly effect DJ's legacy, Noh's current administration, or North Korea's positioning in the current crisis? Could such actions have been initiated by DJ and his operatives? Could such actions have been initiated by Noh, whose wife is the daughter of a famous North Korean spy? Could such actions have been initiated by the North Korean government?
My friends who are DJ or Noh supporters are raging now or very annoyed at my blog, but I find this situation interesting and really wonder about the truth of Chung Mong-hun's suicide. I'm also amused at myself for even going down this trail of thinking, but it's entertaining especially since I think Noh is an idiot and I have disagreed with DJ's "sunshine policy" from its beginnings.
Tragic demise of Hyundai heir
Monday, August 4, 2003
CNN
SEOUL, South Korea --Chung Mong-hun was once the "crown heir" of the vast Hyundai conglomerate his late father had built from scratch into South Korea's largest business empire.
Described as shy yet extremely ambitious by aides, Mong-hun stood on the verge of managing a company engaged in everything from cars and ships to department stores and computer chips.
The fifth of Chung Ju-yung's eight sons, Mong-hun rose to the conglomerate's chairmanship in a highly unusual move in South Korea's deeply Confucian corporate society where the eldest son takes over the family business.
In a family feud in 2000, however, his elder brother revolted and broke away from the group, taking Hyundai Motor, South Korea's No.1 carmaker, with him.
Hyundai Heavy Industries, the world's largest shipbuilder, also broke away in government-driven corporate reforms aimed at chopping up South Korea's sprawling family-controlled conglomerates into nimble, and more profitable units following the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.
Mong-hun, left with heavily indebted or only marginally profitable subsidiaries, invested his hopes in North Korean projects his father had initiated before his death in 2001.
Born to a peasant family in North Korea, the senior Chung had a passion for investing in the North.
Chung Mong-hun frequently visited North Korea, meeting top North Korean leaders. He played a key role in arranging a historic summit between the two Koreas in 2000.
The meeting was a breakthrough in efforts to reconcile the North and South and helped former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung win the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize. But Chung's seemingly reckless deals in the North soon boomeranged after Kim stepped down in February after a five-year term.
Turning point
Chung's downward slide first became apparent when an independent counsel appointed by President Roh Moo-hyun to investigate the summit scandal announced in June that Hyundai-Asan sent $500 million to North Korea secretly and through improper channels shortly before the 2000 summit.
But only $400 million was said to be a company investment to secure business rights covering tourism, railways and an industrial park.
The rest -- $100 million -- was raised and sent by Hyundai on behalf of the government, the counsel said.
Chung was indicted on charges of doctoring company books to hide the money transfers.
Chung was also accused of embezzling $12.5 million in company funds to bribe government officials and politicians to win badly needed political and financial support for his companies and North Korean projects.
Chung Mong-hun's family has a history of involvement in Korean politics -- and controversy.
The patriarch Chung ran for president in the 1992 election and was later convicted of embezzlement and fraud in his campaign.
Another of his sons, Hyundai Heavy Industries chief Chung Mong-joon, was himself a candidate for president in last year's elections before bowing out of the race.
Media reports said 54-year-old Chung, a frequent visitor to North Korea, before leaping to his death had requested his ashes be scattered at Mount Kumgang, a scenic resort in the North where Hyundai operated ferry tours offering South Koreans a rare chance to visit the communist state.
The fifth son of the Hyundai group's founder supposedly committed suicide yesterday in Seoul. I didn't think I would comment on Korean politics on my blog since it doesn't interest me much, but naturally various conspiracy theories shot into my head.
Why would a heir of a chaebol (Korean conglomerate) family commit suicide? Unless he was very emotionally unstable, the pending charges and investigation wouldn't be enough to send him over the top. Was his company in more financial difficulty than people knew? Did he not launder enough money for his personal accounts like other chaebol families did to sustain his lifestyle even after the worst outcome of his investigations? Very unlikely. What did he know about North Korea and the Kim Dae Jung summit deal? How would such information possibly effect DJ's legacy, Noh's current administration, or North Korea's positioning in the current crisis? Could such actions have been initiated by DJ and his operatives? Could such actions have been initiated by Noh, whose wife is the daughter of a famous North Korean spy? Could such actions have been initiated by the North Korean government?
My friends who are DJ or Noh supporters are raging now or very annoyed at my blog, but I find this situation interesting and really wonder about the truth of Chung Mong-hun's suicide. I'm also amused at myself for even going down this trail of thinking, but it's entertaining especially since I think Noh is an idiot and I have disagreed with DJ's "sunshine policy" from its beginnings.
Tragic demise of Hyundai heir
Monday, August 4, 2003
CNN
SEOUL, South Korea --Chung Mong-hun was once the "crown heir" of the vast Hyundai conglomerate his late father had built from scratch into South Korea's largest business empire.
Described as shy yet extremely ambitious by aides, Mong-hun stood on the verge of managing a company engaged in everything from cars and ships to department stores and computer chips.
The fifth of Chung Ju-yung's eight sons, Mong-hun rose to the conglomerate's chairmanship in a highly unusual move in South Korea's deeply Confucian corporate society where the eldest son takes over the family business.
In a family feud in 2000, however, his elder brother revolted and broke away from the group, taking Hyundai Motor, South Korea's No.1 carmaker, with him.
Hyundai Heavy Industries, the world's largest shipbuilder, also broke away in government-driven corporate reforms aimed at chopping up South Korea's sprawling family-controlled conglomerates into nimble, and more profitable units following the 1997-98 Asian financial crisis.
Mong-hun, left with heavily indebted or only marginally profitable subsidiaries, invested his hopes in North Korean projects his father had initiated before his death in 2001.
Born to a peasant family in North Korea, the senior Chung had a passion for investing in the North.
Chung Mong-hun frequently visited North Korea, meeting top North Korean leaders. He played a key role in arranging a historic summit between the two Koreas in 2000.
The meeting was a breakthrough in efforts to reconcile the North and South and helped former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung win the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize. But Chung's seemingly reckless deals in the North soon boomeranged after Kim stepped down in February after a five-year term.
Turning point
Chung's downward slide first became apparent when an independent counsel appointed by President Roh Moo-hyun to investigate the summit scandal announced in June that Hyundai-Asan sent $500 million to North Korea secretly and through improper channels shortly before the 2000 summit.
But only $400 million was said to be a company investment to secure business rights covering tourism, railways and an industrial park.
The rest -- $100 million -- was raised and sent by Hyundai on behalf of the government, the counsel said.
Chung was indicted on charges of doctoring company books to hide the money transfers.
Chung was also accused of embezzling $12.5 million in company funds to bribe government officials and politicians to win badly needed political and financial support for his companies and North Korean projects.
Chung Mong-hun's family has a history of involvement in Korean politics -- and controversy.
The patriarch Chung ran for president in the 1992 election and was later convicted of embezzlement and fraud in his campaign.
Another of his sons, Hyundai Heavy Industries chief Chung Mong-joon, was himself a candidate for president in last year's elections before bowing out of the race.
Media reports said 54-year-old Chung, a frequent visitor to North Korea, before leaping to his death had requested his ashes be scattered at Mount Kumgang, a scenic resort in the North where Hyundai operated ferry tours offering South Koreans a rare chance to visit the communist state.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)