An unwelcome guest
Koreas could ill afford to give cold shoulder to Carter
Jimmy Carter and three other ex-heads of state may be regretting their unfruitful trips to Pyongyang and Seoul last week.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il didn’t give them an “audience” leaving just an oft-repeated message, just before their departure at that. Nor did Kim’s South Korean counterpart, who never liked the idea of ``third-party” mediation from the start.
All this had been somewhat foreseen since Washington made it clear that Carter was not traveling on behalf of the U.S. government. A day after the former U.S. President conveyed Pyongyang’s willingness for both bilateral and multilateral talks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the North to mend ties with the South first (by accepting Seoul’s preconditions).
Some U.S. hard-liners minced no words in ridiculing their former leader as a shameful ``spokesman of Kim Jong-il” and chided he is up to ``more mischief.”
Despite, or because of, these criticisms of his journey, most regretful and disappointing for Carter might be his failure to meet the North Korean leader one on one. One can’t see much reason for Kim’s repeated refusal to speak face to face with the former American leader, following an abortive meet last August, considering the dire situation facing his country.
Kim of course must have known Carter’s visit couldn’t be anything more than a personal mission, from the responses of both Washington and Seoul. But Kim should have at least explained the situation and position of the communist regime on major issues, using his visit as a major opportunity for good publicity. Kim’s father, North Korean founder Kim Il-sung, went as far as to defuse the first nuclear crisis through the same U.S. visitor in 1994.
That Kim Jong-il didn’t do so might reflect the son is a far worse, less caring leader than the father, and the former would not, or cannot, dissolve his nuclear arsenal at least for the moment, unlike 17 years ago when Pyongyang was just a fledgling or would-be nuclear power.
And this means the current crisis could be far more dangerous than the previous one, calling for the need for more active negotiations if not engagement. As always the Lee Myung-bak administration was mired in a petty game of one-upmanship, downplaying the mission of four elder leaders and setting up walls to block potential ripple effects beforehand.
It would be easy for both Koreas to neglect Carter, as the American hawks do, as just a naive idealist who wants to either engrave an indelible legacy or even make up for his less than perfect presidency with post-retirement activities throughout the world.
Yet we can also see the better sides of this octogenarian Nobel Peace Prize laureate and his co-travelers, if we believe in the time-honored truth that humans get wiser and less selfish, if somewhat slower in realistic calculations, as they age. Especially noteworthy in this regard were their appeals for humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans, including the children, women and aged citizens.
At Camp David in 1978 the then incumbent President Carter managed to broker a historic Middle East peace deal between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, with an appeal, ``Don’t you want our descendants to live in peace?” At a news conference here Thursday, Carter also said, ``… I just hope that South and North Korean brothers by blood would lead better lives.”
We Koreans have long attributed foreign invasion and intervention to most of our national tragedies. The rude undiplomatic treatment of senior foreign mediators by both Seoul and Pyongyang shows the fingers should be directed to none other than ourselves.
Jimmy Carter and three other ex-heads of state may be regretting their unfruitful trips to Pyongyang and Seoul last week.
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il didn’t give them an “audience” leaving just an oft-repeated message, just before their departure at that. Nor did Kim’s South Korean counterpart, who never liked the idea of ``third-party” mediation from the start.
All this had been somewhat foreseen since Washington made it clear that Carter was not traveling on behalf of the U.S. government. A day after the former U.S. President conveyed Pyongyang’s willingness for both bilateral and multilateral talks, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton called for the North to mend ties with the South first (by accepting Seoul’s preconditions).
Some U.S. hard-liners minced no words in ridiculing their former leader as a shameful ``spokesman of Kim Jong-il” and chided he is up to ``more mischief.”
Despite, or because of, these criticisms of his journey, most regretful and disappointing for Carter might be his failure to meet the North Korean leader one on one. One can’t see much reason for Kim’s repeated refusal to speak face to face with the former American leader, following an abortive meet last August, considering the dire situation facing his country.
Kim of course must have known Carter’s visit couldn’t be anything more than a personal mission, from the responses of both Washington and Seoul. But Kim should have at least explained the situation and position of the communist regime on major issues, using his visit as a major opportunity for good publicity. Kim’s father, North Korean founder Kim Il-sung, went as far as to defuse the first nuclear crisis through the same U.S. visitor in 1994.
That Kim Jong-il didn’t do so might reflect the son is a far worse, less caring leader than the father, and the former would not, or cannot, dissolve his nuclear arsenal at least for the moment, unlike 17 years ago when Pyongyang was just a fledgling or would-be nuclear power.
And this means the current crisis could be far more dangerous than the previous one, calling for the need for more active negotiations if not engagement. As always the Lee Myung-bak administration was mired in a petty game of one-upmanship, downplaying the mission of four elder leaders and setting up walls to block potential ripple effects beforehand.
It would be easy for both Koreas to neglect Carter, as the American hawks do, as just a naive idealist who wants to either engrave an indelible legacy or even make up for his less than perfect presidency with post-retirement activities throughout the world.
Yet we can also see the better sides of this octogenarian Nobel Peace Prize laureate and his co-travelers, if we believe in the time-honored truth that humans get wiser and less selfish, if somewhat slower in realistic calculations, as they age. Especially noteworthy in this regard were their appeals for humanitarian aid to starving North Koreans, including the children, women and aged citizens.
At Camp David in 1978 the then incumbent President Carter managed to broker a historic Middle East peace deal between Egyptian President Anwar Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menachem Begin, with an appeal, ``Don’t you want our descendants to live in peace?” At a news conference here Thursday, Carter also said, ``… I just hope that South and North Korean brothers by blood would lead better lives.”
We Koreans have long attributed foreign invasion and intervention to most of our national tragedies. The rude undiplomatic treatment of senior foreign mediators by both Seoul and Pyongyang shows the fingers should be directed to none other than ourselves.
Public figures' privacy
To what extent should the privacy of public figures, including top entertainers, be protected? In other words, to what extent can the public’s curiosity in these stars’ private lives be allowed? This basic query is filling the pages and airwaves of local media these days. In question are two different cases. One of the two involved was the nation’s biggest pop idol in the 1990s, and still is for some. Seo Tae-ji introduced rap and hip hop to Korea and earned the nickname of ``cultural president” for it. His secret (or just unpublicized) and brief marriage and consequent divorce is stirring ire among his fans and, more likely, anti-fans. The so-called scandal, made public by his former wife-cum-TV actress’s alimony suit, has swept all other ugly news, including one on President Lee Myung-bak’s suspicious property deal in the past, under the carpet to be top news of both print and electronic media. Is that worth it? Of course, Seo should apologize for trying to sue a newspaper 15 years ago for what he then called the ``false” (actually correct) reporting of his marriage, to fans and the media outlet. Keeping his privacy is one thing, and distorting the truth is another. But that must be about all he needs to do, and the masses and mass media must free, should free him, and let Chung Hyun-chul (Seo’s real name) live the life of an ordinary person who marries and brings up children without having to be conscious of other people. The public should stop digging into the private lives of Seo and his former wife Lee Ji-ah, who dropped the suit and took to hiding under enormous popular pressure. The other case is about the latest heartthrob who volunteered to serve as a tough marine instead of avoiding conscription or wanting to work as one of the ``entertainer-soldiers.” Hyun Bin’s decision is of course commendable, but some commentators and women legislators are calling it ``noblesse oblige” that went too far, in view of equity and nondiscrimination with numerous other marines and even conscripts for other armed services for that matter. It just stuns us to see his each and every move, from the decision to join the marines to five-week training and posting, make big headlines. Compare this with Elvis Presley’s relatively quiet army life and Prince Harry’s secret active service in Afghanistan. Hyun wishes his two-year service to be a period during which he regains his self as Kim Tae-pyong. Let’s allow him do so. An excessive pursuit of stars reflects one’s empty inner self. This vanity, when expanded to national proportions, is just a mass disgrace. |
0 comments:
Post a Comment