Flying Yangban

It's still a condom in Korea

Horny foreigners in Korea won't have to worry about breaking out their Korean-English dictionaries the next time they drop by the local LG25.  Korea has dropped plans to replace the English loan word for condom (콘돔) with a 'pure' Korean word (애필).  Check this out:

The Korean Anti-AIDS Federation said it would drop the use of a suggested new word for condom, "ae-pil," which was derived from the Chinese characters for love and necessity.

The name, picked from 19,000 suggestions sent in by the public, had prompted complaints from many South Koreans with similar-sounding characters in their names, federation official Kim Hoon-soo said.

"An old lady called to complain, saying she was worried about her grandson being teased due to her name being 'condom,'" Kim said, adding the federation had dropped its push for a new name.

So you single guys out there have one less thing to have to remember.

My little trip to the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights; Part Two (What's up with LiNK?)

(Here is part two of my my first-hand account of part of the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights, which was held at the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies on Saturday, November 27.)

In part one, I talked about the morning session of the symposium. .

After a lunch of stale bread from a bakery near Yonsei University's east gate, I got to see some of the second round action.

The Line-up

The afternoon battle royal panel discussion

When the folks at LiNK say that they want to bring different groups together for dialog, they aren't joking.  The afternoon forum had members from all over Korea's political spectrum and some of them clearly detested each other.  The participants where (from stage right to stage left on the podium):

-Adrian Hong; Executive Director of LiNK (more on him in a moment).

-Lee Yeong-hwan with Citizens' Alliance for North Korean Human Rights.  I suspect that they are pretty right-wing, because they are helping North Korean refugees in China and Russia.  They certainly don't seem to have any love for Kim Jong-il and the boys. 

-Park Jeong-eun with The People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy.  They are pretty left-wing and think that any problem with the Norks is America's fault.

-Park Il-Hwan with 자유민주남복청년희 or the (time for a tortured translation) United Korean Youth for Freedom and Democracy Association.  [Somebody please tell me their real English name so I can find a link.  Or better yet, give me a link.  Never mind, I now know that the English name is Korean Youth United. They don't seem to have a web page yet, which is weird since everyone in Korea has a web page.]  Anyway, Park is a defector from North Korea.  He is currently a college student.

-Lee Seung-yong with Good Friends.  This seems to be a Buddhist counterpart to the Christian groups who are helping North Koreans.  Unsurprisingly, it is also pretty left-wing (most Korean Christians being on the Right).

Tarik Radiwan, a professor and human rights attorney.  Radiwan was the most impressive of the folks that I saw that afternoon, mainly because he seemed to be the only one up there without an agenda other than talking about human rights in North Korea.  Unsurprisingly, he took a legalistic approach to the issue and said that the Chinese are bound by the international agreements they have signed to take in North Korean refugees.  Yeah, that sounded naive to me too.

I only wish that I could have stuck around for the whole thing (I don't get to spend enough time with Lady Yangban these days and I wanted to get home for some QT).

What's up with LiNK?

In past posts I've expressed my admiration for the folks who are organizing LiNK and hope that they and other Korean-American groups can help pull their Korean cousins' heads out of the sand regarding the Norks.

Something I saw at the symposium has made me believe that I may have been too hopeful.  When the leftists on the panel began attacking the North Korea Freedom Act (NKFA), Adrian Hong (Link's rep) went into full back pedal mode and said that LiNK did not and perhaps legally could not take a stand on specific legislation.

Really?  Is this the same organization that protested and gathered signatures in support of the North Korean Human Rights Act (the Senate version of NKFA)?  You can see more pics of the event at LiNK's blog here. Why the change?

I see a couple of possibilities.  First, the Ryongchang disaster may have started a change in the perceptions of some LiNK members away from opposition to the North Korean government towards more of a politically neutral stance.  Second, their may have been a leadership change in the organization with a corresponding shift in direction.

However, I think the most likely explanation is that most political of motivations: expediency.  Check out this quote from LiNK's  own coverage of the event: 

These reactions (of Korean groups to the NKFA) and polarization makes useful discourse about the subject difficult. Most separate themselves into two camps: those who support the Sunshine policy and reunification above all else versus those who want to push for human rights now.

Diana Sur, one of the event organizers who is also starting a Seoul chapter of LiNK, mentioned the frustration of trying to bring the two sides together. "One group would find out another was attending and refuse to appear," she said.

So I think Hong's backpedaling may have simply been a way to try to keep the peace among some of the participants.  It could very well be that LiNK is a two-headed beast: agitator in America and facilitator in Korea.

If some kind of consensus can be achieved, great.  But I would not hold my breath.  After all, this is a land where brawls on the floor of the legislature are commonplace.

If any LiNKers out there see this, I would certainly appreciate some enlightenment.

UPDATE:  My first comment confirmed that there has been a shift in thinking at the top of the organization.  I would certainly like to hear more about this (and any other views).

I have a cyber-stalker

A couple of weeks ago, I got a piece of hate mail from one "Stephanie Chalmers."  Since then, she has seen fit to email me two or three times a week.  Usually, she just cuts and pastes an article with some insult tagged on at the end to convince me that she must be smarter than I am.

Well, her latest cut & paste job ended with this gem: 

Andy, WHAT EXACTLY IS WRONG WITH YOU? Get out of here while you still can (you're being watched, and that's just the beginning). Andy ..... I told you you're not welcome here. Korea doesn't need Republikan scum. I mean it.

This is interesting.  Not the threats.  Steph is unhinged but certainly not indicative of most liberals.  In fact, most of the liberals whom I have dealt with over the years have been pretty reasonable folks (aside from their lousy politics).

The interesting part is her choice of spelling Republican with a 'k.'  I think that marks here as a leftist rather than your garden-variety liberal.

American leftists have for years chosen to substitute k for c in spelling place names.  If Africa is spelled with a  k it's good.  If America is spelled with a k it's bad.  I assume that by spelling Republican with a k, she is saying that Republicans are bad. 

(I'm not even going to start with 'Corea.')

Anyway, the cyber-stalking continues.  I'll keep you posted.

I suck (but at least I have a couple of new links)

I was doing some research on some of the organizations who participated in the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights but I was sidetracked a few times as went from link to link reading interesting items.

In short, I don't have time to finish part two of my post today.  I will do in on Monday (I promise).  In the meantime, here are a couple of cool links:

One Free Korea  Just what the IKK needs, another right-wing blogger.  He links to a lot of interesting articles and writes well about them.  I'll definitely being going there regularly to steal expand on some of his work.

NK Gulag  I think the name pretty much covers their opinion of Kim Jong-il and the boys.  This site was set up by former North Koreans.  Needless to say, with lines like 'How can we possibly discuss peace on the Korean Peninsula and the well-being of Northeast Asia, and praise human justice, conscience, freedom and philanthropy when there exits on the Peninsula an autocratic regime who takes away the lives of millions of people for the sake of its supreme leader?' they will not be on the Hanky's Christmas card list this year.

See you Monday.

Up date on the 'questioner' at the NK Human Rights symposium

In a previous post, I had talked about how a questioner at the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights had come down and translated his own question.

That elicited this response: 

I was there as well, and one comment that I believe should be made in light of your post is that the professor that you mention, the one that made his statements in both English and Korean, DIDN'T SAY THE SAME THING IN EACH LANGUAGE!

After speaking with Adrian after wards, I grasped that this was his main reason for invading the panel and answering that self righteous prick that thought he could pull one over on the crowd. His basis for the entire splay was that, in English, Clinton had a plan for attacking NK nuclear facilities. His Korean interpretation, 공격하려고 했다고, translates into decided to attack.

Such dishonest propaganda rhetoric has no place in a symposium, and for some conceited (punk) to think he knows so much more than the rest of us that he will conveniently translate in order to make everyone happy is abhorrent

Thanks for the heads up, mystery guy.

I've been told by a bilingual friend that such happens all the time, when some on the Korean left (and right) want to say something for domestic consumption in order to 'fire up the base' or spread misinformation.  Of course, they would not want to say that in English because someone would call them out on it.

(OK, I really promise to finish my review of the symposium tomorrow.)

UPDATE:  Joel says that the mystery guy is wrong about what the professor said (see the comments section).  Perhaps when can get one or two more guys in here to see who is right.

Continue reading "Up date on the 'questioner' at the NK Human Rights symposium"

My little trip to the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights (part one)

(Here is my first-hand account of part of the International Symposium on North Korean Human Rights, which was held at the Yonsei University Graduate School of International Studies last Saturday.

The symposium was sponsored by Liberation in North Korea (LiNK) and Korea Youth United.

Read it and you will figure out why I would never make it as a journalist.  You can also check out this OhMyNews piece on the event.)

The big banner in the front hall tells who got the ball rolling for this thing.

When I heard that there was going to be a symposium on North Korean human rights at Yonsei University in Seoul, I decided that I had to go.  When I found out that it started at 9:30, I decided that I had to go there late.  After all, Yonsei is a 90 minute subway right from my home and Saturday is the only day that I can sleep in.

I finally dragged myself out of bed and up to the symposium by about 11:00.  When I got there, I found three distinguished speakers in a small auditorium talking to about 90 people.

Being linguistically challenged (as the Marmot once lovingly called me) I didn't get that much out of the morning session since it was all in Korean.  To my country ears, it basically went something like this...

Blah blah blah North Korea and blah blah blah blah blah blah.  Korea and North Korea blah blah blah if blah blah blah Koreans blah blah blah.  In North Korea blah blah blah blah.  Blah blah blah blah international....

Luckily, the kids in charge got the simultaneous translation up and running for the last few minutes of the presentation.   Unfortunately, the speed of the talking during the Q & A period (along with the extensive use of looooooong, multi-claused sentences) often overwhelmed their translation efforts.  That's too bad because it was a good Q & A. 

I've seen long-winded academics using 'questions' (with tons of 'whereas' and 'given that') to drive home their pet rhetorical points, but the questioners at that presentation were real pros.  The first guy rambled off such long and laboriously worded questions that the translators quickly gave up trying to type even a basic summary of what he was saying.  For added effect, he earnestly rattled some papers he was hold whenever he made (to his mind) a strong point.

The next guy was even better.  I knew exactly what he was saying because he went down to the front of the room, took a mike and stated his 'question' in English and Korean.  When the panelists did not answer to his satisfaction, he went down and asked another 'question.'  Here is a brief summary: 

South Korea should not pressure North Korea into giving up its nuclear weapons program.  Japan has tons of nuclear material, so Korea (it was pretty clear that he was referring to the North and the South collectively here) should not abandoned its quest for nuclear weapons.

That brought the normally mild-mannered moderator (LiNK's Adrian Hong) down to give his own thoughts on comparing the the Norks to a real government.  In short, he didn't think there was one.

The afternoon session was going to have six participants, so I figured that it would be twice the fun.  I wasn't disappointed.  More on that tomorrow.

US takes a pass on giving France some pay-back

The French bug me.

For several decades, they have accepted American protection while pursuing policies which often undercut us (such as their obsession with trying to lock the US into pacts or organizations in which they can veto American actions).  The latest and most glaring was their attempt to prevent the US-led coalition from overthrowing Saddam Hussein in Iraq.

Given all the nastiness that has been going on in the Ivory Coast and the obvious bad blood between Washington and Paris right now, there was certainly an opportunity for Bush to undercut Chirac (based on the principles of 'payback is hell' anti-colonialism and national self-determination).  But, as Jim Hoaglan reports, George decided to help Jacques out: 

As details emerge of a month of riots, racial and religious clashes, and a targeted air raid that killed nine French soldiers and an American aid worker, it becomes evident that Ivory Coast's president, Laurent Gbagbo, may have been betting that he could manipulate badly strained French-American relations to his advantage in an example of trickle-down instability.

He worked to build links to President Bush as both became involved in open conflicts with French President Jacques Chirac during the past 18 months. Under growing political and economic challenge at home, Gbagbo whipped up resentment of the residual French colonial presence in the world's largest cocoa producer.

Gbagbo may have assumed that the Iraq crisis had soured big-power relations so thoroughly that the United States would eagerly succeed France as Ivory Coast's foreign protector. It is hard to see what else would have emboldened Gbagbo to the point of ordering his East European mercenary pilots to attack French peacekeepers on Nov. 6.

As much as it may shock some of its detractors, Bush's foreign policy team can actually walk and chew gum at the same time.   Or, in this case, Washing let good policy rather than petty vengeance dictate its actions:

Gbagbo's hopes for U.S. protection were first dimmed when Bush supported Chirac's demand for U.N. sanctions and then totally dashed by a lengthy and tough telephone conversation he had with Secretary of State Colin Powell, according to U.S., French and African officials.

Any temptation to repay Paris in kind for opposing the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq was put aside in Washington, where it was quickly understood that payback policies would undermine regional security in West Africa and beyond.

With all the new love between Washington and Paris, I think we can expect the the French to reciprocate and send peace keepers to Kirkuk...

...or maybe not.

Blogging break (human rights conference this weekend)

I'm going to semi-step away from the blog for awhile.  I'll still be posting, but I think production will be down to 2-3 posts per week until the writing bug bits me again.

I'm still adjusting to married life and need to figure out when/if I will have time to blog.

But I will still be around.  I plan to stick my head in at the International Symposium on Human Rights in North Korea (As covered by the Marmot) this weekend.  It should be fun

Crime really doesn't pay if you aren't a citizen

Last Friday was not a good day for Yun Kyu-ho:

On Friday afternoon, a judge in a Detroit immigration court ordered that Yun, 35, be deported to South Korea, a country whose language and lifestyle he has not known for 25 years.

The judge had little choice.

Judge Elizabeth Hacker said changes in immigration law in 1996 made it difficult for her to grant Yun a chance to apply for leniency. Since Congress passed the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act, the number of immigrants deported because they had been convicted of aggravated felonies -- including drug dealing, rape, murder and fraud of more than $10,000 -- jumped from 27,542 in 1996 to 82,802 in fiscal year 2004.

Hacker said Yun violated the law multiple times with four separate convictions and did not begin reforming his life until it was too late.

"What happened today is a very sad thing for your family," she said. "For the court, it is a very difficult thing to do. However, it is the law."

I'm generally a softy but I am a bit of a hard case on immigration issues.  Non-citizens have no right to residency.  If the Korean government decided tomorrow to give me the boot, I wouldn't like it but those are the breaks.

Having said that, I feel bad for Yun's two kids (and his folks back here in Korea who will have to take care of him).  Hopefully he will be able to get some cushy English teaching gig and send a little money to his family in the States.

He will always be the 'Dear Leader' to me

I've avoided talking about the rumors surrounding the apparent removal of Kim Jong-il's pictures from some public buildings in North Korea (of course, the Marmot has been all over it).

But, now it seems that not only are the rumors true, but that the Dear Leader is no longer the Dear Leader (from CNN, the source for the pic on the right): 

Radiopress said the North's Korean Central News Agency and the Korean Central Broadcast referred to Kim not as "Dear Leader," but as "general secretary of the Worker's Party of Korea," or "chairman of the DPRK National Defense Commission and supreme commander of the Korean People's Army."

It this a sign that the dirty commies are losing their grip or that we are looking at some kind of creeping coup?  Experts don't seem to think so: 

"We believe the change was made at his will to soften his image as a leader of a personality cult, although it is hard to determine what his real intentions are," said Radiopress editor Shinya Kato.

"But we do not believe it was a sign of coup or related to his loss of power."

Experts quoted in the piece say that this might be a move to lessen public hatred of Kim by making him less ubiquitous.  If true, I guess the theory is that if Kim doesn't control every part of people's lives, they can't blame him if they are reduced to eating tree bark.

As expected, the Chosun Ilbo is jumping all over this one.  Check out these:

Where Have All Kim Jong-il's Portraits Gone?

North Korean Media Drop Kim Jong-il's 'Dear Leader' Title

What Do the 'Strange Signs' in North Korea Mean?

Rumors Fly Concerning State of Affairs in North Korea

As much as I would like to hope that this is the first step towards the end of North Korea, I'm not holding my breath.