IN the moment of his greatest personal triumph President Kim Dae-jung once more demonstrated his magnanimity. Return all my honor to the people and the citizens of the world, who love democracy and human rights the President was quoted as saying. The international liberal and democratic family is full of joy that one of their torch-bearers has been chosen for the highest international award. But then, and this has been generally overlooked in these days of jubilation and euphoria, there are also those, who have been disappointed by the Korean statesman more recently. I am not referring to the partisan foes, who for party political and other petty reasons would have preferred the prize to be given to someone else. No, I am referring to political activists, who believe in the very same basic principles and values Kim Dae-jung has fought for during most of his political life.
One case in point given large publicity in the Korean media is Seoul's refusal to permit the Dalai Lama to visit the country. It may be assumed that it is less a rejection of the main beliefs and values His Holiness stands for, that prevents the government to grant the Nobel Peace Prize Laureate of 1989 an entry visa. Kim Dae-jung is concerned, that a visit by the Tibetan leader may anger the Chinese leadership in Beijing, which he correctly believes holds one of the strategic keys in the overall North Korea-strategy. The handling of the Dalai Lama case is but one example of how in the world of Realpolitik political principles are thrown over board for the sake of superior political considerations. Another example brought up in discussions with Korean friends and colleagues may be found in the government's apparent willingness to turn a blind eye on the state of political affairs and human rights in North Korea. Even though his political enemies have tried more than once to portray him as a covert sympathizer of the communist regime, there should be no doubt, that President Kim has very little empathy for the dictatorial order in the North. Many pieces of evidence may be found in the writings and speeches of Kim Dae-jung to substantiate this. On the other hand it is difficult, if not impossible to find any public statements openly criticizing the horrifying political conditions in North Korea dating from the time after Kim moved to the Blue House.
Some Koreans I discussed this with are bewildered that their president is on the one hand engaging in political campaigns regarding the promotion of democracy and human rights in distant Burma and Indonesia, while on the other hand he is not uttering a single word about the violation of human rights of the Korean people in the North of the divided nation.
This rhetoric moderation and restraint vis-a-vis North Korea is an important element of the Sunshine policy, that aims at recreating trust and confidence after decades of hostility and verbal abuse. Obviously, the President does not want to annoy the leaders in Pyongyang. More than once President Kim exclaimed that it was his government's intention to avoid anything that could destabilize the communist regime. Some while ago Kim Dae-jung even went one step further, when during his visit to the US he stressed that the North Korean leaders need not worry that the economic interaction with the South could pose a threat to their hold on power. Speaking to experts on Korea in New York, Kim challenged the conventional theory according to which economic opening eventually also leads to political liberalization, and finally to the toppling of dictatorial regimes: here is a saying that many leaders of former communist countries in Eastern Europe were toppled because of the opening of their economies. I do not think this is applicable to North Korea and the other Asian countries, including China and Vietnam. These countries have opened up their economies, but their leaderships were not challenged.
Speeches like this must sound like music in the ears of the North Korean dictator.
It is unclear whether the President made this statement out of a deep inner conviction or whether he said this in an effort to appease his new political partner in Pyongyang. No doubt, China and Vietnam are governed by undemocratic cliques today. But it would be premature to assume that this illiberal state of affairs may not be successfully challenged in the future. I personally believe President Kim's apologetic remarks were diplomatic in nature, and do not reflect his true conviction.
Kim Dae-jung has earned a place in history long before he moved to the presidency and was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize by convincingly refuting all those who propagate, that Asian values and democracy don't fit together that, in other words, Asians are not prepared for and interested in democracy. Kim's writings have been and continue to be a driving force for all Asians aspiring to democracy and the respect of human rights in their respective countries.
Last year I had the great privilege to meet President Kim at the Blue House together with a group of young democratic and liberal leaders from the Asia-Pacific. In his speech to the young politicians the President said, that he is confident that all of Asia, and he stressed all of Asia would be democratic in 25 years. The implications of this speech were clear: although this was not expressed, everyone could understand that all of Asia includes also China and of course also North Korea.
Preparing for this column I went through my files in search for references regarding the political future of North Korea in the process of economic engagement with the South. Thereby I came across the following quote: the ultimate outcome of these exchanges will gradually allow a market economy to take root in North Korea. Even political freedoms will go forward, resulting someday in a multi-party system and free elections. The prospect of changes such as these is not the mere fantasy of an idle dreamer, but it is a realistic picture of the future, brought on by the indisputable march of economic factors unleashing inevitable historical changes.
This quote is taken from Kim Dae-jung's monumental three-Stage Approach to Korean Reunification
It was authored, when Kim was still an oppositionist. Ever since moving to the Blue House he has been extremely cautious in answering any question pertaining to the political future of the communist dictatorship in the North. But in the end quite fortunately -- it is not the political rhetoric of the statesmen that direct history. Political, economic and social developments count. In this regard cautious optimism is permitted as to the future of democracy in this part of the world.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative in Seoul of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
RSS