Bulletproof Contract

Today's article from the  Joongang-ilbo is about the rather light human interest story about Hussain al-Shahristani. the Assistant Prime Minister for Energy and Yu Jung-Jun, the head of Korean energy firm SK G&G. It recount the time in 2009 when Yu, along with the heads of competing firms in America and Europe visited Iraq in order to hammer out new deal in developing Iraq's abundant resources. The article goes on to note that unlike the heads of other companies who did not leave Baghdad airport, Yu strapped on a Bulletproof  vest and visited al-Shahristani on person. This evidently impressed al-Shahristani to a point that SK's position in development became much higher. The article notes this as triumph of personal leadership, saving SK whose position in Iraq has been in doubt for some years.

As for me? Without a doubt what Yu did took act of bravery. However, aside from the security concerns and the lives of his staff (whose choice in this matter would have been slight, considering the Korean business world). This article fails to take into account why Yu had to take such measures. SK was one of the companies in 2007 and 2008 took direct deals with regional powers in Kirkuk and up in Iraqi Kurdistan to develop the fields without directly dealing with Maliki government. Accordingly SK was frozen out of Iraq for several years.

True, the situation in Iraq in 2007 was chaos and corporations have obligation to create profit. But it is disingenuous of the Newspaper to argue that this personal courage somehow translated into business bonanza. If  its that easy to create international business agreement, courageous CEOs would be running into warzones and making Billions without need for staff, presentations and bribes.

Yu Jung Jun. Brave, Yes. A hero he is not

History: Korean Muslims

Article

Despite the restrictive online service and the wretched delivery service, there is a reason why even in Korea I subscribed to Hankyoreh, it is paper that was most like the Guardian in many ways. While it has its share of the problems (including the unreasonably friendly to China and have almost knee-jerk reaction against America), it is always breaking new ground, viewing issues that no other mainstream papers will deal with. Now whether they do that justly or not… the article will tell us about that.

The article here deals with the small community of Muslims in Korea. And the focus of the article is the life of 2^nd generation born of Pakistani immigrant. Much of the article deals with the cultural dislocation, prejudices, generational conflict and many other problems that immigrants have. This article when it came out created a small controversy last year. Hankyoreh’s position that the unofficial social persecution toward the 4000 Muslims (especially naturalized Muslims) must end, and that the government must extend social protection toward them.

The response to the articled ranged from the fact that many of these Muslims, do not adopt Korean cultural convention to the more nativist arguments about the Korea’s race purity and need to keep the distinct Korean race (how long will that wretched idea haunt the East Asian societies!) as well as talking about the supposed barbarism and the dangers of Islam (one commentator in the article makes argument that no immigrants can be truly Korean or accept the Korean values). Others made more nuanced argument that if these were the teething pains of a society were Islam is after all, new introduction, and was therefore considered alien compared to Christianity and Buddhism. After all, religious completion, like everything else in Korea, is highly and viciously competitive.  We must also consider the many, many evangelicals in Korea which parrot the narrative of their American brethren. But still, even the most positive commentaries demanded the subordination of Islam identity to the Korean and too many were negative in accepting them in any measure.

It has been twenty years since the Korean construction industries have been working in Middle East, Ten years since 9/11 where 50 Koreans perished. 7 Years since the War in Iraq and deployment of troops. 16 Years since the first civilian government pushed for internationalization of Korea. Still, we seem to be in dark about world that is not Japan, China or America.

How far have we progressed since his time?

History: Sending Troops to Iraq.

The Article That Started it All.

For the next few postings, I am going to focus my attention more on older, more historical articles. That is articles which either created sensations at the time or created the bases for positions that eventually other newsgroups took.

The article which was published in Monthly Chosun's May 2004 issue, was followed by far longer article recommending the deployment of troops into Iraq (Eventually, South Korea deployed the Zaytun Division, a 3,800 men non-combatant formation until 2008). If I were to summarize the supporting reasons behind the article, it was in two reasons. First was the argument that sending troops was beneficial to maintaining the Military Alliance between the America and South Korea (one of the conservative Holy Grail). Second was that sending troops were essential after death of Kim Sun Il, a Korean who was murdered in Iraq (and whose death led to brief surge of Anti-Iraqi feelings in Korea), to show resolve. Finally (although more muted at the time), was the argument that without sending troops, it would be impossible to secure the lucrative oil contract in Postwar Iraq (earlier article in the blog dealt with what happened to that boondoggle).

Aside from the controversy of sending troops into Iraq at all (after all the 2003 Iraq War, like in many other parts of the Globe, was hardly popular one in Korea), the controversy was in the reasoning behind it. These two articles from the liberal Hankyoreh give succinct summery of refutation. First, South Korea had no obligation neither in national interest or moral one, to send troops. Second, sending troops will only ensure greater exacerbation of bad impression between Iraq's neighbors and South Korea. But underlying all this was the Korean left's discomfort, since Korea once had its sovereignty stripped away from it, and ill-defined scene of kinship pervaded the articles.

Eight long years have passed since the publication of these articles. South Korean Troops has left Iraq. The country never got the oil contracts, the two papers which dueled are in still at each other's throats.But the central view of looking at Middle East has not changed. The conservatives are convinced in economic opportunity for Korea in the region and maintaining America's good triumphs morality (or is morality). While liberals still see eerily shadows of our own past.

Jesus = Heaven. No Jesus = Hell

Today as I was walking in the Korea-town in Flushing, I was accosted by the missionary who asked me "if I believed in Jesus Christ" to be saved. He went on tell me I could not only be saved but healed of all my physical ills by the power of faith. Its hard to bear that in Friday night when, your back is hurting and your balance is often shot to hell due to a long week.

I am Catholic. I came to peace with God some time ago.

The Missionary was Korean.

This posting will not link to any articles, but will be a musing from depth of my heart. Korea has many evangelicals. When the Christianity was introduced it found fertile ground in which to grow. The reigning Chosun dynasty was visibly failing to meet the needs of the its people, and rebellions and riots were showing that the internal contradiction of 500 years of Confucian Feudalism was coming to boil. Christianity quickly spread into the population, and by the 1900s the faith was well integrated into the life of Koreans. Unlike the Japan, where Shinto reignes supreme even now, the Confucian faith was compatible with the already existing belief systems and found little to be supplemented.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that for majority of time, the Church did its part. It had its place of honor against the Japanese Occupational era and later it fought against the military regime. But since than, the Church, especially the evangelical community has changed, for worse. Since 2003 the Evangelical community has openly embraced missionary tactics which will yield in damaging Korean interest and image.

The kidnapping of Korean Missionaries in Afghanistan in 2007 was merely the most embarrassing of the these events. All they manged to do was fatten the war chest of Taliban and marked out the converts for death (when Americans leave Afghanistan, the converts are essentially doomed). And since than they have also showed their faces in Iraq (in 2004 onward) and several non Middle Eastern nations, including Indonesia. I doubt they have converted any one. Koreans struggle to display their distinctive nature from our neighbors. This is one image I can do without

Decline of Great Paper?

Article

When I was in Korea I liked Donga-ilbo considerably more than the alternatives. It was liberal without the militancy and it unlike other papers, did not engage in much of mudslinging (unless it was Chosun-ilbo). But for me, it has been two long month trying to find a article that was not merely repeating facts. Regrettably this article was only one I could find that dealt with Middle East in any depth. And this article was about the sensational story about honor killing.

Listing various reasons for honor killing across the globe, the long article end with exhortation to stop honor killing from happening and offers merely platitude that his was both situation that must stop, and that it was immensely complicated issue. I am well aware that this is delicate issue, but by presenting mere list of facts without context and analysis can only serve to draw readers into conclusions that will be deficient because he does not have the supporting pillars of information to understand and categorize it. I really expected more from the article.

Israel in Eyes of Liberials

Article

Today's article deals with the how the liberal left views the State of Israel though the eyes of the Hankyoreh, which deals with the practices of Israel's illegal detention of Palestine activists. Needless to say, the article is harshly negative about the practice, calling in both illegal in the context of the international law and immoral in context of state ethics, and lastly unwise in the consideration of Israel's many strategical weakness. The article and the commentary does not hesitate to draw negative comparison between the current Israel regime and the old military dictatorship in Korea.

While I can understand the discomfort that the newspaper feels about these illegal detention, since many of the editors today have experienced those detentions themselves, I found it difficult to equate that with the old military regime in Korea. After all, Israel is bi-racial state with at least some Jews viewing the arrests and interrogation as (sadly) necessarily undertaking in survival of Israel. Even considering the similarities between the two nations, it is overly-stretching the truth to argue overly on the linking the two regimes together. Israel is sill a functioning democracy unlike the 1970s Korea. Still, it was refreshing to read a article about something else than oil price, or pro-Israeli puff piece.

Turkey or Iran: If you put it that way...

Article

A reader of this blog might feel that by the looks of the Blog, I am a some sort of Conservative, or at least read only conservative materials. I am neither (like to think I'm a moderate), but simple truth is that the conservative outlets and materials outnumber the liberal outlets and they have thing to say.

The article linked to at the top of the blog is from the Wolgan Chosun, the monthly outlet of the Conservative Newspaper. The article argues that there are two political paths which the Middle East can take, the Turkish Model of secular development and the Iranian Model of working within the Islam to create the democracy. The author strongly favors the Turkish model, arguing that Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, the founder of Modern Turkish state was a visionary that enabled Turkey to recover from the fall of the Ottoman Empire and become the wealthy developed nation it is today. His only shortcoming was that he was too impatient in explaining and implementing his vision. Such is depth of author's favor toward the Ataturk's vision he explains away even the repeated Military Coup as unfortunate but necessarily needed intervention to ensure the idea of secular development.

What about the Iranian model then? Difficult to say, since the author devotes scant two paragraph in the article just for Iran and one of them was the difficulty for Koreans to visit Iran. The other paragraph is used in describing the unease many Arabian nations such as Saudi Arabia (Iran's Rivial) feel toward their "Follow Nation" (considering Iran's Persian origin this is something of a overestimation of fellowship). The reminders are devoted to contrasting the vibrant social and economic life of Istanbul where Women are free to dress what they desire and the drab, economically depressed Tehran where the returning Iranian women are in hurry to put their hajab back on before living the plane needs little additional explanation.

Despite ending his article with a platitude that both nations have valid model toward democracy. It is clear that he is disposed toward the Turkish model and are not particular fond of the current ruling AK party in Turkey, which he accuses of tinkering with the supporting pillars of the regime. No interview with leading Iranians were had, no interview with the average citizens in either nations were mentioned in the article. But, hey the author knows what he's talking about! Hurrah for Turkey, and to hell with nuanced understanding!