26개의 게시물을 찾았습니다.
Today's Hankyoreh published following interesting report:
In Daegu, metal workers take unique
approach to labor losses
Regular workers alternate participation in partial work stoppage, allowing irregular and migrant workers to keep their jobs
“Other migrant workers have lost their jobs, but we’re still working.” So says 30 year-old Munasic, of Indonesia, busily working a press machine on January 16 at Samwoo Precision Industries in Daegu’s Seongseo Industrial Complex. Eighteen of the automobile engine parts company’s 85 employees are migrant workers.
Hard economic times have meant that irregular and migrant workers are the first to lose their jobs, but the migrant workers at Samwoo Precision Industries, who because of the time limit set on how long they are able to work in the country are irregular workers as well, have been able to keep their jobs with the help of their union.
In December, the company suddenly announced that it would have to let migrant worker employees go because of “difficult company conditions.” Sales in November and December 2008 shrank by 30 percent of what they had been for the same period in 2007, and company executives said they had no choice but to reduce production and the number of employees.
The company’s branch union of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union said it would “absolutely” not permit that to happen. It suggested an alternative -- the company’s 40 regular production workers would divide themselves into two groups and alternate taking two-week holidays for the next three months. The company would then be able to apply for government financial assistance designed to help companies keep people in their jobs during temporary work shutdowns, allowing the regular workers to receive 80 percent of their wages during their off-times. The irregular migrant workers who as such are not able to pay into the same “employment insurance” program, and therefore are unable to receive the same assistance, would just keep on working.
Before the year was out, the union and the company had met and decided to put the union’s plan to use. The program of alternating the partial work stoppage went into effect on January 12.
“I was really worried about there being less work,” said Munasik. “It’s really fortunate I can go on working.”
“All we managed to do was prevent layoffs,” said KMWU Chairman Kim Tae-eop. “Now we need to find a better way to deal” with the reduced production. The company and the union are still going to have to find ways to have workers keep their jobs and maintain basic livelihoods at a time when both regular and migrant workers have already seen their actual wages grow smaller.
A Samwoo executive is frank about the company’s choices. “We came up with a temporary plan in response to union demands, but if the situation gets worse we’re going to have to come up with something else.”
The “Samwoo Precision Industries Branch Union of the Korean Metal Workers’ Union” began accepting migrant workers as union members in 2007, after the national union, seeking to embrace irregular workers, called for all workers at the same work site to be part of the same union. This was called the “one union per company principle,” a departure from the practice of having separate unions for migrant and other irregular workers. Migrant workers enjoy the same working conditions as regular employees under KMWU regulations. Last year “Eddie,” a 34 year-old Indonesian worker, was elected to represent the company union at the KMWU’s Daegu region conference.
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/334071.html
Well, it seems that (the "Dear Leader"/"H.H.") Kim Jong-il - most likely - ordered the foundation of a "think tank", where dozens of "experts" are very busy to figure out the "best ways" how to provoke the incoming U.S. (Obama) administration!
"Proof"(^^) needed? Just read following, reported y'day by the S.K. (semi-official) news agency Yonhap:
N. Korea says it may retain nuclear weapons
after normalized ties with US
In an apparent message to U.S. President-elect Barack Obama who will take office next week, North Korea said Saturday it may not give up its nuclear weapons even if Washington normalizes relations with it.
"Normalization of diplomatic relations and the nuclear issue are entirely different issues," a spokesman for the North's foreign ministry said in a statement, declaring that Pyongyang will keep its nuclear capability until it feels safe from what it called the ever-present U.S. nuclear threat.
"We can live without normalized relations with the United States but can't live without nuclear deterrence. That is the reality of Korea today," he said.
The statement confirmed North Korea's current policy but comes ahead of Obama's Jan. 20 inauguration. In a departure from the policy of current U.S. President George W. Bush, Obama has voiced the usefulness of direct dialogue with Pyongyang to resolve the nuclear issue.
"Even if the DPRK-U.S. normalization of relations is achieved, our status as a nuclear weapons state will never founder as long as the U.S. nuclear threat remains even a bit," said the statement, carried by the country's Korean News Agency monitored in Seoul...
South Korean analysts agree that the North's statement is meant for the incoming U.S. government...
http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2009/01/17/8/0301000000AEN20090117001600315F.HTML
Related articles/news:
☞ Smart power play in Pyongyang (Asia Times, 1.17)
☞ N. Korea Threatens Clash With South (NYT, 1.17)
☞ Tensions Rise on Korean Peninsula (IHT, 1.18)
☞ S. Korea takes N. Korea's military threats seriously (Yonhap, 1.18)
☞ N.K. seeks Obama's attention, experts say (K. Herald, 1.18)
☞ 조선"인민"군 총참모부... 경고 (TiN/조선중앙TV, 1.17)
☞ 정부, NLL 등 접경지역에 군사력 대거 보강 (VoP, 1.18)
Israel's war against Hamas/Gaza. The 21st day:
Israel said today its 'Gaza offensive' could be "in the final act" and sent envoys to discuss truce terms after Hamas made a ceasefire offer to end three weeks of fighting that has killed more than 1,130 Palestinians and wounded at least 5,200 (according to Gaza medics).
However, Israel rejected at least two major elements of the ceasefire terms outlined by the Islamist movement, and fighting continued, albeit with less intensity than yesterday.
Meanwhile Haaretz and y.net (IL) are reporting that Hamas will not accept the Israeli conditions for a cease-fire in Gaza and would continue the "armed resistance until the end", Khaled Meshal, the political leader of the Palestinian Islamist group, said today afternoon (*).
His comments came following a report in the Arab daily as-Sharq al-Awsat earlier today, claiming Hamas is prepared to accept a conditional cease-fire with Israel starting on Saturday.
Simultaneously the Syrian President Bashar al-Assad said today, at the Arab Summit in Doha/Qatar, that "The Arab peace initiative (with Israel) is dead… we must respond to Israel on the basis of an eye of an eye."
* Related:
☞ The road of "negotiations" is closed.. (P.F.L.P.)
So it seems that - unfortunately (especially for the 'ordinary' people in Gaza) - "the show must go on"! (at least for the next 48 hours!)
► German (bourgeois) newspapers today look at the prospect for a cease-fire wonder if Hamas won't come out of the violence with a stronger image on the Arab street:
The center-right Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung writes:
"It doesn't take a prophet to predict that Israel's attack on Gaza is in its final stages. There are reasons for this: Hamas is decisively weakened, which has reinstated the deterrent effect of the Israeli military in the Middle East. In a few days a new American president will take office; Israel will hardly want to do him the injustice of making him cut through the oldest and thorniest knot in the Middle East conflict. The public pressure on Israel is getting stronger because the destruction in the Gaza Strip is growing, including so-called collateral damage. (German) Foreign Minister Steinmeier, on his second trip to the Middle East in a few days, warned that Israel was losing international support. He didn't need to go to the conflict zone to make this assertion, he could have voiced it to Ms. Livni over the telephone -- never mind that the Israelis know it already. Otherwise the journey was unnecessary. It won't bring results, only images for the (German) election campaign."
The center-'left' Süddeutsche Zeitung writes:
"The Islamists are continuing to fight. They think they can defy the overwhelming power of the Israeli army for a while longer -- even if this is borne by (Gaza's) civilian population. Hamas is waiting for a halfway acceptable offer to end the war."
"The Israelis don't want to give up the economic blockade of Gaza. They want the border with Egypt used by weapons smugglers to be overseen by international monitors. And any reconstruction funds for the destroyed Gaza Strip should be distributed by Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas. ... Apparently new elections in Gaza are also being considered. Hamas won a clear election victory over Abbas' Fatah party in 2006. On the other hand, Abbas' mandate as president ran out five days ago."
"In short: Part of the cease-fire agreement is obviously intended to deprive Hamas of power. Is the intention to bring Mahmoud Abbas and Fatah back into Gaza? Israel's Foreign Minister Tzipi Livni has often said that the war cannot result in a 'return to the status quo.' However, this kind of cease-fire model is hardly going to push Hamas toward a speedy capitulation."
The (former) 'left-alternative' daily Die Tageszeitung writes:
"Hamas' strength is still not broken. If it survives - and there is every indication that it will - then it will celebrate its strategy of digging in as a heroic victory over Israel. And on 'Arab street' it will enjoy a revival. It has held out for three weeks against the overwhelming Israeli firepower … The political compromises that they will have to make for a cease-fire will only damage them marginally if the reward for an effective border control and the halt to rocket fire into Israel is the opening of Gaza's borders."
"Fatah and Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas have been wrong-footed. Both have been marginalized in this conflict. Abbas was too quick to blame Hamas for the outbreak of the war and so was suspected of collaboration with Israel. Even if this is ridiculous, the accusations of deserting their own people could cost Abbas and Fatah dearly."
It seems that, only few days before B. Obama's inauguration, the rulers in Pyeongyang - i.e. "His Royal Highness", resp. "His Holiness"(H.H.) Kim Jong-il himself - want to challenge, or at least test, the incoming U.S. administration (and its resilience).. (*)
KCNA before y'day (1.13) published following statement:
DPRK Foreign Ministry's Spokesman
Dismisses U.S. Wrong Assertion
Wrong views and assertions were floated in the United States recently to create the impression that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the issue to be settled only when the DPRK shows nuclear weapons.
A spokesman for the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Affairs Tuesday issued a statement turning down this assertion intended to mislead the public opinion.
The statement recalled that at the six party talks held on September 19, 2005, the six parties agreed to denuclearize not only the northern half of the Korean Peninsula but the whole of it and, to this end, the United States committed itself to terminate its hostile relations with the DPRK, assure it of non-use of nuclear weapons and clear south Korea of nukes, etc.
It continued:
We consented to the September 19 Joint Statement, not prompted by the desire to improve the relations through denuclearization, but proceeding from the principled stand to realize the denuclearization through the normalization of the relations. Our aim to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula is, above all, to remove the U.S. nuclear threat to the DPRK that has lasted for the past half century.
The nuclear issue surfaced on the Korean Peninsula because of the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK and its nuclear threat resulting from it, and the hostile relations are not attributable to the nuclear issue.
It is a twisted logic to assert that the bilateral relations can be improved only when we show nukes before anything else, and this is a distortion of the spirit of the September 19 Joint Statement.
As clarified in the joint statement, the denuclearization of the whole Korean Peninsula should be strictly realized in a verifiable manner.
Free field access should be ensured to verify the introduction and deployment of U.S. nukes in south Korea and details about their withdrawal and there should be verification procedures to inspect on a regular basis the possible reintroduction or passage of nukes.
As proven in practice, the basic way of implementing the September 19 Joint Statement under the situation where there is no mutual confidence is to observe the principle of "action for action".
This principle can never be an exception as far as the issue of verification is concerned.
It is necessary to simultaneously verify the whole Korean Peninsula at the phase where the denuclearization is ultimately realized according to the said principle.
When the U.S. nuclear threat is removed and south Korea is cleared of its nuclear umbrella, we will also feel no need to keep its nuclear weapons.
This precisely means the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and it is our invariable stand.
We will never do such a thing as showing our nuclear weapons first even in 100 years unless the U.S. hostile policy and nuclear threat to the DPRK are fundamentally terminated.
If the nuclear issue is to be settled, leaving the hostile relations as they are, all nuclear weapons states should meet and realize the simultaneous nuclear disarmament. This is the only option.
http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2009/200901/news13/20090113-13ee.html
* But - possibly - "H.H." misinterprets something.. (?!!!)
Related articles:
☞ North Korea maintains its tough stance (IHT, 1.15)
☞ N.Korea Misreads Obama (Chosun Ilbo, 1.15)
☞ Clinton 'aggressive' on N Korea (al-Jazeera, 1.14)
☞ Obama will be ‘aggressive’ in denuclearizing the North (JoongAng Ilbo, 1.15)
☞ U.S. to apply ‘smart power’ tactics to N.K. policy (Hankyoreh, 1.15)
Israel's war against Hamas/Gaza. The 19th day:
While the number of killed Palestinians in Gaza is increasing almost hourly, the war, since yesterday, is slowly disappearing from the list of "the top stories" in the int'l media (at least in the "West").
The death toll on the Palestinian side now stands at nearly 1,000, among them at least 300 children and 100 women, according to the Palestinian health ministry. More than 4,500 have been injured, of whom around a half are women and children (hundreds are in very serious conditions).
Since the start of its offensive on December 27, IAF has bombed more than 2,000 targets in Gaza, an Israeli security source said.
Israel's fierce assault on Gaza has destroyed at least $1.4 billion worth of buildings, roads, pipes, power lines and other infrastructure in already impoverished territory, Palestinian surveyors estimate, y.net reported today.
More and more Gazans were fleeing their homes to seek shelter wherever they could. At least 29,000 are now holed up in UN schools operating as emergency shelters - more than 2,000 of them fled on last Sunday alone, in Gaza City and Khan Yunis, to the south. Thousands more are staying with relatives or friends (*).
Meanwhile a growing number of political and military analysts are asking about the real objectives of Israel's war in Gaza.
According to Netanyahu, "there are two options [in Gaza]. The eradication of the Hamas regime - and there will be no escaping this in the long run - and putting an end to its armament."
But more and more of analysts/observer/journalists, even in Israel, have no real idea about an answer!
As "proof" just check out following:
☞ A dangerous victory
☞ State officials: Barak encouraging Hamas
☞ Israel must wait as Hamas seeks way out of Gaza mess
☞ Israel defense officials back immediate Gaza truce
Also very interesting is following approach (of an analysys):
☞ Can Israel Survive Its Assault on Gaza? (Time, 01.08)
* Some of the latest developments:
Israeli troops are fighting on the outskirts of Gaza City today after another night of heavy bombing and shelling.
There was heavy fighting in northern Gaza and around the edges of Gaza City, from where Israeli troops have mounted raids to within one kilometer of the city centre. Early today, the old Gaza city hall, a former court building, was destroyed in an air strike which damaged many shops in the nearby market.
Israel's military said it hit 60 sites overnight, including the police headquarters in Gaza City that had been hit on the first day of the operation, as well as rocket launching sites, weapons stores and 35 smuggling tunnels under the border with Egypt. Six Israeli soldiers were injured.
Three rockets fired from Lebanon landed in northern Israel in the second such attack since Israeli forces launched their Gaza offensive...
Related reports:
☞ Gaza death toll nears 1,000 (al-Jazeera, 1.14)
☞ 'They've killed us. Me, Amal and... They've gone to heaven' (Guardian, 1.14)
☞ Israeli troops reveal ruthless tactics against Hamas (The Times, 1.14)
Well, it seems that the reality in Nepal is "swimming against the stream" (Mao Zedong)!
While the former so-called "communist" parties in the West, especially in Europe, lost their power (mainly completely!!), in Nepal a "hardcore" communist organization - the CPN (M) - almost won a guerilla war and later won the democratic parliamentarian election.
While the so-called "communist" parties in the West were/are (at the best!!) perishing or splitting (*) in various small (often simply psycho)sects, the Nepalese communists are trying "alternative ways"...
The diversity of the Nepalese political parties is well-known! Particularly on the left/progressive side! Especially the variety of the communist organisations is very "sensational": CPN (Maoist), CPN (Unified Marxist-Leninist), CPN (Unity Centre-Masal), CPN (United Marxist), CPN (Marxist-Leninist), CPN (Masal), CPN (United), CPN (Unified), Nepal Workers Peasants Party etc...
But y'day the Nepalese communists reduced (sucessfully) their "diversity"!
Today's NepalNews reported following:
CPN (M) to become Unified CPN (M)
The CPN (Maoist) and CPN-Unity Centre have decided to unify the two parties on Monday.
The joint meeting of the central committees of the two parties decided to name the new party as Unified CPN (Maoist).
The unified party has also decided to drop Prachandapath as its guiding principle.
A public function is to be organized in Khula Manch, Tuesday, to formally announce the unification.
They have decided to form a national general convention preparation committee, which will have maximum 175 members.
Earlier, the CPN (M) had decided to enlarge the 35-member central committee to 106 members. Over two dozen more members are likely to be nominated by Maoists.
Central leaders of the two parties were busy in discussion throughout the day on Monday, trying to settle issues before the formal announcement of unification.
CPN-Maoist, Masal unite; PM Dahal renews revolt rhetoric
The formal announcement of unification between CPN (Maoist) and Unity Centre (Masal) was made in Kathmandu amid a mass gathering Tuesday.
Party workers took out rallies from different parts of the capital prior to the mass gathering at Khula Manch, which was attended by senior leaders from the Maoist party and the now-dissolved Unity Centre (Masal).
Pushpa Kamal Dahal, Prime Minister and chairman of CPN (Maoist), heads the united party which has been named as Unified CPN (Maoist). The party will have a 175-member central committee that includes 38 members from Unity Centre (Masal).
Addressing the mass meeting, party chairman Dahal warned of 'people's revolt' if the current Maoist-led government is forced to quit.
"This government is not a repetition of past ones. If it is overthrown our party will spearhead a people's revolt from the next day and capture power," he thundered, "Nothing in the world will stop us." To try to topple the government, he said, is to push the country into disarray.
Dahal also indirectly warned the coalition partners, saying "We are in the same boat. Other parties will sink along with the boat if they make holes in it." "We are revolutionaries and we will manage to sail through."
The Maoist strongman, however, admitted his cabinet has not been able to meet the aspirations of the people.
"People want the government to deliver, but it has not been able to deliver fully. We communists are in majority, but we are plagued by lopsided attitude [towards of each other]."
Related article:
☞ PM warns against bid to topple govt (The Himalayan Times, 1.13)
* Latest example: Rifondazione Comunista, Italy's strongest party of the "radical left", is nearing its division - and consequently its end as political party with any influence..
From today's (bourgeois) newspaper Korea Times:
DLP Leader Apologizes for Violent Acts
Democratic Labor Party (DLP) Chairman Rep. Kang Ki-kap offered a public apology Monday for swearing at National Assembly Speaker Kim Hyong-o and destroying equipment in Kim's office on Jan. 5. (*)
"I sincerely apologize to the people for causing grave concern,'' Kang said in a press conference. "I should have been more patient, but I couldn't. It is heartbreaking that I made a deep scar on the hearts of people wishing for a mature democracy.''
Kang's apology came after the governing Grand National Party (GNP) and the Secretariat of the National Assembly sued the lawmaker for his violent acts...
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/01/116_37735.html
Reformist dweeb!!
* Korea Herald (01.07): Swearing while kicking doors and furniture, Kang, 55, created a violent commotion Monday at the offices of the Assembly speaker and secretary-general after security officials moved to disperse his party members at the hall in front of the Assembly's main chamber.
IMC South Korea Reactivated!!
Since late 2004 we - a (really!!) small group of activists - Koreans, migrant workers and "foreigners" - were discussing about the possibility (necessity!!) to establish a South Korean section of the int'l IMC (Independent Media Center) network. In spring 2005, after several weeks of discussions we created the - for the time being provisional - blog "imc korea". But - unfortunatelly - just a short while later our efforts fizzled out..
Now, since recently, a group of activists want to "reanimate" the idea for a South Korean IMC... (well, great..!!)
Last Thursday (01.08) they had their first open meeting.
Here you can read the..
☞ ..Minutes of the Session
Related stuff:
☞ The Ongoing History of IMC Korea
Israel's war against Hamas/Gaza. The 14th day (for updates, see below):
1. Latest news and related articles
..by Al-Jazeera:
☞ Israel resumes deadly Gaza attacks
..by Guardian (UK):
☞ Medical teams find 'unbelievable' horror amid rubble
☞ Israel and the west will pay a price for Gaza's bloodbath
☞ Israel criticised over 'shocking incidents'
..by y.net (IL):
☞ Olmert: Gaza op goals yet to be obtained
☞ UN: IDF shelled evacuated civilians
..by Haaretz (IL):
☞ Israel's three alternatives for the future of the Gaza war
☞ IDF sources: Conditions not yet optimal for Gaza exit
2. Hamas vs. the Palestinians in Gaza
PIC (Hamas' propaganda site) wrote y'day in an "editorial": "For years, we have been warning that Israel is psychologically and morally capable of carrying out a holocaust or a genocide against the Palestinian people."
My question: Why the Palestinian "ordinary" citizens got no shelters? While the leadership of Hamas and the other "resistance" organisations (IJ, PRC..) can hide out since almost two weeks in save places (a well-fortified tunnel system digged across the entire Gaza Strip)..
Last Thursday the IAF killed in an attack Nizar Rayyan, one of Hamas' "key leaders".. Only few hours later Hamas has already threatened to avenge Rayyan's death. Because Hamas described the assassination as a "the crossing of red lines"
My question: Why wasn't Dec. 27, the first night of the IAF attacks (in the following few hours almost 200 Palestinians were killed..), "the crossing of the red lines"
Well, I think the answer is (or should be) clear...
3. Tomorrow's (Sat., 1.10) "Palestine Solidarity Demonstration":
4. Updates
4.1. UN Resolution 1860
The resolution adopted Thursday night by the United Nations Security Council calls to cease fire immediately..
Here are the nine clauses of Resolution 1860 calling for a ceasefire in Gaza:
1. The Security Council stresses the urgency of and calls for an immediate, durable and fully respected ceasefire, leading to the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza.
2. The Security Council calls for the unimpeded provision and distribution throughout Gaza of humanitarian assistance, including of food, fuel and medical treatment.
3. The Security Council welcomes the initiatives aimed at creating and opening humanitarian corridors and other mechanisms for the sustained delivery of humanitarian aid.
4. The Security Council calls on member states to support international efforts to alleviate the humanitarian and economic situation in Gaza, including through urgently needed additional contributions to UNWRA and through the Ad Hoc Liaison Committee.
5. The Security Council condemns all violence and hostilities directed against civilians and all acts of terrorist.
6. The Security Council calls upon member states to intensify efforts to provide arrangements and guarantees in Gaza in order to sustain a durable ceasefire and calm, including to prevent illicit trafficking in arms and ammunition and to ensure the sustained reopening of crossing points on the basis of the 2005 Agreement on Movement and Access between the Palestinian Authority; and in this regard, welcomes the Egyptian initative, and other regional and international efforts that are underway.
7. The Security Council encourages tangible steps towards intra-Palestinian reconciliation including in support of mediation efforts of Egypt and the League of Arab States as expressed in the 26 November 2008 resolution, and consistent with Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008) and other relevant resolutions.
8. The Security Council calls for renewed and urgent efforts by the parties and the international community to achieve a comprehensive peace based on the vision of a region where two democratic states, Israel and Palestine, live side by side in peace with secure and recognized borders, as envisaged in Security Council Resolution 1850 (2008), and recalls also the important of the Arab Peace Initiative.
9. The Security Council welcomes the Quartet's consideration, in consultation with the parties, of an international meeting in Moscow in 2009.
4.2. Israel's first reaction..
..by Foreign Minister T. Livni: "Israel has acted, is acting, and will continue to act only according to its calculations, in the interest of the security of its citizens and its right to self defense."
..by Vice Premier Minister Eli Yishai: "The world has turned into Haniyeh and Hamas' lobbyist. It's no matter for concern if this resolution stays on paper, our interest is all that matters."
.. by PM E. Olmert: "Israel has never allowed any outside source to determine its right to defend its citizens. The IDF will continue to act to defend the citizens of Israel and carry out the missions laid before it in the operation."
☞ UNSC’s resolution meaningless: Military push needed (y.net)
4.3. Hamas' first reaction..
..by Musa Abu Marzouq, the deputy head of its political bureau: "We have three conditions for any peace initiative coming from any state.
First, the aggression of the Israelis should stop. All of the gates should be opened, including the gate of Rafah between the Gaza Strip and Egypt. Finally, Israel has to withdraw from the Gaza Strip.
But we are not saying we will stop firing rockets from the Gaza Strip to Israel (!!) - we are only talking about stopping the aggression from the Israelis against the civilian population in the Gaza Strip."
Asia Times (HK) y'day published following highly speculative/theoretical - but nonetheless interesting and readable - article (written by D. Kirk):
North Korea sees an opening
As the United States focuses on the new Israeli war, and president-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office, North Korea is revving up its rhetoric against South Korea and ailing leader Kim Jong-il has visited military units in a worrying display of intimidation.
For the first time in 14 years, Kim chose to visit a military unit on New Year's Day, as noted by South Korea's Unification Ministry, rather than go to a factory or pay homage at the memorial bearing his father Kim Il-sung's remains. The emphasis on the North's military-first policy was accompanied by a particularly ferocious attack on the South's conservative government as "the fascist rule of the sycophantic and treacherous conservative authorities".
While the US and South Korea negotiate a timetable for withdrawal of the US military headquarters in Seoul to a base south of the capital, the US fixation on the Middle East has provided an opening for North Korea to exploit. The North's aim, as seen in Pyongyang's avoidance of anti-American rhetoric, is to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea and ultimately achieve its goal of destroying the alliance.
In that context, the Israeli invasion of Gaza carries grave implications for Korea that are easy to overlook in the frenzy of "breaking news" from the region and the worldwide response to the Israeli pummeling of Palestinians.
It would be absurd to try to compare conflict in the Middle East to the Korean War or the confrontation of forces that has prevailed on the Korean Peninsula since the signing of the armistice in July 1953. They are totally different, but they do have one common denominator - the military and diplomatic role of the United States.
Like it or not, the United States is completely committed to Israel to an extent that far exceeds American bonds with South Korea.
The planes, the tanks and virtually all the modern weaponry deployed by Israeli forces are either American-made or purchased with American funds. Israel is by far the largest recipient of American aid. The American passion for Israel reflects the belief in the right of Jews to their own homeland after the killing of more than 6 million in Nazi Germany's concentration camps as well as complicated US interests in the Middle East and the power of American Jews, whose political and economic influence far outweighs their numbers.
Now the question is whether the United States, while supporting Israel to the hilt and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will have the means or the stomach for a potentially far worse conflict on the Korean Peninsula.
Would American leaders, and the American people, ever muster the same passion for the defense of South Korea as they do for Israel? For that matter, would the US stand up in a second Korean War as it did in 1950 when a severely depleted American military establishment built up quickly enough to drive out the North Korean invaders and then, after the Chinese entered the war and drove the Americans and South Koreans from the North, finally drove the Chinese from the South.
The United States today has about 28,500 troops in South Korea, far more than the 500 or so advisers in the country when the Korean War broke out in June 1950, and South Korean forces are vastly better equipped now than they were in June 1950. The bottom line, though, is does the US have the will for a Far Eastern war while involved in unpopular flare-ups from Israel to Pakistan?
In the outburst of publicity over the Middle East, few if any Americans are aware that war on the Korean Peninsula would be far costlier, and bloodier, than anything seen so far in the Middle East, including Iraq. A second Korean war, moreover, would carry the risk of a regional holocaust, with the Chinese and Russians rushing to the aid of North Korea and Japan, the one-time colonial occupier, joining the fray against historical foes. That scenario, far-fetched though it may seem, lingers in the minds of those with memories of the horrors that engulfed the peninsula from mid-1950 to mid-1953.
The United States, as it enters the Obama administration, is not capable of fighting on two broadly separated fronts without reverting to the draft of young men, and possibly women, which was abandoned after popular revulsion over the Vietnam war. If Americans are not nearly so hostile to their military establishment today as they were at the height of the Vietnam War, the reason is the absence of fear among young people of having to join the army whether they like it or not.
Americans, moreover, are far more concerned about problems on their own home front than anywhere else. No American units are going to accompany the Israelis in Gaza. Israeli forces, fully equipped with American weaponry, have no problem roaring over Palestinians, whose rockets attacks are like bee stings in comparison with the shelling, strafing and bombing of Israeli tanks. Hamas, which is responsible for instigating attacks against Israel, is basically a terrorist organization that does not have the support of the majority of Palestinians, including probably the 1.5 million living in Gaza.
The North Koreans would be a far more formidable foe. Quite aside from their nuclear warheads, which they may not know how to deploy, they have a great many artillery pieces and infantry weapons, a product that the North's decrepit industrial base still manages to manufacture.
The North also has biological and chemical weapons, a navy that includes submarines and lesser submersibles, and an air force whose old-model MiGs can still fly. On paper, South Korea is far stronger in all but one important aspect. North Korea has twice as many men under arms, well over 1 million compared to 600,000 in the South, and the North Korean troops by and large have served far longer, under more severe circumstances, than those in the South.
The real imponderable, though, is whether the US, in the crunch, would rush to defend the South with all the arms it needed, as well as an infusion of troops, if North Korea were to take advantage of America's relationship with Israel and the Middle East to stage a surprise attack. Would Obama as president respond as stubbornly as did Harry Truman, the American president when the Korean war broke out?
And how would the crucial American Jewish community feel about a war in which Jewish interests were not at stake as in Israel? The views of Jewish neo-conservatives and liberals on Israel may vary widely, but they all support the Jewish state's right to exist. What about if the Republic of Korea were imperiled? For Americans, modern Korea is just about as easy to forget, in time of crisis elsewhere, as the "forgotten" Korean war.
The best hope is that all such questions will remain abstract and theoretical, raised for discussion but never put to the test. Still, headlines, news alerts and bulletins on the war for Gaza force everyone to ask, Can it happen here - and what if it does?
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KA07Dg01.html
덧글 목록
관리 메뉴
본문
hooray!부가 정보