President Kim Dae-jung is obviously more popular abroad than he is in his own country. This impression I have gathered over the past years, discussing Korean politics with many people both in Korea and beyond the shores of the peninsula. The main explanation for this difference in popular appeal may well be that people abroad are aware primarily of Kim's success stories and the many sunny sides of his remarkable political career. Non-Koreans perceive Kim Dae-jung not as a partisan leader, and are not hostages of the prevailing regionalism that is so typical for Korean politics. Foreigners associate Kim's name with his undoubtedly historical achievements in coming to terms with the North Korean regime, thereby creating for the first time in decades the chance for lasting peace in this part of the world. Foreigners also admire Kim Dae-jung for his record as a freedom fighter and human rights activist. This year's Nobel Peace Prize is a triumphant recognition for the many good things the South Korean politician has done in his life.
In the light of the announcement that Kim would be awarded the most prestigious of all international political trophies, another international prize presented to the President has almost fallen into oblivion. I am referring to the Professor Thorolf Rafto Memorial Award, an international Human Rights award named after a late Norwegian human rights activist engaged mainly in Eastern bloc countries. When in late September the Norway-based Rafto Foundation announced that this year's prize-winner would be Kim Dae-jung, the joy in the Blue House was apparent. But this joy was mainly of a calculated nature: many then deemed the Rafto-Award as an hors d'oeuvre of a grand banquet, in which the Nobel Peace Prize would be the main course.
Just a few days ago the Rafto Prize 2000 was awarded to Kim Dae-jung in the beautiful Norwegian town of Bergen. Ahead of the awarding ceremony the Norwegian Foundation organized an international seminar on" The Two Koreas: Sunshine Policy, Democracy and Human Rights", to which experts from all parts of the world were invited. I feel honored that I was included as the representative of the Liberal Foundation from Germany. This seminar was one of the most interesting events of the kind I have attended. I was particularly impressed by the Scandinavians' viewpoint on current Korean affairs, as their sensitivity regarding human rights and democracy is well-known. The Norwegians in particular have taken a leading role internationally in conflict mediation and Human Rights advocacy, and it is surely no coincidence that the Nobel Peace Prize and also the far less prominent Rafto award are presented by institutions based in that Nordic country. Presumably the seminar had been conceived as an academic event to celebrate South Korea's President as a champion of human rights and democracy. And surely there were abundant affirmative remarks and comments regarding Kim's life, his struggles and his performance since setting foot into the presidential palace nearly three years ago. Then there were also some more critical notes and observations, expressed at the seminar -- remarks, which may not sound like music in the ears of the person, we all had come to Bergen to honor. There was not any dispute regarding the virtues of the Sunshine Policy as the only realistic strategy of coming to terms with North Korea. On the other hand participants voiced criticism regarding Kim's recent statement in a BBC-interview, that time was not ripe for him to bring up the issue of human rights in the North.
Illustration: Mountain People
"How long do we wait before he raises this question?" asked one speaker, knowing that there is no clear answer from Seoul to his query.
Another issue discussed during the conference and on the sidelines of the meeting was the South Korean government's refusal to grant an entry visa to the Dalai Lama, the Tibetan himself a Nobel Peace Prize Laureate. Some Norwegian participants, who obviously had not heard of this restrictive policy decision, shook their heads in disbelief. Said one participant: "More than 50 countries that have official relations with Beijing have allowed the Dalai Lama in. I cannot understand Kim Dae-jung's kowtowing to the Chinese." Probably the most sensitive and arguably most unpleasant issue for the South Korean government raised at the seminar pertained to the state of human rights in South Korea. Everybody agreed that great progress had been made as to the state of human rights in South Korea since Kim Dae-jung's inauguration.
On the other hand the expert of Amnesty International, undeniably the most respected human rights monitoring institution in the world, left no doubt that in spite of that progress some dark spots remained. Not a few listeners were stunned to hear that the National Security Law had not been done away with, and that according to figures compiled by Amnesty International and presented in Bergen some 99 prisoners of conscience actually remained in South Korean prisons at the very moment Kim Dae-jung was awarded the Human Rights prize.
One South Korean participant even said, he felt a sense of betrayal, as the President has obviously not met his expectations. The scholars discussed extensively the political constraints of the president, the opposition by right-wing elements as well as the lack of a sufficient parliamentary majority, needed to abolish the illiberal law in the National Assembly. They concluded that the international human rights movement should continue to support Kim Dae-jung, thus giving him additional strength to continue his reform policy domestically. The laureate deserves respect and applause, but the solidarity should not be unconditional, was the general attitude of the meeting. The Rafto Foundation found the following wording for this position: Kim's peoples' government represents a step forward in the respect for human rights in South Korea. But it should be emphasized that more needs to be done in this regard before the country can measure up to international standards.
Kim Dae-jung was not present at the awarding ceremony in Bergen (he was represented by his second son Hong-up). In his acceptance speech, which was presented via video, the laureate proclaimed that he will do what he can to live up to the expectations: "I pledge to willingly accept my responsibilities", the president said. After receiving two prominent awards the one in Bergen, the other in a few weeks in Oslo the world will be looking even more closely, whether Asia's most prominent statesman will convert his nice-sounding words into political action.
Ronald Meinardus is the resident representative in Seoul of the Friedrich Naumann Foundation.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS