The New York Times today published a letter by my fellow speechwriter here at the Korean Mission, Allen Ellenzweig, in which he responds to John Yoo’s editorial from earlier in the week.
[who is a korean?]
In an interesting and laudable development, South Korea has decided to start teaching units in its elementary schools about mixed-race Koreans and overseas adoptees.
“Children in multi-cultural families get disadvantages and unfair treatment due to their accent, physical appearance and culture upbringing. We need to teach children that discrimination against or contempt of biracial people or overseas adoptees is wrong and that we can get along with children from an international marriage,” said Kwon Ki-won, head supervisor of the ministry’s curriculum policy division.
As the article points out, the number of biracial students in Korea is still incredibly small — well under 10,000 — but this will be a growing issue as Koreans continue to move abroad while maintaining links with home, and as interracial marriages continue to increase. I don’t think Korea will ever be an immigrant society like America, nor should it be, but the Koreans will have to come to an understanding of what it means to be Korean that is not wholly centered on race and native understanding of the language. This is a step in the right direction.
[agreement]
And there they are, the guys who decided a deal was better than an ongoing nuclear standoff.
[whaddaya know?]
So the early report is that a deal has been reached with North Korea: energy aid in exchange for steps toward disarmament.
It’s very preliminary still, and this whole thing could collapse over a North Korean demand for more energy than the other five powers are willing to give, or, more likely, over shifting North Korean positions on what disarmament steps they will take and when.
It will be interesting to see, as the details emerge, where exactly this leaves the Bush administration in terms of its North Korea policy. Did the hard line work? Were the Bushies right all along to toss the Agreed Framework over North Korea’s dabbling with uranium? Were they right to insist on talking only through the six-party framework rather than one on one?
The last question is the easiest to answer: No. The North Koreans have proved far more willing to compromise since Chris Hill, our lead negotiator, started talking one-on-one with the North Koreans (albeit in a format that the Bush administration, never sticklers for reality, continue to insist doesn’t qualify as one on one). As for the rest of it, let’s keep in mind that we’re now asking North Korea to roll back its plutonium-bomb developments, which wouldn’t exist if not for the collapse of the Agreed Framework.
There is no indication that the central problem of a poor, hostile, dictatorial, aggressively criminal North Korea has been solved. Still, if we’re all stepping back from the brink of nuclear war, that’s good.
For more on North Korea, check out Richard Bernstein in the New York Review, who notes that back in the early Clinton years, conventional wisdom had it that the communist regime in North Korea would wither and collapse like so many others had in Central and Eastern Europe. At this point, I think a more realistic model is that of China and Vietnam, where the Communist Party has maintained control while transforming into something new and pro-capitalist. And the road to such a transformation is through engagement, not isolation.
The Kim dynasty seems unlikely to collapse through internal decay, though one never knows. And even if it did, that would hardly be the end of our troubles: a headless state full of fanatical militants with no food is not a pretty prospect for any of its neighbors. Only engagement has any chance of creating a North Korea that can join with South Korea to become a prosperous, peaceful Korea.
Update: It turns out that South Korea’s lead negotiator is Chun Yung-woo, with whom I had the pleasure of working closely on a number of occasions when he was Deputy Permanent Representative at the Permanent Mission of the Republic of Korea to the United Nations. In my experience, he was extremely intelligent, incisive, charismatic and tough-minded — ideal for his current role, really. Should an accord be signed, I will have to send him a note of congratulations.
[bong joon-ho festival]
Looks like there’s a mini-festival of Korean director Bong Joon-ho’s films coming to the IFC Center later this month.
The only Bong film I’ve seen is the brilliant Barking Dogs Never Bite, a richly textured dark comedy that captures contemporary Korean life better than anything else I’ve seen or read.
From what I hear, though, his subsequent films, Memories of Murder and The Host, are supposed to be great as well. The Korea Society has more information on the films.
Check it out if you have the chance!
[옷]
요즘 옷과 유행에 관하여 배웁니다. 그래서 오늘 제가 입은 옷에 관해 써요. 감청색 양복과 흰 셔츠를 입었어요. 옥색 넥타이도 맸고 까만 신발과 양말을 신었어요. 그리고 대한민국 노무현 대통령한테서 받은 시계도 찼어요.
[제일 포스트]
안녕하세요. 나는 한국어를 배우는 미국 사람입니다. 이 블로그에 한국어 쓰기를 연습하려고 합니다.
아직 잘 못 쓰지만 연습을 해야 됩니다.
[sex in space?]
Probably none so far, says Slate’s Explainer. Which seems like sort of a shame, really. Yet another reason to encourage more private-sector space exploration. (“May I explore your private sectors, Comrade Cosmonaut?”)
[sudden thought on security council reform]
Okay, so they’re at it again, arguing in circles about Security Council reform. The big countries — Germany, Japan, Brazil, and to a lesser extent Nigeria, India and South Africa — want permanent seats for themselves. The middle powers — Italy, Pakistan, South Korea, Argentina — want some formula that will give them more opportunities to sit on the Council. The poorer and smaller states want to make sure their views are represented and that their sovereignty isn’t trampled every time a little genocide breaks out in their territory.
Various formulas have been proposed and rejected, but how about this: just give each regional group one new seat, in perpetuity, to do whatever they want with. They can choose their own rotation systems, term lengths, voting rules, etc. Presumably you’d need to build in some way for the existing permanent members to veto any potential SC member they really disliked and to kick out any uncooperative members after a set period, but other than that, it’d be up to the regional groups.
Does this devolve the problem enough that it could work, politically and functionally? I don’t know, but at least it’s an idea I don’t think I’ve already heard.
Update: It appears my idea is not far off the Uniting for Consensus proposal put forward in 2005, although that proposal kept the terms at two years while making them renewable, and one could haggle over the specific allotment of seats per regional group. This proposal went nowhere, stymied by supporters of the so-called G4, consisting of Germany, Japan, India and Brazil, who want permanent seats.
[how to find your way around nyc]
This is totally exciting: a GypsyMaps is a new website that overlays Google Maps with the NYC subway system and allows you to search for directions.
Until now, HopStop has been my go-to site for subway and bus directions, and it’s more robust that GypsyMaps in a couple of ways. The biggest difference is that HopStop includes bus lines, although GypsyMaps claims to be adding that soon. Another nice HopStop feature is that you can opt out of particular route segments and see what new options it comes up with.
The problem with HopStop, though, is those little, inscrutable maps for the beginning and end of your trip, which is when you really need the most help figuring out which way to go. With GypsyMaps, you can zoom right in, GoogleMaps stylie, and take a closer look.
GypsyMaps is still working out the kinks, but it could give HopStop a serious run for its money.