Alex Gratzek

Tribute

Tribute is a term associated with a supplicant-master type of situation. To my mind comes ancient China and its surrounding tributary kingdoms. The vassal kings would send tribute to China but in return would receive gifts of far more value. All in all its not a terrible proposition for the weaker party. The reason I write of tribute today is because its underutilized in society. If paying tribute is properly used, the dividends far outweigh the costs as was the case with ancient China.

In Korea, foreigners are viewed with some suspicions as Korea is a homogenous closed society. A lot of emphasis is placed on connections, bloodlines and relationships. Initially this cost me some difficulty as the people in authority at a club I would visit viewed me wearily.

Now, what I speak of is my little area of Itaewon, specifically UN club. My friend Damien wanted to get in for free but he wasn’t allowed. He asked me how I managed to get in free every week and I said tribute. He scoffed at this notion as being beneath him. Long story short, I could go in and out at will and occasionally get free drinks while Damien was stuck paying 10,000 won and no free drinks if he decided to go in.

Now how did I manage to get in free to this club all the time? I will call it tribute. When I first came to Korea, I fell in love with public drinking at convenient stores. As was often my style early on in my Korean adventure, I was sitting outside of UN club drinking. I refused to pay to get in as by nature I am not a club guy and I just needed to wait until my friends came out.

I ended up talking to the security guard Patrick, and realized he was divorced and had a son. I told him I would be going to the states and I would pick up a toy for his son. Initially, he probably assumed that it was just drunk talk but sure enough when I returned, I brought his son a remote controlled car. After that I was let into the club for free and it’s been that way since 2012.

Since that initially tribute, my ‘tribute’ to Patrick the security guard took many forms. I would bring him food, buy gum/tea etc for him up at the nearby store, help him check IDs, and on rare occasions get the police for him. What is my input? Very minimal because I cook anyways, and I am usually drinking nearby the club entrance anyway. What is my return? Free entry to the club which normally amounts to 10,000 won, the occasional free drinks, getting to meet girls entering the club due to my association with the club and the backing of the security personnel if any hypothetical situation were to occur. All in all, not a bad return. Even after he left the club, he introduced me to his replacement and spoke highly of me. His replacement continues to let me in for free while I continue to do acts of ‘tribute’ for him.

Those are mainly financial gains. On the other hand, I can say I have made a genuine friend. As he changed jobs, he asked for my facebook account and in all sincerity asked me to stay in touch. He told me in confidence once that he didn’t trust foreigners but that he trusted me and considered me a friend.

My point is, invest in relationships and it pays off. I call it ‘tribute’ as it is in a sense tribute or maybe bartering is a better word. In the long run, I have saved hundreds of dollars in club entrance fees and drinks by fulfilling a few simple tasks, helping and bringing the occasional dinner along. However, Damien refused to go that route and was stuck paying 10,000 each weekend.

Passing under the yoke

In ancient Italy, the highest humiliation for a beaten army was to “passum sub iugum” or, pass under the yoke. During the Social Wars, the Samnites trapped a Roman army in a defile. The army, facing starvation was forced to pass under a yoke comprised of spears in a sort of ritual humiliation. This was the highest form of humiliation a defeated army could face. However, passing under the yoke could also be passed under as a means of making amends or atoning for some wrong.

Now you may be thinking, what has that got to do with today? I couldn’t help but think of the convoys departing from Syria last week with their flags flying high. To my mind, the American convoys leaving Syria should have been flying their flags at half mast because the withdrawal from Syria was not a defeat, but it certainly wasn’t done on a basis of strength and the flags at half mast would be modern day symbolic gesture of atonement to the Kurds.

I don’t mean this as any disrespect to the soldiers themselves who did a hell of a job keeping the Turks and Kurds from coming to blows. The failure of leadership lies with President Trump, who true to his nature, threw the Kurds under the bus. The Kurds lost over 11,000 lives in defeating ISIS while America lost less than 20. As the NYT put it, America essentially outsourced the fighting and deaths in the battle against ISIS to the Kurds. How did America repay them? By abandoning them to their

The minute ISIS is nearly broken and destroyed, President Trump arbitrarily decides to pull out leaving the Kurds at the mercy of the Turks. Keep in mind, American soldiers lived, fought and bled since 2014 with the Kurds. In an effort to keep the Americans in place, the Kurds agreed to destroy fortifications, supplies and make other concessions in an effort to placate the Turks and remove any reason for them to feel threatened from The Kurds.

This withdrawal was not American soldiers leaving from a position of strength, but rather a scattershot withdrawal and its showed. F15s were required to bomb a base in order to destroy its usefulness since departing soldiers were in such haste they couldn’t do the job themselves, Furthermore, there are suspicions that the Turks deliberately fired artillery at outposts manned by Americans . This withdrawal wasn’t America leaving on its own terms and conditions in a planned fashion but a pullout like a whipped dog.

Despite being thrown under the proverbial bus, the Kurds, despite having every reason to have their hearts filled with hatred, even assisted in the withdrawal of the Americans. The Kurds, gave more assistance than any country in identifying, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of ISIS and creating the conditions necessary for his successful elimination.

What Trump did to the Kurds was a stain on American honor. All Americans should pass under the yoke to atone for the wrongs done to these people.

Case for government

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

In the past and even today, some have been making the argument for smaller government along the lines of libertarianism.

This may have been fine in centuries past, however, in the world today, the case for a more robust government is stronger than for an administration that is retreating from involvement in its citizens’ lives. At least it appears so to this writer judging from a quick glance at Korean and American society.

In Korea, the need for government is increasing as traditional Confucianism fades away. In the past, the family could be expected to provide a safety net for elder members of the community. In recent years, this understanding between the generations has been faltering.

Today’s parents, squeezed between paying for their children’s education (private academies) and ever more expensive housing, are not in the position to provide their parents with money or a home to stay in, as their parents provided for their own before them.

That is not to say that no children care for their parents, but to point out that it is happening with less frequency and with greater hardship than in previous generations.

According to an article written by Kim Jae-won in the Nikkei Asian Review, the average pensioner in Korea receives 250,000 ($206) won a month; while nearly half of South Koreans over 65 live in poverty. It is unfathomable to me that such a small pension could be sufficient to live on, let alone in a comfortable manner.

What entity has the ability to care for the elderly? Companies are shirking from providing adequate pensions while families are being squeezed by the costs of modern living. Only governments have the power and authority to step up to the plate. It is especially galling that the generation which built Korea into an economic powerhouse is now struggling to survive on the margins of society.

In the U.S., there has always been a strong libertarian streak focusing on personal responsibility and minimal government. This may have been acceptable during the nation’s early days when communities were small and isolated while local businesses served the community within which they were located. Personal relationships and reputations served as a check on any chicanery or gross violations in the standards of decency.

Nowadays, corporations are behemoths with supply chains spanning the globe, subsidiary corporations and opaque structures.

The sheer size of these entities, when coupled with their profits allows them to buy the best lawyers, curry influence in countries across the globe, and identify ways to keep individuals continually using their products. It means that people cannot easily fight against corporations on an equal footing.

For example, how many times a day do you check your smartphone or tablet? Too many to count I would imagine. App developers and phone makers intentionally use bright colors and other psychological tricks to keep users continually using their services. You may say, well that may be so but it’s largely harmless so what’s the issue?

Take a look at cigarettes. Decades ago, cigarette corporations were able to muddy the waters concerning the health hazards of cigarette smoking by financing studies favorable to their cause. It took decades to overcome this obfuscation on their part with the resultant untold numbers of dead and sick.

Today, the same battle is being played out with sugary drinks. Despite knowing they are unhealthy and should be consumed in very limited amounts, companies like Coca Cola and other manufacturers frame the debate not over whether sugary drinks are healthy, but as a matter of personal choice. Who is the government to dictate what people can and can’t drink?

In this light, you would be hard pressed to find a person in favor of such governmental powers but the thing to remain focused on is the individual consumer versus the corporation. Sure, if it’s an even playing field then the consumer should be free to do whatever they wish. However, the playing field is never level between consumer and corporation.

Going back to cigarettes, in the days of my youth, cartoon mascots were used to hawk cigarettes to the adolescents of the day. Kids and cartoons going together, who would of thought it? Today, there has been a push to package all cigarettes in uniform boxes with no brand names or other markings.

This would level the playing field for consumers by undercutting some of the psychological tricks played by the cigarette companies, but the movement has largely been beaten back because of ardent opposition from the companies whose bottom lines would suffer.

In the past, a hands-off libertarian approach to government may have proved workable. The family unit was stronger allowing for the aged and infirm to be taken care of while any shady local business would quickly lose the trust of the surrounding community and go out of business.

The problem is that in today’s world, the family unit has weakened as corporate power has grown, but governments have yet to stand up to corporations and put some limits on their excesses.

The issue with corporations is that their only focus is on selling their goods and services to consumers by any means necessary. Today, there is a need for a stronger larger government to deal with the complexities of modern living more than ever before.

Ice free Arctic: cooperation or competition?

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

In early May, U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo attended the Arctic Council’s working dinner in Finland where he spoke on issues concerning the Arctic. The melting of the frozen Arctic Ocean means the creation of new trade routes and raises the possibility of great power competition in the area.

The melting arctic a scenario, I would like to see avoided, but the Trump administration’s refusal towards implementing and attempting to reach the goals set out in the Paris Agreement makes global warming and the melting of Arctic Ice seemingly inevitable. It is expected that by the 2020s, the Arctic will be open to viable commercial navigation.

The ice coverage in the Arctic has been shrinking at an increasing rate as water and air temperatures in the region have risen. With this, the age old dream of realizing a Northern passage, either a Northeast or Northwest one will soon arise. Such options would cut down on the current transit times from Asia to Europe and the East Coast of the Americas.

Despite being a shorter trade route, the route would still be treacherous as many waterways covered in ice would only have become recently navigable. There is a dearth of knowledge concerning seafloor depths, shoals and rocks which pose a threat to merchant vessels.

Furthermore, the weather in the Arctic is less than ideal posing the traditional threat of stormy weather to ships. Lastly, there is a complete lack of the necessary infrastructure on the Canadian and America side of the passage to extend aid to vessels in trouble or deal with other situations.

As the ice cover shrinks, the issue facing the world is how to address what will be a new reality. It is important to address the issue in a manner of cooperation rather than competition, namely between Canada and the U.S., and Russia. So many things could go wrong in the new environment and it would be a travesty if a lack of cooperation lea to a disaster in the region.

The Arctic is a fragile ecosystem where many things could go wrong. In 2010, the Deepwater Horizon in the Gulf of Mexico spilt oil for nearly 87 days. That was in an area which was easily accessible with lots of infrastructure nearby. Just imagine how long oil would remain spilling in the Arctic if such a catastrophe occured.

Also, as the world’s population grows, so does the desire for protein. Overfishing has plagued the rest of the world’s oceans, leaving them increasingly empty. Without regulation and monitoring of fish levels, Arctic fisheries would face the overfishing which is emptying the rest of the world’s oceans.

In such a situation, it is important that standards and efforts at cooperation take precedence over competition. South Korea and Japan are two prime candidates to push for international cooperation in the region in the face of nations bordering the Arctic who are keen on maximizing their territorial claims and the accompanying economic bounty.

South Korea and Japan have both attempted to get involved in the game concerning resources in the Arctic but these interests are limited by the geographic reality that both are not located in the region. In the face of such circumstances, it makes sense for the two to combine their efforts.

Each nation has a vested interest in seeing passages in the Arctic open to all, and should work in conjunction with each other towards this end. Both nations stand to benefit from the reduced sailing time as each nation’s economic prosperity is dependent upon the smooth flowing of finished goods and resources.

Also, each nation is a major shipbuilding nation. It is important to construct vessels designed for traversing the Arctic with better safety features, and to higher standards than vessels built for non-Arctic purposes. Japan and Korea should lead together to create such standards.

A successful push giving all involved parties a seat at the table to establish norms for the new environment in a cooperative fashion is ideal. There is a precedence for such a scenario.

A Treaty Governing Antarctica has been in effect since 1961 while the International Space Station is another example of joint cooperation. Such a dream for the Arctic is feasible but is governed by a more complex situation, namely the location of multiple powers in the area.

Despite such obstacles and the history of distrust between the two nations, neither should force Korea or Japan to give up. Rather, their successful mediation of quarrels in the Arctic region could serve as a template for the resolution of disputes in the South China Sea or other areas of contention in the world.

Japan and Korea may not get along, but this is an area in which their respective diplomatic clout should be joined together rather than in pursuit of their individual interests which will ultimately be overshadowed by those of China, Canada, Russia and the United States.

At the opposite end of the ocean, the European Union should also be approached to increase diplomatic pressure in an effort to push for the internationalization of the Arctic. Rules, norms and expectations should be agreed upon and implemented before the ice melts to prevent a wild free for all to exploit the region’s resources and potential disaster. Such a free for all could be devastating to the region.

Coming collapse?

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

All around the globe, the presence of man is being increasingly felt throughout the environment. With the rise of modern technology, man’s dominion over nature and the destruction wrought is becoming even more thorough.

Even in olden times, before the rise of modern technology, man was showing his dominion over animals and the environment. It surely can’t be a coincidence that the arrival of modern man around the globe was the harbinger of death for megafauna.

Oceanic megafauna were largely spared this apocalypse because man’s technology didn’t allow for long-term oceanic voyages. When the ability to safely navigate the oceans came about, populations of whales were decimated and they are still well below historical numbers. The threat to whales only subsided with the switch away from whale oil to other alternatives.

Today, whales and other oceans animals are suffering from the hubris of man as plastics are finding their way into the food chain and the stomachs of sea animals such as whales, dolphins and turtles. This likely played a role in their deaths. If current trends continue, it is expected that by 2050 there will be more plastic than fish in the ocean by weight.

This destruction to oceanic life is extending down the food chain. Seabirds and sea life such as salmon, mussels, eels etc. have been found to suffer from a Vitamin B1 deficiency in North America and Europe which is necessary for animals to live and reproduce. Although the cause has yet to be determined, I would certainly not bet against man being the culprit.

Now this decimation of animals is extending down the food web. Reports in America and Europe have both made note of the collapse of insect populations when compared to the recent past. A German study discovered a dramatic 75 percent drop amongst winged insect populations by weight in nature reserves in just 27 years while America has seen a 90 percent decline in monarch butterfly populations.

This decline is likely due to the increased use of pesticides, common in intensive farming, and is having affects further up the food chains. Last year, an article in The Guardian reported that a study in France showed that bird populations in farming areas had declined by an average of a third with some species suffering even more dramatic declines.

Birds which reside in wooded areas or urban areas were not affected probably because their homes were far removed from areas in which pesticide are used and their food source of insects remains abundant.

Growing up in the 1990s, I would always watch old movies from the 70s and 80s on TV. A common trope in these older movies was the sheer number of dead bugs which would pile up on windshields. When I started driving in the early 2000s, a bug splattering on my window was a rare event and one I would remember for days because it was so uncommon.

One may say, good riddance to insects of all kinds, who needs insects anyway? Insects are at the extreme low end of the food chain but they play an important role. They serve as the foundation for many food chains, serving as a source of food for birds and their decline is being felt throughout the environment.

The Earth is a finely tuned machine which achieved equilibrium over millions of years as species co-evolved together in their respective environments achieving a balance. Previously, man had only replaced the megafauna of the world allowing for the continuation of food webs albeit in different shapes.

Mankind has upended this equilibrium in the blink of an eye with a form of globalization that has introduced Burmese pythons to the Americas, Hippos to South America and countless more examples which harms the naturally occurring ecosystems of the world.

Not only this, but the technological advancements of man are playing havoc with the environment. Modern agriculture as practiced in America and Western Europe is a very intensive affair which sees large amounts of land dedicated to the growing of a single crop.

Monoculture farming produces larger yields but at the expense of a healthy environment. In monoculture farms or tree plantations, the diversity of birds, insects and animals is dramatically lower than in a natural occurring environment with a plethora of plant life.

Some naysayers may say I am being overly pessimistic and man surely can’t have such an impact. Take a look back at history. The Mongol conquests in the 1200s resulted in so many deaths that lands which had previously been under cultivation returned to a natural state sucking carbon out of the area resulting in a period of global cooling.

If a small number of nomads can affect the globe using bows and arrows as their means of destruction, then modern man with all his technology can surely have a larger impact.

Modern farming techniques leach the soil and water with pesticides which may ensure a bounty of food supplies now but at what cost? Tainted water and soil? In time, this desolation will move up the food chain affecting man. Insecticides kill harmful insects but it also makes its way into our food supply affecting our health.

Man has proven his dominion over the air, the sea, land, plants and animals with his technological prowess. Man needs to be concerned with our own survival as we destroy the foundation on which we have built our society.

An important question of our time is whether man can find a way to live in harmony with nature or if humankind will continue on the path of altering the Earth for our own short-term benefit at the expense of our long-term wellbeing.

Misplaced faith

By Alex Gratzek

One of the major reasons for Trump’s success in being elected to the presidency was his insistence that a wall would be constructed along the southern border and it would be paid for by Mexico. It became a rallying cry at his rallies, helping to propel him to the presidency.

Despite his comparison that wheels are old and still work, so therefore walls must also still be effective, a quick glance through history will show this to not be the case. Instead, money intended for a wall could be used much more wisely in the pursuit of ending illegal immigration.

Trump’s desire to build a Great Wall of America underscores a certain ignorance of the “success” of the original Great Wall in China.

The Great Wall was constructed with the aim of protecting China from the nomadic tribes of the Steppes such as the Mongols, Manchus, and others. Despite the construction of the wall through the enormous expenditure of treasure and sweat, China found itself repeatedly overrun by Steppes peoples at various times throughout its history.

China was often better off when it traded with or bought the non-aggression of such tribes’ tribute. The Steppes could not provide all the grains, luxuries and manufactured goods needed by its peoples which could only be obtained from China; either through trade and tribute or plunder.

Such trade was skewed in favor of the Steppes peoples as they produced very little China actually needed, but it allowed the leaders of tribes to maintain their authority and prestige to curtail raiding. Often times, the termination of trade rights and the subsequent stoppage of goods flowing to the Steppes would lead to open warfare.

A part of America’s border with Mexico is along the Rio Grande. The river serves as a natural barrier which Trump wishes to supplement by fortifying it with fencing or a wall which lessons from history show is just another half-baked idea. It has been tried before and failed.

The Roman Empire, after the annihilation of Varus’s legions in A.D. 9, ceased its efforts at expansion in Germany and instead chose to consolidate and defend its holdings. The borders it came to rely on were the mighty rivers of Europe, the Rhine and the Danube.

Although its borders came to rest on these rivers, the rivers were supplemented with military rivercraft to discourage crossings and fortified cities at key points. All this never proved sufficient to prevent a plethora of peoples from periodically crossing the Rhine or the Danube, eventually culminating in the dissolution of the Western Roman Empire.

The mass migrations which created a domino effect leading to the fall of Rome can be traced back to the Goths attempting to flee from the Huns to the relative safety of the Roman Empire.

The Roman Empire was safer when it paid “tribute” to these peoples beyond the rivers as it solidified the position of local rulers. They would in turn dissipate gold and other luxuries which cemented their status as the provider of such goods.
When Rome cut this ‘tribute” the authority of the local ruler would be undercut and war-bands would splinter off to take by force what was no longer being provided by the local ruler whose authority was no longer unquestionable.

Trump’s infatuation with building a wall to prevent illegal immigration is not one that is grounded in reality. There are countless examples of migration throughout history of people overcoming obstacles, both manmade and natural. The untold billions being bandied about for a building a wall and its upkeep would undoubtedly be better spent on economic assistance to Central America.

In our countries recent past, the aftermath of World War II saw Europe devastated and countless refugees flocking to the safety and prosperity of America. With the advent of the Marshall Plan and the reconstruction of Europe, the flood of refugees to America turned to a trickle and in present day the number of immigrants from Europe is very small.

Now, the majority of immigrants coming to America are from “shithole countries” Trump seems to despise so much. If he wants to curtail this, the wall is perhaps the worst approach but the one that is most appealing to his vanity.

As time progresses and the ability to forestall climate changes lessens, the current trickle of refugees to America from Central America will turn into a flood. Climate change will be most felt by the poorer countries of the world which lack the resources to alleviate the coming crisis.

Some citizens of these nations are now fleeing gang violence and a lack of opportunities, but with climate change, a mass migration is not inconceivable as people will be seeking their very survival.

People from Africa are currently risking their lives to cross the Mediterranean to reach Europe. An entirely natural occurring sea is surely a stronger deterrent than a wall and yet this has proven to be an inadequate deterrent to migration to Europe.

If Trump is genuine in his concern to prevent such migration, it’s better to act now and to provide aid to the countries in Central America so they are able to develop themselves and take care of their people’s needs rather than throwing up obstacles which history has repeatedly shown to be ineffective in the face of human determination.

Coming full circle?

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

The end of February witnessed the second meeting between Donald Trump and Kim Jong-un in Hanoi, and its failure. Entering into the summit, the diplomatic engagement between North Korea and the United States had been one of the few bright spots of Trump’s presidency.

Knowing this, it is not unreasonable to believe Kim thought Trump would seize at any deal, even if it were substandard. The deal offered by Kim called for the easing of sanctions in return for the made-for-TV spectacle of the destruction of an aging nuclear site.

This site was only a small piece of the North Korean nuclear infrastructure. Kim gambled wrong in believing such a spectacle would prove irresistible to Trump.

Despite my previous criticism of Trump, I will give credit where credit is due. He made the right move by leaving the summit rather than get suckered into a shoddy deal. The early departure echoed President Ronald Reagan when he simply walked out of a summit with former Soviet Leader Mikhail Gorbachev at Reykjavik in 1986.

From the looks of things, it appears that Kim has proven to be a feckless negotiator as were his father and grandfather before him. Prior to their first summit, Kim announced the destruction of the nuclear testing site at Punggry-ri as a show of good faith.

Such an action should be taken with a pinch of salt as it’s widely believed the only destruction wrought was a cosmetic destruction of the tunnel entrances while leaving the rest of the facility undamaged and easy to reopen. No inspectors were ever allowed in to verify the “destruction” despite Kim’s proclamations that they would be allowed to do so.

Furthermore, American intelligence officials believe that between the two summits, Kim continued building weapons and expanding the nuclear infrastructure of North Korea. Surely these can’t be considered the actions of a leader who was intent on truly bargaining away his nuclear weapons to gain economic development.

What will be interesting to see will be Kim’s reaction to the failed summit. Upon coming to power, he promised the citizens of North Korea that they would never have to tighten their belts again. The lack of relief from the most stringent sanctions North Korea has ever experienced puts Kim in a bind as he has failed to deliver.

Now, reports are coming out that North Korea is preparing the launch pad at Sohae for missile tests in the wake of the failed summit. This launchpad was supposed to have been previously dismantled or demolished. Time will tell if this is just a ploy to pressure Trump to make concessions or if North Korea actually follows through in order to put the spotlight back on itself.

Whatever happens, the choice is North Korea’s. It can choose to maintain the slightly improved relations as seen by the a cessation of joint military exercises between South Korea and the United States, its own stoppage of nuclear and missile testing along with the halting of vitriolic rhetoric from both sides.

This would not destroy the atmosphere that has allowed for negotiations and summits to have taken place. Negotiations between lower level officials could still continue.

If it launches the missile in a provocative move, then the likely countermove would be the resumption of joint military exercises coupled with attempts to emplace even tighter sanctions and the escalation of rhetorical warfare. It would bring us back to where we were a year ago before the warming of relations in the build-up to the Olympics.

If that is the case, then the most recent round of negotiations will have come full circle. Every other negotiation for the past 30 years has followed a similar trajectory. It is time to begin to think of a radical approach to dealing with North Korea as the traditional approach of negotiations has proven fruitless time and time again.

Promise of capitalism

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

Today, the world is suffering from the impacts of the Third Industrial Revolution as it stands on the cusp of the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. The question of our lifetimes is whether the world stands ready for such a drastic transformation when the ability to digest the impact of the third is proving to be a difficult task.

The Third Industrial Revolution saw the incorporation of robots and the automation of assembly lines. The result was a steady decrease in the number of workers needed in these factory jobs. These jobs were well-paying enough to give those working them a middle-class life.

However, the percentage of workers engaged in factory work has declined steadily as robots and other labor-saving devices become more prevalent. The Fourth Industrial Revolution stands to propel this replacement of workers at an accelerating pace. In essence, this revolution will see the marriage of human and machine capabilities in the form of artificial intelligence (AI) and an accompanying surge in productivity and a diminishing demand for labor.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution will likely see the rise of autonomous forms of transportation for taxis and long-distance trucking along with the replacement of cashiers, clerks and more by robots, computers or AI. Around Seoul, it is not uncommon to find McDonald’s restaurants which allow you to place your order at kiosks, entirely bypassing the cashier. How far away can burgers or coffees made to order by robot be?

However, the loss of jobs will not be limited to simply those with lower skilled jobs. Lawyers, accountants, financial analysts, insurance underwriters and more will also have their professions threatened by AI.

In such a scenario, who stands to benefit the most? Increasingly, capitalism has found all the profits generated by companies or corporations making their way into the pockets of shareholders. In previous decades, it wasn’t uncommon for companies to have profit-sharing programs with their workers.

This is not the case anymore as rising inequality attests to. Increasingly the rich are become richer because of investments, not through labor. The replacement of people with robots and AI will only encourage this trend of widening inequality as capital holders stand to gain at the expense of labor.

The average worker, along with increasing numbers of skilled workers, will find themselves out of work. The question of the Fourth Industrial Revolution is what to do with them? Capitalism has seemingly always promised that the economic pie will eventually get big enough for everyone to have a satisfactory piece of it. However, it always seems that such a time is just around the corner.

In 1988, U.S. real GDP amounted to just over $9 trillion. Thirty years later, it had doubled to over $18 trillion. Meanwhile in Korea, 1988 saw its coming out to the world with the Seoul Olympics and soon thereafter reaching the status of a high-income country. Despite the economic growth, large numbers of people are suffering from economic anxieties such as worrying where their next meal comes from. For a true flowering of society and culture, these fears need to be allayed.

For a historical perspective, one needs to go back to medieval Europe and the Black Death which ravaged the continent in the 1300s. During that time, 30 percent to 60 percent of Europe’s population died.

This drastic reduction in Europe’s population spelled the death knell of feudalism in Western Europe. Peasants were no longer tied to the land as the shortage of workers allowed for peasants to travel in pursuit of paid wages. The resulting shortage of labor helped to curtail inequality in Europe as labor became more valuable than land itself which was owned by the aristocracy. Today the opposite holds true: the haves stand to gain even more.

The lack of labor in late medieval Europe entailed a shrinkage of cultivated land and an increase in the land devoted to livestock. The result was an increase in meat and cheese consumption and standards of living which helped to set Europe on the course to the Renaissance and the Enlightenment.

The connection between the two is that in the past, the narrowing of inequality helped the general population allowing for society to move forward. In today’s world of unfettered capitalism, the benefits of AI stand to flow to an ever-narrowing elite.

Accommodations need to be made for the people who find themselves out of jobs or forced to work reduced hours instead of fending for themselves as best they can. The rumblings of discontent that are being heard around the world presently will dwarf in comparison in the future if no accommodation is made for such an eventuality.

The decrease in inequality led to a rise in opportunities in medieval Europe for the general population. These opportunities helped propel Europe toward the creation of the scientific and industrial revolutions.

In modern times, the goal should be to ensure that the average person is able to live life free of worrying about food and shelter. The pie is big enough. Instead of individuals’ energies being focused on meeting their basic survival, they should instead be redirected to focus on areas that can allow for human creativity to flourish and for society to thrive.

Such a scenario of massive job losses to AI is not guaranteed to play out. New industries may arise in response to AI as new industries have arisen in the past as old industries died away. However, preparations should be made for such an eventuality as a lack of preparations could lead to a dystopian future.

A wily negotiator

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

Since the opening of dialogue between North Korea and the United States, North Korean leader Kim Jong-un has proven himself to be a shrewd negotiator in the manner of his father and grandfather in his dealings with Presidents Donald Trump, Xi Jinping and Moon Jae-in.

So far, Kim has managed to play his weak hand to successfully in seeking an end to the most stringent sanctions North Korea has ever faced.

Kim has also successfully played Trump’s short game as a stepping stone in his long-term ambitions. Kim gave President Trump what he wanted, good optics.

This came in the form of the release of Americans held captive in North Korea; the first ever meeting between a North Korean leader and a sitting American president, along with the end of missile and nuclear tests. These actions have given President Trump the ability to claim success in dealing with the threat posed by North Korea.

The lack of negative headlines emanating from North Korea continues to allow positive proclamations when in reality the situation is less than stellar. It is evident in the recent announcement of the discovery of 13 secret missile sites.

The discovery means attempts to positively portray the destruction of one missile site back in July must be viewed in another light. This discovery does not stand in direct contrast to the “agreement” between the two but it certainly violates the spirit.

On Nov. 7, Kim cancelled his scheduled meeting with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. This cancellation came a day after midterm elections in the United States in which the Democrats seized control of the House of Representatives. Perhaps it was a coincidence, perhaps not.

In the end though, President Trump’s dismal approval ratings, the Mueller probe, along with a Democratic control of the House and the accompanying ability to launch investigations into the various scandals surrounding Trump, means that North Korea is likely not high on his list of priorities when his political survival is at stake.

While Kim gave Trump positive optics, playing his short game to his advantage, he has taken a different tack with Chinese leader Xi Jinping. With President Xi, Kim has played to his ego.

The year of 2013 saw Xi become the paramount leader in China and in 2016 he did away with term limits. Limits had been instituted in China in 1981 when Deng Xiaoping introduced them to prevent a recurrence of a destructive leader along the lines of Mao Zedong.

Since this abolition of term limits, President Xi has tried to present himself as the third big man in modern China, following Mao and Deng.

In 2013, Chinese-North Korean relations came under strain. The reason for the strain was that North Korea proceeded with nuclear tests despite Chinese protests along with the execution of Kim’s uncle, Jang Song-thaek.

The uncle controlled the coal trade with China and had links with the Chinese leadership. These strained relations opened up North Korea to the most stringent sanctions it ever faced as China showed its displeasure by not utilizing its veto in the U.N. to protect North Korean interests.

To improve relations with Xi, Kim has played to his ego. September saw the end of the Mass Games in North Korea. During the games, President Xi was portrayed “inside a gold-framed circle surrounded by red” as reported by the New York Times.

This is the manner in which Kim Jong-il and Kim Il-sung were also shown. The kowtowing on Kim’s part opens the way to a possible visit by President Xi to Pyongyang which could lessen North Korea’s pariah status and raise the opportunities for increased trade.

With President Moon, Kim has played on Moon’s heartfelt desire for improved relations on the peninsula and eventual unification. So far, the two leaders have met three times and Kim even made a symbolic, but brief visit to South Korea when he passed over the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ).

President Moon has been busy portraying Kim as a new generation of leader, who is eager to pursue economic reform in his impoverished country and that current negotiations are completely different from those in the past.

Kim has played to Moon’s hopes by agreeing to study the chance of rail links between the two and the destruction of guard posts along the DMZ.

Regardless of these positive proclamations on Moon’s part, these efforts are only superficial changes that only serve as a new facade on the rotten foundations on which relations sit. Other than Kim’s youthfulness, what has he done to differentiate himself from his predecessors or earn this image?

How many citizens remain in the gulags of North Korea? Has Kim expressed remorse or sorrow, or apologized for the various heinous acts North Korea has committed against South Korea by his predecessors? Of course not, but President Moon’s unbridled optimism for closer relations has been artfully played upon by Kim.

Kim is in the same mold as his father and grandfather, ruthless. He has shown this ruthlessness by executing his uncle due to his stature and independent power base in North Korea which made him a potential rival along with the assassination of his half-brother who, however unlikely, could have been a rival contender for the position of Supreme Leader.

In poker, one is often told to play your opponent and not play your cards. Kim has done exactly this. He has managed to read each of his principal counterparts in negotiations and has managed to play his incredibly weak hand almost perfectly.

The most stringent sanctions his regime has ever faced are loosening, relations with China are improving and there are increasingly divergent positions between the negotiating stances of the U.S. and South Korea. Well played supreme leader, well played.

Re-examining marijuana laws

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

Recently, Canada joined Uruguay in becoming the second nation in the world to legalize marijuana.

It is time for Korea to re-examine its relationship with hemp and marijuana since the 1976 Marijuana Control Act was put into effect under the leadership of then dictator Park Chung-hee. This act effectively outlawed the possession and smoking of marijuana while creating strict regulations governing the cultivation of hemp.

Within Korea, the cultivation of hemp goes back before the common era. Fabric found in Korea dating back to 3,000 BCE contained hemp. Sambe was traditionally used in more recent times for Korean clothing.

Although there is no evidence that can prove or disprove consumption of marijuana through smoking it, it is highly likely that ancient practitioners of Korean Shamanism partook in its ritualized consumption. During the Japanese occupation of Korea, hemp was grown commercially throughout the Korean Peninsula.

Despite the long history of hemp cultivation within Korea and possessing a significant role within society, the plant was only outlawed in recent times. The illegalization of hemp and marijuana came in two phases coinciding with the increase of American influence within South Korea.

In 1957 President Syngman Rhee outlawed “Indian marijuana” largely due to the influx of American troops who were permanently stationed in Korea following the ending of the Korean War.

The cultivation of “Korean marijuana” continued on until 1976 when it was outlawed under then President Park. The consumption of marijuana had become more prevalent during the 1960s and early 1970s.

The increased consumption could be traced back to American influence in the form of the counterculture and hippies which emanated from American Army bases. President Richard Nixon, in an effort to demonize his political opponents, launched a “war on drugs” in an attempt to disrupt the hippies and counter-culturalists who were opposed to his administration.

Likewise, President Park saw the increasing usa of marijuana among the youth of South Korea as an opportunity. Students and young people had been the traditional opponents of the military dictatorship so it made sense for him to take a page from Nixon’s playbook in an effort to hobble the opponents of his regime.

The result was the outlawing of marijuana and hemp and its portrayal as a threat to the fabric of society. Many musicians were made examples of in order to cow their followers into submission.

Within America, attitudes toward Marijuana are shifting in favor of its decriminalization, allowance for medicinal purposes or even outright legalization and regulation as in Colorado. As the winds shift in America on the topic and the rest of the world, it is natural for Korea to re-examine its own relationship.

With the legalization of marijuana in Canada, South Korea holds that any citizens who use marijuana abroad will be subject to punishment in Korea. This is a dangerous road which should not be trodden without careful deliberation.

In Thailand, if one is robbed and posts on social media about the incident, then that person can be subject to punishment for the besmirchment of Thailand.

Koreans would be livid at the treatment of Koreans in such circumstances as it goes against what an open society should stand for. The same should apply to Koreans who are punished for doing something which is legal in their circumstances.

Dr. Kwon Yong-hyun, head of the Korean Cannabinoid Association, advocates for the use of medical cannabis to further the care of patients in pain.

“There are some types of diseases that can only be cured with medical marijuana, and it also helps in easing some symptoms, and treatments,” Kwon said.

He continued by pointing out that tens of thousands of studies and medical procedures over the years have found medical marijuana to be effective in treating numerous diseases including epilepsy, atopic dermatitis, dementia and Parkinson’s disease.

One of the most prominent issues in Korean society today is the economy and the lack of economic opportunities for today’s youth. An estimated one in 10 youths aged between 15 and 29 are out of work. A radical approach to the issue would see the outright legalization of marijuana.

It would immediately create a new industry overnight and would drive job creation via the new industry and the accompanying increased demand for services it would create. It has been estimated that 18,000 jobs were created in Colorado due to the legalization of marijuana. Colorado has a population of just over 5 million.

Currently, many tourists go to places like the Netherlands, Canada, Colorado or other places where marijuana is tolerated if not strictly legal.

The legalization of marijuana in Korea would create a new destination for tourists in Northeast Asia. Neither Japan nor China currently allows marijuana to be consumed legally. Korea would hold a monopoly for marijuana tourists in the region.

As the world opinion on marijuana and hemp changes, it is natural for Korea to re-examine its relationship with the plant and drug. At a minimum, those who use marijuana abroad in legal settings should not be subjected to punishment.

A middle road would be to allow for the use of medicinal cannabis and the easing of regulations governing the growing of hemp which holds a wide range of industrial uses and a THC count so low as to not produce a high effect if smoked. A radical approach would be for the regulation and legalization of marijuana.