Korea centric – Current events through a historical lens

A Policy of Musihada (무시하다) and Muyong (무용)

Alex Gratzek
September 24

My early contributions to The Korea Times largely revolved around inter-Korean relations and the futility of ‘negotiations’ with North Korea. Every North Korean dictator since Kim Il-Sung have proven themselves to be faithless negotiators. Every ‘roadmap’ to better relations that is laid out inevitably proves to be a dead end. North Korea has proven itself willing to take constantly but not actually deliver.

When Kim Jong-un was a new leader, he was given the benefit of the doubt but he proved himself to be in the same duplicitous mold as his forebears. If North Korea is ever serious about improving relations then it should be the one to take the appropriate steps to create the conditions for fruitful negotiations.

Recently, North Korea launched cruise missiles in one of its sad but predictable attempts to remain relevant on the world stage. Instead of giving in to what the North Koreans want, participation in conferences, concessions and legitimacy, it’s time for a new approach. That should be the policy of Musihada (ignoring) and 무용(futility). Let me explain.

One of the major reasons for the sudden collapse of The Soviet Union was economic. Oil prices hit highs in the late 70’s before declining throughout the 80’s. The Soviet Union’s economy was not efficient and its shortcomings had been covered by oil prices.

However, that was not the only economic issue. The Soviet Union was also bogged down in Afghanistan (79-89) while at the same time, President Ronald Reagan started to expand the Cold War into space. It was a confluence of economic pressures that caused The Soviet System to buckle and collapse.

In this most recent North Korean provocation, North Korea flexed its ‘military might’ to intimidate South Korea and Japan by launching missiles into the East Sea. The traditional response would be to see diplomats shuttling around the region, making plans for conferences and laying out ‘steps to ease tensions.’

Instead of dignifying the endless North Korean provocations with inane diplomatic dribble or asking North Korea to stop, the provocation should be treated with the disdain it deserves. South Korea is playing into North Korean hands by always letting it determine whether to ratchet tensions up or down. It’s time to flip the script.

When questioned by reporters about North Korea, President Moon should make it clear he has more pressing issues on his plate like the economy, jobs and corona than dealing with the gadfly North Koreans. He should refer questions regarding North Korea to a more junior member of his administration, preferably someone who is perceived as a bit off kilt, or even mad.

Ignoring the North Korean and treating them with disdain is only one prong of the new approach. The other prong is driving home the futility of North Korea’s efforts and the high costs. If North Korea fires two cruise missiles, then South Korea should fire double that number in North Korea’s direction.

Even better would be to get Japan to fire off its own missiles in coordination with South Korea. A united diplomatic front would prevent the traditional North Korean policy of playing its neighbors off against each other.

The percentage of North Korean GDP eaten up by these tests is significantly larger than either Japan or South Korea’s hypothetical response would be. It’s time to ratchet up the economic pressures, currently limited to sanctions, to include tit for tat responses to North Korean missiles to try and provoke them into an arms race.

It should be made clear to North Korea that South Korea is willing to go into an arms race but there is one key difference, South Korean has the economic capacity to support a race. It took decades for North Korea to develop its cruise missiles, rockets and nuclear capabilities. Imagine how disheartening it would be for North Korean’s if South Korea were to announce its own quest for nuclear weapons.

There would be hemming and hawing by the international community but South Korea would be accepted as a nuclear power while North Korea would still be treated as a pariah. South Korea’s respect in the world community, scientific prowess and level of economic development means it efforts would bear fruit mucher quicker than North Korea.

The North Korean people underwent untold privations to get nuclear weapons. They were held up to the North Korean as the prize for all those lean years. The quick speed which South Korea could go nuclear would certainly undercut the North Korean regime’s propaganda and domestic standing. Were the years of privation worth it if South Korea could achieve the same thing in a year or two with no suffering?

Of course, a nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia is not something China wants to see. They may have tolerated or even tacitly supported North Korea’s nuclear ambitions as a means of getting the Americans tied down in solving an intractable diplomatic dispute.

However, if the choice becomes either a nuclear free North East Asia or an Northeast Asia consumed by an arms race, the obvious answer for China is a Northeast Asia where it holds the nuclear monopoly. A quest for South Korea’s own nuclear arsenal would light a fire under President Xi’s ass to bring all of China’s weight to bear on North Korea.

North Korea has always tried to sell its threats as being somewhat credible because they are ‘crazy.’ However, they are perfectly rational and that’s one of the reasons they play the crazy card. But once you play your trump card repeatedly, it loses its effect. It’s time for South Korea to start playing its trump cards to break the status quo. South Korea has tried the direct approach to denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula but it’s time for an indirect approach.

Aircraft Carrier- Korea’s White Elephant

In previous centuries, white elephants were a status symbol in Southeast Asia. Monarchs were keen on possessing white elephants because they symbolized the power and justness of his rule while also signaling that the lands were blessed with peace and prosperity.

Eventually, white elephants began to be given by monarchs to sideline their potential rivals. The elephant served as a mark of the monarch’s favor but at the same time, the upkeep costs and time dedicated to maintaining the elephant meant the recipient had little time or money left for political maneuvering and scheming.

In more modern times, the term white elephant has come to mean an expensive project which fails to deliver or becomes very expensive to maintain.

I can’t help but feel South Korea’s decision to obtain an aircraft carrier will prove to be a modern day example of a white elephant. Before I delve into that, let’s take a brief look in history for other examples.

Prior to World War I, there was a revolution in naval warfare with the advent of the Dreadnought class battleships in 1906. They became the mark of great powers and if you didn’t have them, then you were “falling behind.”

Well, sure enough, Austria-Hungary, a nation which was falling from the rank of great powers, spent heavily on Dreadnoughts to maintain appearances. During WWI, the Dreadnoughts accomplished naught for Austria-Hungary despite the enormous resources dedicated to building and maintaining the ships.

By World War II in 1939, Dreadnoughts, which required huge investments in technology, money, labor and men, were obsolete thanks to the advent of the aircraft carrier although battleships were still being built. At Pearl Harbor, the weakness of battleships was demonstrated because carrier-based planes could cripple much of the American Fleet while the Japanese carriers were hundreds of miles away.

Let’s move on to the aftermath of WWII. Following the war, Great Britain emerged from the war battered but still standing. However, the resources devoted to defeating Nazi Germany meant that Great Britain was a “great power” only because the USSR and the U.S. treated it as such. In reality, its best days were behind it.

A British government document from the 1950s explained that without nuclear weapons “… we would sacrifice immediately and in perpetuity our position as a first-class power … have to rely on the whim of the United States for the effectiveness of the whole basis of our strategy.”

The decision to obtain nuclear weapons was made and by 1952 the British possessed a nuclear capability, ostensibly giving it the freedom to act independently of the United States. However, the weapons did not prove as useful as anticipated as would soon be seen.

In 1956, Britain, acting in conjunction with Israel and France, seized the Suez Canal from Egypt. The British and French were forced to withdraw by American and Soviet pressure despite Britain being in possession of nuclear weapons.

I can’t help but feel as if Korea’s desire to obtain an aircraft carrier is more the result of a desire for national prestige rather than any overriding need. Specifically, with Japan commissioning two aircraft carriers in 2015 and 2017 while China has also been on a carrier building spree. Korea feels that without this symbol of national prestige, it will look weak.

However, this is not a race Korea should be entering. Simply looking at the size of Japan and China’s economy and population when compared to South Korea should give it pause from entering the race. It’s not an expense South Korea can bear as easily nor is it crucial to national survival.

Simply looking at geography should highlight the limited use of an aircraft carrier for Korea. Aircraft carriers are mainly used for force projection and are best used in the wide open expanses of the ocean where they can hide in the vastness. Korea has China to one side and Japan to the other ― these constricted waters are far from ideal for an aircraft carrier to operate in.

Furthermore, it’s widely held that three carriers are needed for a viable carrier force. One to be cruising the oceans, one preparing to cruise the oceans and a third undergoing maintenance and repairs after its voyage.

Does Korea really want to expend resources on two more carriers which will have a limited usefulness when the primary threat South Korea faces is a land invasion from North Korea?

From my readings on the issue, it appears the intended role is for the carrier to provide a mobile platform in case of a surprise attack on South Korean air force bases by North Korea. To me, that seems a pretty weak reason. North Korea’s economy can’t support a long drawn-out war let alone knock out South Korea with a surprise attack.

Korea itself is essentially an unsinkable aircraft carrier. If Korea wants to ensure that its planes aren’t knocked out at its known airbases, then it should look to utilize its mountainous terrain and take a page from the North Korean playbook on autarky.

North Korea has recognized its weakness and used complex tunnel networks in its mountains to protect its armed forces from bombing. A South Korean network of secret tunnels for its planes might not be a glamorous symbol of national prestige like an aircraft carrier but it’s much more practical for South Korea.

When I studied in South Korea at Sungkyunkwan a decade ago, one of my professors introduced the Korean saying “when the whales fight, the shrimp suffers” to me. Korea should recognize its limitations and plan accordingly rather than attempting to swim with the whales.

An aircraft carrier might be a symbol of national pride but with the advent of anti-ship missile technology, the usefulness of aircraft carriers has diminished like the battleships of a previous era. I can’t help but feel that South Korea should seriously re-evaluate its decision to acquire an aircraft carrier.

Political Progression

By Alex Gratzek- Originally published in The Korea Times.

Over the centuries, a positive development among international relations and domestic politics has been the increased respect of the sanctity of diplomats and political opponents from harm.

In ancient times, diplomats were sometimes harmed or molested, but not always. During the Persian-Greek Wars, the Spartans threw two Persian diplomats down a well as depicted in the movie “300.”

Later, having ascribed their bad luck to these misdeeds, the Spartans sent two of their elder statesmen to the Persian shah as a kind of sacrificial lamb in order to wipe away their “bad juju.” The shah sent them back to Sparta as he did not want the bad juju associated with killing diplomats.

In medieval times, the great khan of the Mongols, Ghenghis Khan, sent diplomatic and trade envoys to the Khwarezm Empire. They were killed by a local governor. The great khan sent another envoy demanding the ruler of the empire punish the responsible governor and make amends.

The emperor chopped off two of their heads and sent the third envoy to report the tale. The Khwarezm Empire and the emperor were both soon ended by the scourge of god for the violation of diplomatic sanctity.

In the times of the Roman Empire, political struggles usually ended in the slaughter of the opponent and his supporters. Think of the first triumvirate of Caesar, Pompey and Crassus. It ended in bloodshed.

The second triumvirate of Augustus Caesar, Marc Antony and Leipidus also ended in bloodshed with Antony and Cleopatra dead. The junior partner in the trimuarative, Lepidus, eventually died of old age.

When his death was announced, it took Romans by surprise that he had not been killed in civil strife decades before. Leipidus’s survival till old age was an exception to the rule of slaughtering your enemies and crucifying your opponents.

Even in more modern times, the sparing of political opponents hasn’t always been the norm. In czarist Russian times, one claimant to the throne during the Time of Troubles was lucky to escape with his life to political exile in the desolate frigid wastes of Archangel. Other losers of political struggles were broken on the wheel, tortured, strangled or met other horrible fates.

During the time of Stalin, millions of citizens were sent to the gulags but Stalin also destroyed every possible opponent in the Soviet hierarchy multiple times over. He moved on the leftists under Trotsky and then the rightists under Bukharin, eliminating them by using the precursor to the KGB, the NKVD. At the time of his death in 1953, Stalin was preparing yet another purge against his supposed enemies.

However, his death interrupted the planned purge and his successor was Kruschev. Following the debacle and loss of face during the Cuban Missile Crisis, Kruschev’s opponents in the Politburo organized a coup and forced him from power into a comfortable exile into a country dacha rather than the wholesale indiscriminate purges as in Stalin’s times.

That new reality, that “Now everything is different. The fear is gone, and we can talk as equals” was perhaps one of his greatest contributions to the Soviet system.

However, since then Russia has regressed. During the Cold War, spying was a natural part of the game. Spies would be captured and later traded away for spies captured from the other side. Now, President Vladimir Putin is steadily sending FSB agents, the successor to the KGB abroad in order to kill opponents in violation of the unwritten rules.

In North Korea, political opponents are still killed as was seen with the assassination of Kim Jong-nam, the half-brother to Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un. While in China, political opponents of President Xi Jinping have been driven from the party and imprisoned.

On the flipside, you have seen a great political progression in South Korea. In previous decades, it seemed as if street fighting was the only form of political protest which would be heeded. However, South Korea has shown itself to be a well-developed, mature and established democracy following the peaceful protests that led to Park Geun-hye’s removal from office and her eventual imprisonment for corruption.

In America, it seems that politics are regressing. President Donald Trump has threatened to imprison his enemies, made a statement which could be interpretated as asking for the second amendment people to take care of Hillary Clinton and has used the power of his office to harass his political opponents.

Hopefully this proves to be a temporary aberration, just a Trumpian phenomenon which will not take root in the American political system. I would hate to see America on the same level as North Korea, China and Russia when it comes to the treatment of diplomatic and political opponents. God willing, America can keep it together a few more months and the trajectory to a shit hole nation can be arrested.

The Absurdity: Part 2

Last time I wrote about the daily minutiae of my life in Korea, I was primarily concerned with taxis and bananas. I want to update you on those two issues which have driven me bananas for so long along with a couple of new issues which as an outsider on the margins of Korean society, drive me bananas.

First of all, I must thank E-Mart for starting to sell two bananas at a time for 990 won. It beats the single bananas at Starbucks for 1,500 and is much better than having to buy 10 bananas at once knowing I will throw half of them out. I would like to think my hard hitting article caused this recent development but I don’t think I can take credit for that.

However, I wish the geniuses at E-mart would stop wrapping the bananas in plastic bags. I understand the desire to protect the bananas but I just wish there was some natural skin that could protect bananas in lieu of the plastic? If only there was a tough natural skin that covered bananas which was biodegradable and wouldn’t pollute the oceans.

On the taxi front, I recently tried to grab a taxi home from Itaewon to HBC. The taxi driver initially welcomed me as my friend had a suitcase, but as soon as HBC was mentioned, he told us to get out. I politely refused and referenced the law which doesn’t allow him to refuse service.

We proceeded to the police station, where the police, admitted that he was breaking the law but insisted I get out so he could go sit and wait along the main road of Itaewon for a long haul ride as my destination was to close.

Last time I suggested arming elderly people with smartphones in order to ticket the numerous illegally parked cars in HBC. Thankfully this issue has largely been eliminated due to increased parking enforcement but I would like to see the Itaewon Police patrolling the main road along which Itaewon taxis park.

Too often taxis just sit along the main road of Itaewon refusing service to customers causing congestion and slower service from those taxi drivers who are willing to pick up and drop off customers anywhere. If they refuse to take customers, they should not be allowed to sit idly by on the mainroad of Itaewon.

The newest issue I found myself thinking about arose as I make plans to leave Korea; namely the issue of my E-2 VISA. Thank god The Korea Times doesn’t pay me or else I might be in violation of the E-2 which only permits me to teach conversational English. I may be mistaken but as I understand, I can’t pursue business or other money making opportunities.

Many expats, such as myself have ended up loving our time in Korea and stayed long behind our initial expectation of a year or two. However, E-2 Visas preclude myself from pursuing other money making opportunities in my spare time. If Korea is truly serious about improving its economy and making it more dynamic, then a natural step would be to unleash the creative energies of its expat population instead of limiting opportunities.

As long as E-2 visa holders are able to fulfill their main job duties, then they should be free to pursue other ventures. Many people who would consider staying in Korea decide to leave because of the limited opportunities imposed by the E-2 Visa. If they can turn their hobby into a business, then why limit them?

This should be allowed, especially to those who have lived in Korea for an extended period of time. Instead, many foreigners refuse to start a registered business or operate in a gray area, robbing the Korean government of tax revenue.

My other gripe with the E-2 visa is its limitations to ‘conversational english.’ I recently finished my masters in TESL and many times in class, discussions would veer back to the absurdity of this stipulation. I don’t remember a single professor who was not horrified by this. Korean kids are being done a disservice by being limited to conversational english.

Although the ‘conversational english’ seems pretty broad with a certain amount of leeway, it isn’t necessarily a limb I would care to venture out on as I really do enjoy living in Korea. Kids need to have more than the ability for playground communication, or conversational English. What is also needed is academic English; specifically

“the genre of English used in the world of research, study, teaching and universities” or as another put it ‘Academic English refers to words and practice that are not necessarily common or frequently encountered in informal conversation and circumstances.”

Granted, such concerns don’t arise for younger children as the focus is building a strong foundation to build on in the future. However, for older students, I find myself hampered by the limitations of ‘conversational english.’ Their minds are ready to be debating, writing, creating arguments and academic terms which fall beyond the pale of ‘conversational english.’

After living in Korea for nine years, bananas, taxis and the E-2 VISA have been driving me bananas. I just had to get all of this off my chest. However, my experiences with Korea aren’t strictly negative as there are many things about this country which I love and are the reasons I have stayed in Korea for as long as I have.

One thing which struck me very early in my stay in Korea was the periodic cleaning up of trash on school grounds and neighboring areas. I think it is great as this fosters a sense of community and responsibility amongst the children for their neighborhoods. It also gives them the ability to empathize with janitors and other people on the lower stratum of society who must clean up daily. Having to pick up the trash and litter generated by other students I would imagine quickly turns littering into an action which will bring about peer pressure to prevent.

I can’t help but compare the action of Korean kids with my experience in the American school system. I would be periodically punished with having to walk around school picking up trash but it was never a school wide effort. The act of picking up trash was used as a punishment instead of as a moment to teach empathy and responsibility.

Furthermore, you have people like the White House Advisor, Stephen Miller who would intentionally create a mess in High School and leave his trash for others to clean up. Instead of empathizing with people who have lower status jobs, he justified his actions as being necessary to create jobs and work for the janitors at his high school. He is truly a little shit with no empathy or understanding of those outside of his bubble of privilege. For that, I do admire what Korea is teaching their youths. I wish America would imitate some aspects of the many wonderful things I have seen in Korea.

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.

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.

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.

Self-inflicted wound

By Alex Gratzek – Originally published in The Korea Times

Last week President Trump announced that he was asking Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to cancel his scheduled visit to North Korea, citing the lack of progress made on the issue of denuclearization since his summit with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un back in June.

Such a move is a typical Trumpian play because the concept of delayed gratification or the long haul seems to elude him. The issue of North Korea’s nuclear weapons has been festering for decades; to think that the problem would be solved following their one meeting or the months immediately following it is the height of fantasy.

Such a cancellation is a move that plays into the hands of Kim Jong-un as President Trump comes off as the intransigent party. Negotiations, especially ones of this magnitude and complexity, will always have hiccups and obstacles but such difficulties are to be expected. They should never be used as an excuse to scuttle continued engagement with North Korea.

By canceling the meeting, the U.S. paints itself as the feckless negotiator whose line South Korea does not have to follow any longer as it can pursue continued engagement with North Korea on its own accord. This allows for the realization of the long-desired North Korean goal of driving a wedge between the two allies and enhancing its position vis-a-vis South Korea and the United States.

Indeed, President Moon is pushing for rail links with North Korea which could conceivably be extended to Russia and China. It would be only a matter of time before South Korea would come to rely on such links giving the North leverage over the South in the future.

Domestically, there would be a business crowd who would not wish to see any disruption to such links undermining the ability of Seoul to take a hard line. Such is one of the problems a free society like South Korea faces in dealing with Pyongyang. In the past, North Korea appealed to dissident students and leftists to stir up domestic opposition in South Korea; in the future it could be those making a profit.

Furthermore, canceling the summit opens the door to the very thing Trump accused China of doing, specifically giving aid to North Korea to spite the U.S, president for the tariffs he has imposed on China. Beijing, for the most part, has been in compliance with U.N. sanctions against the North.

However, if North Korea can present itself to the world as a reasonable negotiating partner, the door opens for increased Chinese engagement with it and less compliance with sanctions or to look the other way at violations.

The U.S. needs to continue to engage with the North Koreans. Of course, as history has repeatedly shown, they will drag their feet on negotiations, and very likely, if any deal is struck, violate or break it at some future date.

What is important is that the world sees North Korea acting as the feckless negotiator instead of the United States. Stopping Pompeo’s visit because of the lack of progress on what will likely be a long-drawn-out negotiating process is asinine.

Instead of canceling the summit, Trump should have hung out the prospect of a peace treaty formally ending the war as a carrot to draw North Korea into giving something up such as allowing the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) to inspect its nuclear sites to determine the number of nuclear weapons it holds.

Any peace treaty will not be drafted and revised in an instant, giving the IAEA time to do a thorough inspection. An agreement to begin drafting a peace treaty would show American sincerity and a desire for peace while putting the ball in North Korea’s court to make a gesture in response.

If America makes the negotiations of a peace treaty contingent upon allowing the IAEA in and North Korea refuses, then it will be seen as the party that is stalling and insincere which it has historically been. Engagement with Pyongyang should not be canceled so willy-nilly.

Even worse, it seems as if joint exercises will resume which seemingly violates the gentlemen’s agreement where North Korea would refrain from nuclear and missile tests in return for a cessation of the exercises.

The resumption of such exercises will paint the U.S. as being hostile to the North making it seem reasonable if it decides to renew tests, or if it doesn’t do so, it will be seen as being led by a reasonable leader.

Engagement with North Korea should be canceled only when it’s abundantly evident to all parties concerned that it is the North dragging its feet or being insincere.

When America holds the moral high ground, its position in negotiations is strengthened as opposed to an arbitrary cancellation of a meeting which serves to undercut itself.

Long vs. short game

By Alex Gratzek (originally in The Korea Times)

Since the summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and U.S. President Donald Trump, it has become evident that the two are playing different games. One is pursuing the long haul while the other is pursuing the short-term gain.

Prior to their meeting, North Korea announced a unilateral cessation of nuclear and missile tests which help to ease tensions allowing for the two to meet. After their meeting, President Trump announced that North Korea was “no longer a nuclear threat” despite the lack of such evidence emanating from the Korean Peninsula.

Since this “agreement,” North Korea has continued to refrain from such tests but has taken other steps which violate the spirit of the agreement. This includes the installation of a new nuclear reactor capable of producing plutonium and the failure to destroy missile testing sites despite Kim’s promise to President Trump.

However, despite these actions, President Trump has refrained from any negative rhetoric and has instead been issuing positive proclamations. Kim knows that Trump’s desire for a deal is unequivocally high. It is one of the few positive aspects of his presidency and would allow him to gloat over his predecessors in office who failed.

To this end, Kim has made a number of gestures which win North Korea positive widespread coverage such as the release of three Korean-Americans held on trumped-up charges and the “closing” of its nuclear testing site. This is analogous to the destruction of the cooling tower at Yongpyong in 2008. Such a spectacle makes for good TV but one which largely leaves the guts of its nuclear program intact as is with the case of the test sites “closing.”

These North Korean actions violating the spirit of “denuclearization” aren’t front page news and will not get widespread coverage on the 24/7 cable news network. It gives Trump the ability to continue to proclaim positive steps in defusing the North Korean situation while not actually changing any facts on the ground. Likewise, these positive endorsements from Trump eased the pariah status of North Korea allowing for the easing of sanctions aimed against it from South Korea and China.

President Trump has been backpedaling from his previous mantra of “denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula” because it is not imminently achievable and any continued proclamations as such would ring hollow. The trashing of Obama’s Iranian deal gives Trump no wiggle room for any actual deal as anything that doesn’t exceed Obama’s deal opens him up to criticism.

So instead, he claims success and North Korea is happy to play along by refraining from tests which would be widely covered on TV and would threaten to end their tango. Any tests puts Trump on the spot and will be directly at odds with his recent positivity and force his hand.

Recently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo visited North Korea. The two sides presented the talks in different lights. Pompeo referred to them as productive while North Korea voiced its displeasure in unleashing rhetoric accusing the U.S. of possessing a “gangster-like” mindset. Such meetings and rhetoric will likely continue to play out over the next months. North Korea knows it can play hard to get and wring further concessions from the Trump administration.

Trump has built himself into a master negotiator who will loathe to actually admit failure or that he was duped. His ego won’t allow him to admit he’s wrong. He will continue on as is unless confronted with overwhelming visible evidence to the contrary, namely a highly visible nuclear or missile test.

Kim Jong-un’s steady improvement of missile technology and the expansion of his nuclear program have proven him to be a negotiator in the mold of his forebears, a feckless one. He will likely continue to issue vague proclamations to support Trump’s delusion but fail to take concrete steps towards denuclearizing the Korean Peninsula. Talks will likely drag on until the end of Trump’s term in office but with limited progress.

President Trump, being an old man who will likely face a tough re-election, is happy to play up any positive news concerning North Korea for his short-term political benefit and ego. Kim, being a third-generation totalitarian dictator can play Trump’s short-term game for his long-term aims.

When a new president is in office, Kim could make up a pretext of supposed American animosity and restart the process anew. President Richard Nixon played the part of the madman, President Trump could very well be a madman whom Kim would not want to embarrass. Especially so after it became evident President Trump was entirely sincere in his willingness to invade Venezuela last year.

North Korea is a geographic midget and an economic dwarf compared to its neighbors. It’s only claim to greatness is its nuclear program. In such a neighborhood as it finds itself, it is not likely it is willing to give up its weapons which it built over decades at great cost to itself. They are its guarantee that the shrimp won’t suffer. Their long game is to present the world with itself as an accepted de facto nuclear power. This takes time. President Trump is a useful stepping stone to this end.