|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
 Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:06 am Post subject: Hitchens on North Korea (Newsflash! NK is bad!) |
 |
|
We have some real experts on Korean relations on this board. No, I'm not being ironic. I actually think the level of discourse about North Korea on this site is pretty high.
So I wanted to display an article by Christopher Hitchens on the subject (Edited to add a link). I'm sure you're aware of Hitchens' general ignorance, he's the Bill O'Reilly for atheists (Dawkins and Harris at least have some credentials). Well, here's Hitchens' simplistic case against North Korea.
Obviously, he's right about the slave conditions in North Korea. Congratulations. He can open a book and read the news.
He wags his finger at Bush, but puts up no alternative, and dares not actually speak to what could possibly be done.
| Quote: |
There were a good number of sneers and jeers when President George W. Bush first employed the term "axis of evil," but I don't remember reading very many criticisms of the North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004, by which Congress, among other things, established the post of special envoy for human rights in North Korea and directed him or her to submit an annual report. Now, for a small prize in the seasonal spirit, can you tell me the name of our special envoy? I rather thought not. In fact, I have to confess that if I had not run into Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice at a Washington cocktail party a couple of years ago and been told by her of his newly mandated appointment, I would not have heard of Jay Lefkowitz, either. The president named him to the job on Aug. 19, 2005. That was a banner year for the supporters of human rights in Kim Jong-il's hellish and hermetic state. On June 13, Bush had received in the White House North Korean defector Kang Chol-Hwan, author of the chillingly brilliant memoir The Aquariums of Pyongyang, which describes the gulag system that operates in that unprecedentedly wretched country.
The State Department's report to Congress this year puts the case with powerful understatement: "There are an estimated 150,000 to 200,000 North Koreans in a vast network of political concentration camps." Given that even the conditions of nonprisoners in North Korea are such as to induce quite severe malnutrition (the average North Korean is now somewhere between 5 and 6 inches shorter than his or her South Korean counterpart), it hardly bears imagining what the state of affairs in its penal colonies must be like. There is no reason to think that Kang Chol-Hwan's book, with its horrific descriptions of starvation and slavery (and collective punishment of entire families for the alleged "offenses" of individual family members) is in any way exaggerated.
North Korea is, in fact, a slave state in the true meaning of the word. Everybody within its borders is forced to toil in famine conditions for the members of a dynastic crime family. The state even franchises indentured Korean labor for work contracts abroad, pocketing the profit from these operations and putting it toward the surplus on which such a poor country finances such an exorbitant weapons program. When runaway slaves are caught, fleeing across frozen rivers to the grim and inhospitable border provinces of China, they have been known to be led back in coffles, with wire threaded through their noses or collarbones, before being handed over to the punishment system. Kang Chol-Hwan certainly got the impression that our president meant business and meant also to stress the obvious connection between the slavery issue and the madly aggressive and destabilizing regional policies of the regime in respect of nuclear weapons. As he wrote after his visit to the White House:
I told the President about the plight of North Korean people, and we shared sincere opinions on how to save them. � I now realize that the Lord wanted to use President Bush to let the blind world see what is happening to His people in North Korea. With one simple stroke of God's finger, the bleak reality, in which nearly no-one cared about the ghosts of three million famished souls and hundreds of thousands more in the concentration camps in my home country, was instantly changed.
The Kim Jong-il slaveholder regime also made the same connection, denouncing Kang Chol-Hwan as "human scum" and announcing that, by agreeing to meet with him, President Bush had thrown "a wet blanket" on the negotiations about nuclear weapons. Since that time, the regime has tested a small nuclear weapon and (less successfully but no less suggestively) test-fired the sort of long-range missile that one day might be able to deliver it.
But also since that time, President Bush has lost his interest in the slaves of North Korea and has instead addressed himself politely if not indeed slightly fawningly to the other "Lord"�the deranged godhead who claims to be a fresh incarnation of his beloved father and to own North Korea and all the people in it. "Dear Mr. Chairman," wrote Bush to this gargoyle on Dec. 1, asking if he might be interested in resuming the apparently endless fan dance over what secret nuclear facilities North Korea boasts and what rich tributes it might expect for coming clean about them. There wasn't even the smallest suggestion of a "linkage," as there had been in, say, the State of the Union speech in 2002, between progress on the nuclear question and advances on the human-rights front.
Indeed, it seems as though we are back to the same horse-trading style that marked the Clinton years, where North Korea pretends to comply on plutonium and reactor inspections and we pretend that the subsequent food aid and diplomatic contact does not have the effect of prolonging the life and credit of the Kim Jong-il regime. White House spokesman Scott Stanzel obviously didn't feel too terrifically upbeat about the exchange of letters between Bush and Kim, because he declined to specify what had been said and even urged reporters "to get in touch with Kim Jong-il and ask him that question." It's come to something when our official spinners suggest that we might have better luck asking questions of the world's most secretive totalitarian despot than of our own elected government.
You may ask why Bush's letter was headed "Dear Mr. Chairman" instead of "Dear Mr. President." As one who has been in Pyongyang and verified this himself, I can tell you the reason. Kim Jong-il, the "dear leader," is the head of the army and of the party but not of the state. The office of the presidency is still held by his long-dead father, the "great leader" Kim Il Sung. This makes North Korea into a necrocracy or a thanatocracy�no joke when you consider that its two chief pursuits consist of threatening to murder its neighbors while actually murdering its own civilians. One might feel slightly ashamed that the Bush administration seemed to raise the hopes of the North Korean slaves before dashing them, but we can perhaps console ourselves with the thought that�absolutist control being what it is�very few of the enslaved ever got to hear of the promise before it was discarded. |
So, did you learn anything new from this article? All I learned was that Condi deigns to talk to this lush. Another blow to my (limited) respect for Condi. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Odd that nowhere in the article does Hitchens discuss the recent elections in South Korea and what they may portend for the KJI regime. Granted, in my opinion South Korea's influence over the Norks is somewhat overstated, no matter which party is in power down here. Nevertheless, you'd think the election of a more hardline SK president would at least merit some mention in an article about the current horrors of North Korea. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 11:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| So, did you learn anything new from this article? |
Not really. I get the impression that, since signing up for the War On Terror department of propaganda, Hitchens has been deliberately targetting his writings to a middle-brow audience that is relatively uninformed about current events, and susceptible to a manichean framing of the issues. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2007 12:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
After a couple of missteps, Bush has handled the Nork issue reasonably well. (I consider removing our troops from the border without asking and therefore not getting anything in return, a misstep. I also think spouting off about KJI's shortcomings when you want him to make a deal with you is not a recipe for success. Just because something is true doesn't mean you have to say it.)
| Quote: |
| Indeed, it seems as though we are back to the same horse-trading style that marked the Clinton years |
If so, this would be a good thing after wasting 7 years. I also find it odd no mention was made of Lee's election last week. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Tue Dec 25, 2007 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I think any mention of South Korea would backfire on Hitchens, because then the reader might be forced to consider yet another reason why the US cannot simply squeeze North Korea into freedom. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
