Random Thoughts about Park Geun-hye, Her Impeachment, and What Comes Next

I don’t know which honorific to use to refer to Park Geun-hye anymore. All former presidents, no matter how disgraced they later became, are still referred to as Former President So-and-So. But none of them was successfully impeached. So do we call her Former Saenuri Chairperson Park Geun-hye or do we just call her Park Geun-hye-씨? MBN seems to think that “Former President Park Geun-hye” is still the appropriate honorific, but I am not convinced.

And it turns out that Ms. Park (that sounds about right) has still not left the Blue House. Seeing how she has been stripped from her constitutionally-guaranteed immunity from prosecution, it may yet be possible to see her eventually led out of the Blue House with handcuffs around her wrists.

Ms. Park’s silence since the verdict is a slap in the face to every conservative in the country. Three people - people who protested against her impeachment - have died while protesting the Constitutional Court’s decision. Her supporters also attacked journalists for simply doing their job. She should have issued a statement renouncing violence. She should have urged calm. And she should have publicly announced that she, and everyone else, would accept the Court’s ruling - just like she said President Roh Moo-hyun should accept the Court’s ruling when he was impeached - regardless of the decision. Her silence is a betrayal of her supporters and the rule of law. It is indecent and a perfect example of how a leader ought not to behave. It was her final insult to anyone who had ever voted for her.

Image Source

That being said, unlike many people, I don’t take any joy in her impeachment. All I see is tragedy. Her political career lasted for 18 years and the Queen of Elections had every reason in the world to become a great leader - to exonerate her father’s legacy, to squash once and for all the accusations that she and her cronies are corrupt power-lusters, to prove that conservative values could help to lead Korea into the 21st century. She failed completely. Her impeachment was a victory for justice and Korea’s young democracy. But I take no joy in seeing her downfall.

As expected, Moon Jae-in is the man to beat in the upcoming presidential election. Anyone who has ever read anything that I had to say about him would know that I utterly despise the man. Donald Trump is already in the White House (another man whom I have nothing but contempt for) and Moon Jae-in will most likely be the next occupant of the Blue House. A toxic shit storm is brewing; and Kim Jong Un, the Fat Boy King of the North, laughs.

Seeing how he started out by opposing THAAD’s deployment to becoming ambivalent, to seemingly oppose it again, China is likely laughing, too.

This picture was taken on March 8th 2017. It says "Withdraw THAAD immediately."
Image Source

If Moon becomes president and pledges to withdraw the THAAD anti-missile batteries, China will always remember that all it needs to do to convince the South Korean government to do anything is exert just a little economic pressure and it will cave every single time. South Korea’s sovereignty will effectively belong to China. But Moon Jae-in and Choo Mi-ae will be able to say that they stood up to the United States. Never mind that amid Chinese bullying and North Korean aggression and Japanese rising militarism, South Korea’s only friend is the United States!

In short, South Korea’s dark days are not behind it. Things are going to get much darker yet.

South Korea is Marginalized and that is South Korea's Fault

In my latest column for NK News, I talked about how the ROK-US alliance could be severely strained due to the toxic mix of the Trump administration and any progressive-led future government in Seoul.

President Trump’s cabinet, while not yet fully formed, is being filled by hawks - particularly embodied by Mattis and Tillerson - and considering how sanctions were the go-to weapon of choice for the hawkish doves in the Obama administration, the hawkish hawks in the Trump administration may prefer to seek stronger means of persuading North Korea to change course.

Image Source

Meanwhile, across the Pacific, when the progressives take over the Blue House after the next presidential election in South Korea (whenever that takes place!), and the next president WILL be a progressive, they will most likely have drastically different ideas about how to deal with North Korea.

Being the kind of man who is obsessed with appearing strong and respected, perhaps even feared, Trump is exactly the kind of person whom Sean Connery’s Captain Marko Ramius would have called “a buckaroo.” We are already seeing this with the kind of rhetoric that the Trump administration has employed toward China - that it would prevent China from taking over territory in the contested South China Sea as well as deny it access to the islands it has built there.

It remains to be seen if the heated political rhetoric between Washington and Beijing (for its part, Beijing has said that the United States would need to “declare war” to block China access to its islands) will develop into something more serious. Both are militarily powerful nations and the two largest economies of the world. But if that is the kind of rhetoric that the new government in Washington has chosen to use against China, then it would be safe to conclude that Kim Jong Un should not be sleeping well.

This will compel South Korea to rethink its threat perception. Should President Trump’s rhetoric and policies lead to a conflict on the Korean Peninsula, the South Korean people would pay the ultimate price. How South Korea chooses to act now that the powers-that-be in Washington has changed is anyone’s guess.

The first approach is to better accommodate Washington. For example, Moon Jae-in, perhaps being able to tell how the wind’s direction has changed, has reversed his stance toward THAAD deployment and has said that it would “go ahead under his administration.”

That being said, one of Moon Jae-in’s criticisms against Ban Ki-moon, his most serious challenger to South Korea’s presidency, is that “he’s too pro-U.S.”

Opposing the decision to deploy THAAD anti-missile batteries in South Korea could have devastating consequences for the alliance. Trump has said repeatedly that South Korea has been a free rider in its national defense. It is a false claim, but every passing day is showing that facts do not matter nearly as much as what Trump feels. As it is, South Korea should be walking on eggshells.

Image Source

Reversing the decision to deploy THAAD would only exacerbate things. Another theme that Trump has harped on is that the United States “practically gets nothing” by helping to defend South Korea.

It is yet another factually bereft statement but the fact remains that the ROK-US alliance is, indeed, a mutual defense treaty. Whether or not THAAD anti-missile batteries can actually help to defend South Korea, at this point, is a secondary matter. As far as Washington is concerned, it is convinced that THAAD anti-missile batteries can and will defend the United States from North Korean long-range missiles. If Seoul is unwilling to aid Washington defend itself from North Korea, then Trump would have been proven right - that the United States really does get “nothing” from defending South Korea.

It is unclear how the Trump administration would react if the next South Korean government decided to pursue détente with North Korea. Whether or not it is a horrible idea (it most certainly is), Seoul will need to better gauge the new government to better understand how Trump would react. But unilaterally deciding to cancel the joint plan to deploy THAAD in Korea would guarantee to elicit a less than cordial response from Washington.

As of this writing, Moon Jae-in is the only progressive presidential contender who has reversed his previous opposition to THAAD.

Image Source

There is a second, and possibly tempting, alternative. Instead of better accommodating the United States, South Korea could choose to return to hedging its alliance with the United States and its economic partnership with China. China is South Korea’s largest trade partner. And China’s bullying and economic sanctions (in all but name) against South Korea for its decision to deploy THAAD anti-missile batteries has been bruising South Korea’s businesses.

By hurting everyone from K-pop stars to duty free shops to bidet manufacturers and air purifier manufacturers, Beijing is hoping that South Korean voters and businesses will apply pressure on their government and force them to change their position on THAAD. It is a solid plan. Hitting people in their wallets where it hurts most is one of the best ways to convince anyone to change.

However, canceling the decision to deploy THAAD, as mentioned earlier, has serious costs associated with it. At the very least, it would create a severe frost in the ROK-US alliance. At most, South Korea would allow itself to be bullied by China to have its sovereignty chipped away by North Korea.

It is important to point out, however, that that is not the same thing as saying that the alliance itself would be ended. The alliance is almost 70 years old. There are far too many entrenched interests in the civilian and military sectors that depend on the alliance for their livelihoods. Something incredibly dramatic needs to take place for an alliance to be terminated. And it is not clear if deciding to reverse course on THAAD is dramatic enough for the alliance to be terminated.

In order to compensate South Korea for its rift with the United States, China would need to offer South Korea certain guarantees. At the very least, China would need to guarantee a resumption of unimpeded trade and improved diplomatic relations. However, South Korea should not get its hopes up and imagine that Beijing would also offer to lean more heavily on North Korea, much less pave the way for reunification. China is satisfied with the status quo vis-à-vis the division of the Korean Peninsula. It will do nothing of the sort to destabilize the North Korean regime.

If South Korea manages to restore diplomatic and trade relations with China and manages to remain a US ally - albeit a marginalized one - the South Korean government, in its most optimistic moments, might be able to imagine itself as the go-to diplomatic broker between the United States and China as both countries appear to be headed toward some level of conflict.

However, this middle-of-the-road approach is probably the worst thing that South Korea could do. South Korea is already paying for it now. To one degree or another, South Korea has taken this approach whenever it could. It resisted being roped into the US missile defense shield program since George W. Bush was the US president. It refused to condemn North Korea for its human rights abuses during its two progressive administrations. It still continues to malign Japan whenever it can and refuses to participate in military exercises that involves Japan.

That is why South Korea is not high on President Trump’s list of priorities in Asia. While ambassadors to Japan and China have been appointed, America’s embassy in South Korea remains without an ambassador, which is made all the more pointed considering how much Koreans respected Ambassador Mark Lippert. If Korea attempts to be a coy or difficult ally whenever it fits its interests, then there is no reason to believe that other countries will not treat Korea in the same way.

The same goes for China. Much noise was made when President Park Geun-hye was seated so close to Premier Xi Jinping during China’s military parade in 2015 to commemorate the end of the Second World War. Everyone in both Beijing and Seoul sang each others’ praises and it was assumed that both countries were about to grow closer. Chinese netizens loved the fact that Park Geun-hye could speak Mandarin!

Image Source

But at the end of the day, no one in Beijing forgot that South Korea is a US ally. When the North Koreans tested a nuclear weapon only a few months after the parade, Xi Jinping refused to answer the phone when Park Geun-hye decided to call in that favor to put North Korea in its place. When South Korea decided to finally agree to Washington’s calls to install THAAD anti-missile batteries when it became clear that Chinese help was not coming, China showed its true colors and revealed that it sees South Korea as nothing more than another small country that should simply do as it commands.

There is an old saying about how a hunter who chases two rabbits will eventually catch neither. South Korea will need to either fully commit itself to the alliance with the United States or it will need to borrow a page from Rodrigo Duterte and spurn Washington and fully embrace China as its diplomatic, military, and trade partner. It cannot do both. Neither Washington nor Beijing will ever allow South Korea to have its cake and eat it, too.

There are costs and benefits associated with each. But it will need to choose. Failure to choose will guarantee that South Korea forever remains marginalized and will only be able to nostalgically recall its eight years under the sun during the Obama administration as “the good ol’ days.”

President Park Geun-hye has been Impeached!

200 votes were needed to impeach President Park Geun-hye. 234 members of the National Assembly voted to impeach President Park Geun-hye.

For the second time in South Korea’s short history, the National Assembly has moved to impeach a sitting president. Until the Constitutional Court gives its voice on whether or not to approve the motion, the Prime Minister will serve as acting president.

If the Constitutional Court approves the motion, it would be the beginning of a new day in South Korea’s democracy. It would be the first time that a sitting president has been lawfully and democratically removed from office - the first peaceful and legal revocation of power. Considering the mounting evidence that are being stacked against President Park Geun-hye, Choi Soon-sil, and corporate leaders, there is a very good chance that the Constitutional Court will agree that impeachment is warranted.

However, this was never just about Park Geun-hye or Choi Soon-sil. This scandal, this impeachment - everything that we have seen for the past month and a half has been far more than just the removal of a president and shadow president. It has been about government power and the corruption that surrounds it. It has been a popular movement to bring about accountability. This is a new day for South Korea’s democracy.

It would be a mistake, however, to assume that rhetoric about justice is where this story will end. Politics will rear its ugly head before too long. In fact, I’ll give it less than a day before it does.

The people’s mood has soured against anyone who has ever been associated with the Saenuri Party. It wouldn’t matter if there was anyone competent or intelligent or who possessed integrity from that party. For now, no one from that party is going to fare well with the people. As a result, the party will be dissolved and be replaced with something else. For now, it’s the Minjoo Party’s time to shine.

When they take over the reins of government, the Park administration’s decision to deploy THAAD missile batteries might be overturned. Relations with Japan may worsen by revisiting the comfort women agreement and canceling the military intelligence-sharing deal. Decisions may be made to once again pour aid toward North Korea. No effort must be spared to fight the next government’s foolish decisions.

But politics can resume tomorrow. For now, we can all catch a breath and celebrate democracy.

대한민국 만세!

Image Source

Populism and Nostalgia: Now it's the Progressives' Turn

Considering President Park Geun-hye’s dismal approval ratings, her electoral win for the presidency back in 2012 seems like more than a distant memory. However, in order to understand how her successor is going to become the next president, it is important to understand how she won in the first place.

We cannot discount the facts. There were many things that favored her victory in 2012. The two biggest factors that favored her were that South Korea is a conservative country and also an aging one. The latter is easy to explain. Older voters tend to prefer conservative leaders. The former can be gleaned from the fact that since 1987, four out of the six presidents were conservatives.

However, those factors alone may not have been enough to have guaranteed Park’s victory. In fact, Park, who for all intents and purposes led a less than remarkable life during her years in “exile” since her father’s assassination, may never have even been able to return to politics in 1998 had she not ridden a wave of nostalgia from older voters. Her repeated invocations of “the second Miracle of the Han River” and “the new Saemaul Movement” during the campaign were deliberate attempts to stoke this sense of nostalgia for a time when rapid economic growth and dizzying changes were the norm - never mind the dictatorship!

As for the claims that she would be a dictator (laughable as they are now seeing how she turned out to be grossly incompetent rather than anything so respectable as a dictator) she was able to brush it off with two simple words - economic democratization. Her presidency was supposed to be the start of a new type of conservatism - one that continued to focus on economic growth as set forth by President Lee Myung-bak while at the same time hijacking the progressives’ most important rallying call of social and economic justice. Compassionate conservatism, if you will. Whether or not her campaign promises were at all realistic is another matter entirely.

In short, populism and nostalgia for a whitewashed past are what helped to propel Park Geun-hye into the Blue House.

“Dictatorship? What dictatorship? Accentuate the positive, eliminate the negative!”
Image Source

With Park’s recent statements about her willingness to resign if the National Assembly “minimizes the confusion and vacuum in state affairs and ensure a stable transfer of power,” it seems all but certain that one way or another, she will not be able to complete her single five-year term as originally scheduled. Due to the unprecedented levels of disapproval that she is currently facing from the general public, despite the fact that South Korea is a conservative and aging society, it seems that there is a very good chance that the progressives can retake the Blue House in the next presidential election.

However, the progressives cannot take anything for granted. Should Ban Ki-moon return from the United Nations next year and run for president (possibly after establishing a new party seeing how tainted the Saenuri brand is), they may fail to capture the Blue House yet again. For that very reason, just like Park Geun-hye won the election four years ago by riding on a dual wave of populism and nostalgia, the progressives are going to try to do the same but with their own twist.

But just as nostalgia that propelled Park Geun-hye into the Blue House was based on whitewashed history, the nostalgia that the progressives will ride will be based on whitewashed history, too, as it will carefully steer away from remembering the incompetence of Roh Moo-hyun’s presidency. However, there is no better time to cherry-pick memories of President Roh. That is because as ineffective as Roh Moo-hyun was as president, he was an entirely different beast as a campaigner and much of the rhetoric that he employed back then would be more than welcomed by many voters today.

For instance, not long after getting elected president, Roh Moo-hyun said:

“My fellow citizens, it is said that if everyone shares the same dream, that dream becomes a reality. A society that is run on common sense and where everyone plays by the same rules. A society where each person’s station in life will be determined by the sweat of his own brow. That is the new Republic of Korea that we all dream of. Let us work together to make that dream a reality.”

Whereas Roh gave the people a sense of hope for a society where everyone plays by the same rules, Chung Yoo-ra, Choi Soon-sil’s daughter, became modern-day Korea’s Marie Antoinette when she said something quite different. She said to her peers:

“If you are dissatisfied with your station in life, try blaming your parents instead of demanding that those with rich parents give you whatever you want. Having money is a skill, too. If you don’t like where you are in life, change it. But seeing how you’re so busy trying to tear down others, how do you expect to succeed in anything you do?”

Never mind Ms. Chung was able to live a life of luxury thanks to her mother’s money. There is nothing wrong with inheriting anything. However, the fact remains that the money that allowed her to live the way she pleased was not earned honestly, but was looted by her mother who used her political connections to become a racketeer of near-legendary proportions. In an age of unbridled and unapologetic cronyism and nepotism, nothing sounds so sweet as Roh Moo-hyun’s call for justice and equality.

The man who could do no wrong...
Image Source

A skilled orator who never shied away from addressing the public directly, Roh was the very opposite of an aloof and authoritarian leader - what Park Geun-hye is often (and justifiably) accused of being. So much so that during the height of his unpopularity, he proposed to hold a national referendum - a vote of no confidence - on himself to see just how much the public trusted him! What political leader holds votes of no confidence against himself?

Not to mention that he was an outright populist who imposed a “tax bomb” on homeowners. Although his tax policies, which were later declared to have been unconstitutional, did no favors whatsoever to help to grow the economy, in today’s political climate where many Koreans speak of noblesse oblige like as though it were some kind of religious dogma, any contemporary politician who promises to go after “the rich” will likely be cheered as a hero.

At a time when many are openly calling Saenuri lawmakers accomplices in the Park Geun-hye/Choi Soon-sil scandal and are demanding they resign en masse along with President Park, Roh Moo-hyun’s rhetoric would once again be welcomed with open arms. During his time in office, he refused to compromise with the Saenuri Party (or the Grand National Party as it was called back then). He was also a gifted orator who never hesitated to abandon protocol to speak directly to the people and a firebrand who promised to work toward building a more just society.

However, it has to be remembered that he was an ineffective leader and many have called his presidency a failure.

At a time when the public’s anti-American sentiments were threatening to tear up the US-ROK alliance, instead of trying to calm things down, Roh once famously asked a rhetorical question - “What’s wrong with being anti-American?”

Furthermore, he went on to say that the United States, South Korea’s most important ally, was the biggest threat to peace in Northeast Asia.

When he wasn’t abusing this most vital of alliances like an unwanted child, he was making a fool of himself by proposing to the Japanese government that the Sea of Japan be renamed the Sea of Peace. Or he was telling Kim Jong Il that he would be willing to redraw South Korea’s western maritime border aka the Northern Limit Line according to North Korea’s wishes in order to “draw a peace and economics map to replace the security and military one,” which would have been capitulation in all but name.

Finally, the greatest flaw of his presidency was the fact that this supposedly moral and upright man eventually felt compelled to kill himself when his family was investigated by state prosecutors on corruption charges.

...turned out to have done a lot of wrong.
Image Source

However, none of these facts are important. At least not for those who seek to exploit his memory for their own political purposes. Yes, Roh Moo-hyun’s presidency was a failure in so many ways, but it is easy to paper over his flaws. For one thing, the amount of money that Roh was investigated for, about US$5 million, is a paltry sum of money compared to the amounts of money that were pilfered by other former presidents/shadow president. Yes, he deliberately jeopardized the alliance with the United States at every opportunity he got but he was the one who initiated talks with Washington to create the US-Korea Free Trade Agreement, which turned out to be America’s second largest FTA deal. And the Hankyoreh has already been pathetically defending Roh’s attempt to surrender the NLL for years.

But it might not even be necessary to defend Roh’s record seeing how extremely unpopular Park Geun-hye has become. All that the progressives may need to do is to echo his words and rhetorical flair, his style, sing that old song about a just society, and most importantly, repeat ad nauseum that they are not Park Geun-hye. Never mind that Roh was unable to deliver on many of his promises and much of it was due to his own incompetence.

The next South Korean president is going to be a progressive. Even if Ban Ki-moon runs for president and wins, he is not exactly known for being a conservative. And especially considering how the conservatives were willing to take a left turn on economic policy back in 2012 (not to mention Trump’s populism that helped him to win the US presidential election), it’s clear that conservative economic principles as they were set forth by Reagan and Thatcher are no longer sacrosanct for conservative politicians. So there is more than a plausible chance that there will be a marked increase in populist rhetoric and campaign pledges regardless of the political party that the candidates will hail from.

As for nostalgia, the conservatives do not have any left to exploit. Park Geun-hye squandered what little good will that people had for her father, Lee Myung-bak remains a polarizing figure, Kim Young-sam left office with higher approval ratings than Park Geun-hye currently enjoys but that’s not saying much, and the rest were thieving autocrats. But the progressives can and they will.

Moon Jae-in is already doing whatever he can to get ahead of the pack. So is Ahn Cheol-soo. Others will soon follow suit. As the race gets more heated, one should not be surprised to see the ghost of Roh Moo-hyun hovering around wherever they go.

Trump Did Not Reverse Himself on Korea

It is being widely reported in news outlets around the world that President-Elect Trump seems to have reversed himself on various topics.

One of the things that Trump seems to be backing away from is his pledge to go through with “a complete and total shutdown of Muslims entering the United States.” The Independent reported that the pledge was quietly removed from Trump’s campaign website.

Another pledge that Trump is being reported to backtrack from is the campaign rhetoric he employed against South Korea. When President Park Geun-hye called Trump to congratulate him on his electoral victory, Trump reportedly assured Park of his commitment to the alliance - promising to maintain the existing security alliance and stating that the US would work with South Korea “until the end.”

The end, indeed.
Image Source

However, it would be a mistake for South Korean leaders to take this to mean that Trump is comfortable with maintaining the status quo.

For one thing, Trump is infamous for flip-flopping far more often than, well, flip flops. He has often denied that he had even said anything contrary to what he is saying now even if he had said it only moments ago and that it had all been caught on tape. He may be feeling magnanimous now. After all, he’s just been elected to the most powerful office in the world. The man is allowed to feel elated. But who is to say how he may feel in the next few days or weeks? For good or for ill, euphoria is ephemeral.

Throughout the campaign, Trump has acted like a 70-year-old man-child and there is little to no evidence that he will ever change regardless of his claim that he’s “gonna be so presidential that you people will be so bored.”

More importantly, however, Trump never once said that he was going to abandon the ROK-US alliance. That was not what he said. What he said was that he was “absolutely prepared” to tell every American ally, South Korea included, that they would be defending themselves unless they agreed to shoulder more of the cost of an American troop presence in their countries. After all, he thinks that the approximately US$900 million that South Korea pays for the stationing of American troops on Korean soil is “peanuts.”

Although he assured Park that he is committed to the alliance, at no point in that phone conversation did anyone mention the words military bases, cost sharing, renegotiation, or troop withdrawal. In other words, there is plenty of room for the Trump administration to seek to renegotiate (via severe arm twisting) to push through with his campaign pledge.

And there is a good chance that this is one of those pledges that he will see through. He may have flip-flopped on many things, but “free-riding allies” is a concept that he had been repeating for years.

The Farkus School of Diplomacy
Image Source

As for the comment that Trump made about South Korea possibly acquiring nuclear weapons, there are two things to consider. The first is what he said.

“At some point we have to say, you know what, we're better off if Japan protects itself against this maniac in North Korea. We're better off, frankly, if South Korea is going to start to protect itself. It (nuclear armament among US allies) is going to happen anyway. It's going to happen anyway. It's only a question of time. They're going to start having them or we have to get rid of them entirely.”

The important words here are “at some point,” “if,” and “we (the US) have to get rid of them (nuclear weapons) entirely.”

That leaves a lot of room for interpretation.

The second thing to consider is the last thing he said - that the US would have to get rid of nuclear weapons entirely. Simply put, that is wishful fantasy. Any South Korean who is jumping for joy at the prospect of South Korea being given the green light to acquire nuclear weapons might want to hold off the celebrations because, frankly, it is not going to happen. At least not anytime soon.

There are many possible reasons why Trump didn’t get into any of those details. The most obvious reasons are that the phone call was just one of many similar phone calls that he was having with leaders from all around the world who are all congratulating him on his electoral victory. There probably was not much time to get into details. Also, it was the first call that he was having with the other world leaders as the President Elect. Maybe it’s possible that there is a part of him that thinks that being tactful and diplomatic is important.

Or maybe it is because he is feeling magnanimous and saying nice things because other world leaders are saying nice things to him and that was all that he ever wanted. Or maybe he is just letting other world leaders let their guard down before he yanks everything from underneath them. Who knows?

Things can change dramatically in the coming days and weeks. This is a unique time when the sitting president and the incoming president have an opportunity to play good-cop-bad-cop with other world leaders (or their own wayward people) to get as much concessions as possible. And seeing how Obama has been the “good cop” (highly debatable) to America's allies during his tenure, Trump can be the “bad cop” and play the role with relish.

It is true that Trump is not the president until the moment he is sworn into office on January 20th. Until the moment he assumes office, he has no official political power. But he does have the ability to bluff, suggest, cajole, and threaten other world leaders. After all, Obama is on the way out and as the Obama administration is relegated to the history books, the rest of the world is going to have to learn to live with the Trump administration.

It is important for South Korean leaders to keep their guard up. Imagining that the Trump administration will keep the alliance and trade partnership unchanged would be a grave mistake.

Everything is supposedly deadly calm in the eye of the storm...
Image Source

A Trump Presidency and What It Might Mean for Korea

“May you live in interesting times.”

And what an interesting year 2016 has been. A number of beloved celebrities have died, Brangelina has split up, the Chicago Cubs won the World Series, and Donald J. Trump, the tweeting orange who’d date his own daughter if she weren’t his daughter, seems set to be the next president of the United States.

Many journalists, pundits, writers, bloggers, thinkers, philosophers, and anyone with an opinion is going to talk about this election for years. What everyone did wrong, where they went right, what caused what, how things will turn out, etc.

Old political alliances that died eight years ago are going to reemerge. Progressives who argued that President Obama needed more power to do the things he wanted to do and who lauded his use of executive orders are now going to side with libertarians in arguing for a weaker executive.

(Welcome back, progressives. How’ve you been?)

But not all old alliances will be rediscovered. Conservatives and Neo-conservatives might not rekindle their old relationship. But then again, knowing how many times Trump has changed his positions on any given topic within a matter of minutes, I suppose it would be foolish to write off anything.

But what does a Trump presidency mean for inter-Korean relations? What would it mean for the ROK-US alliance? What about the KOR-US Free Trade Agreement?

In short, all bets are off.

Trump has long said that he would put all options on the table in regards to negotiating with “free-riding” allies. Never mind that Korea is not a free-riding ally. But inherent in that position is the willingness to withdraw American troops from the Korean Peninsula unless South Korea pays more for the alliance’s costs.

(I do believe he once asked why South Korea wasn’t paying 100 percent of the costs during one of his stump speeches.)

Let’s assume that, unlike Jimmy Carter, he will refuse to bend to foreign policy and military experts and simply do as he wishes. If that happens, it is likely that the US might seek to quickly transfer wartime control of the South Korean military to Seoul as soon as possible. As worrisome as that might be considering the fact that South Korea might have been controlled by a shadowy cult over the past few years, what’s even more worrisome is that this may give the pro-nuclear armament voices in South Korea the boost that they have been seeking, which could lead to all sorts of gargantuan problems.

Would an American withdrawal from Korea, and possibly Japan, mean that Seoul and Tokyo might have the incentive to finally push aside old fights and seek a closer partnership with one another to seek a common defense against North Korea? Or would it remove the one common denominator that had nominally united Seoul and Tokyo in a fractured trilateral alliance?

Park Geun-hye is now a lame duck president and it appears that the next South Korean president might come from the Minjoo Party, which has a history of strong anti-American elements. Combine that with a Trump presidency that eschews foreign policy and what would that do to inter-Korean relations?

Trump has gone on record and said that China ought to do more to contain the North Korean threat. But China has never cared to put North Korea in its place. And assuming that Trump withdraws American troops from Korea and/or transfers wartime control to Seoul, how would China’s perception of the Korean Peninsula change?

Furthermore, Trump has also suggested that China ought to invade North Korea. As unlikely as it is for China to take up on that offer, regardless of which political party governs South Korea now and in the future, that is yet something else that will likely fray the ROK-US alliance.

Would an emboldened North Korea continue to pursue further nuclear armament? Will sanctions continue to be enforced against North Korea or will they be put in the backseat, thus destroying any progress (limited as they have been) that have been made over the past eight to ten years?

As mentioned earlier, the next South Korean president might come from the Minjoo Party. Would the Minjoo Party reintroduce the Sunshine Policy, thus killing sanctions programs before they have a real chance to succeed? What about the deployment of THAAD missile batteries? Will that be canceled?

How would the free trade agreement that was signed between Korea and the US change? Trump has been vague about this. Will it be scrapped? If so, how would that affect the Korean economy? The Korean economy has been experiencing slumping exports and rising household debt. A looming interest rate hike by the US Federal Reserve has been seriously threatening Korea’s economic growth. Any possible renegotiation or hint of scrapping the free trade deal could send the Korean economy plummeting.

I have to point out that the election is not yet over. Nothing is ever over until the fat lady sings. But pundits are saying the word “unlikely” with growing frequency in regards to a Clinton victory.

We have to remember that politicians have a tendency to renege on many of their campaign pledges once having won an election. So whether or not Trump follows through with his pledges is up in the air. Maybe he will. Or maybe he’ll plate the White House in gold and play golf in Scotland with Duterte and Putin while Mike Pence and Paul Ryan do the real work of governing the US.

Regardless of how things turn out, the next four years are going to be incredibly interesting.

For now, however, the whole world might have to get used to saying “President Donald J. Trump.”

God help us all.

Image Source

Park Geun-hye the Pitiful

President Park apologized a second time today for the still unraveling Choi Soon-sil scandal. It was a slightly more contrite apology than the first one she gave. In an emotional speech, she expressed remorse and, at times her voice becoming shaky, she accepted responsibility for the scandal, while also opening herself to the possibility of being investigated by prosecutors. If she does get investigated by prosecutors, she would become the first sitting president to do so.

But the truly saddest part of the apology was when she denied that she had participated in shamanistic rituals in the Blue House. Televsions show script writers could not have come up with something as bitterly tragicomic.

Image Source

There are many things about this second apology that people can pick apart. For those who never liked President Park from the beginning, there is nothing that she could ever do that would ever get them to change their minds. Even though she accepted the possibility of being investigated by prosecutors “if necessary,” there are people suggesting that the fact that she didn’t say anything about her unilateral decision to appoint a new prime minister means that she has no plans to loosen her grip on power.

Such is the result of hyper-partisanism.

Her apology offered nothing new. But what caught my attention was when she said that she lived a “lonely life” in the Blue House and that was why she sought friendship and guidance from Choi Soon-sil.

It seemed a cry for sympathy. Those few words brought back memories of her assassinated parents as well as her estrangement from her siblings. In effect, it was a reminder that she is an Orphan of the Nation.

To be clear, I do not think that portion of the speech was meant for those who never liked her from the start. As mentioned earlier, she cannot say or do anything to make them change their minds. No, that was meant for those who had supported her but have since turned their backs on her. The most recent polls reveal that her approval ratings has dropped to 5%, making her the least popular sitting president in the history of the country. She is bleeding political capital, or what little she had left of it, and she is likely doing whatever she can to stop it.

It’s possible that the tactic might work. After all, only cynics have their hearts absolutely closed to pity. However, there is a type of person who is more cynical than that and that is the type of person who would use another person’s pity for him or her as a weapon. Deliberately or not, by invoking pity, President Park is asking the people to have the heart to overlook reality.

But what is the reality of the situation? That is what people are trying to find out. What was President Park doing the whole time while Choi Soon-sil was running a shadow government? Was she aware of what was going on? Did she allow it despite knowing what was going on? If so, she is an accomplice. Or was she unaware of what was going on and truly thought that Choi was sincerely only looking out for her interests? If so, then she is incompetent.

Either way, justice must be served. But if justice is denied because people are overcome by a great swell of pity, then the guilty would be shown mercy. And if the guilty do not pay, the innocent have to pay it. This would be a moral and intellectual abdication because compassion is proper only toward those who are innocent victims, not toward those who are morally guilty. Everyone must be judged with the same respect for truth and must be judged for what they have done and treated accordingly.

Virtuous deeds must be praised and malfeasance must be condemned. Failure to do so can only mean that the virtuous must necessarily be betrayed and the wicked encouraged.

Had President Park any sense of dignity, she would have apologized, accepted responsibility, agreed to being investigated by a special prosecutor, and agreed to resign if necessary. There are important tasks that must be undertaken - with or without her. Had she taken that route, she would have at least been able to salvage a semblance of self-respect. Instead, she chose to appear the pitiful victim - an irredeemable person with no shred of respect.

It truly was painful to watch.

Image Source

President Park Geun-hye Should Resign

The more details about the Choi Soon-sil scandal are revealed, the more bizarre the story seems to get. From stories of shamanistic priests to corporate malfeasance to unlawfully accessing classified information to prosecutorial ineptitude to familial favoritism to allegations about sacrificial rituals during the Sewol ferry disaster to questions about whether Choi had used the Blue House as a sleepover camp, one can’t help but be reminded of Mark Twain’s quote about how the truth is often stranger than fiction.

Like The Korean said in his blog post, the scandal has put the entire corporate-government symbiotic relationship into the Tyson Zone where every allegation and rumor, no matter how insane, now seems entirely plausible.

It is important to point out that there has yet to be a trial, much less a conviction. Until that takes place, every allegation is just that - an allegation. However, there is absolutely no doubt that as a direct result of this scandal and the eye roll-inducing manner in which she has attempted to contain it, it would be a gross understatement to claim that President Park is now a lame duck president.

In fact, this goes well beyond a lame duck presidency. Due to the far-reaching influence that Choi Soon-sil seems to have had over the president, government ministries, and various corporations, it may be safe to say that the Park administration has fundamentally collapsed.

I doubt this is what James & Bobby Purify had in mind
Image Source

(As of this writing, Kim Byong-joon, whom President Park has nominated to become the next prime minister, is currently giving a press conference stating that President Park has agreed that, upon confirmation to his post, Kim would take over all domestic affairs while President Park will only oversee foreign policy. He has also said that it may be possible for prosecutors to investigate President Park, albeit “prudently.” However, it is still unclear if the opposition parties will agree to President Park’s unilateral appointment.)

Considering the fact that South Korea currently faces wave after wave of economic and security challenges, this scandal could not have come at a worse time.

Samsung Electronics, which had to cancel its Galaxy Note 7, is currently on shaky ground, which in turn has led to increased calls for the government to push through corporate reform. Korea’s largest container shipping company, Hanjin, went into receivership a few months ago and the company still has stranded crew members out at sea who are running out of rations. Falling exports, rising household debt, and a looming interest rate hike by the US Federal Reserve could seriously threaten economic growth. The government still needs to curb the chaebols’ excesses, push for more deregulation and a more flexible labor market, and help to boost startup businesses. More urgently, the National Assembly still needs to approve the government’s ₩400.7 trillion budget for next year.

On the security side of things, sensing an opportunity, China is once again looking for ways to force South Korea to abandon its plans to deploy THAAD missile batteries. North Korea still poses an existential threat to South Korea. In order to properly combat the North Korean menace, South Korea needs to pursue careful diplomacy, strong sanctions, and meticulous alliance management. Although the Obama administration has said that the ROK-US alliance is still “strong and durable,” there is no doubt concern about South Korea’s current state of political paralysis. Furthermore, US officials are all too aware that support for the alliance and/or the US’ interests are not unanimous in South Korea.

The duties and responsibilities that weigh on the president’s shoulders require Herculean leadership. It is needed even during the best of times and it is absolutely paramount during times of trouble. But the Choi Soon-sil scandal has derailed everything.

As it is now apparent that President Park can no longer lead the country or regain the trust of those whom she is supposed to govern, it is now abundantly clear that she ought to resign.

The fact that the majority of Saenuri and Minjoo lawmakers have thus far refused to call for her resignation shows that even now they are placing their own interests above that of the country’s. They have refused to do so because if President Park resigns immediately, as per the Republic of Korea Constitution, a new election has to take place in sixty days whereby a new president would be able to begin a new five-year term.

Seeing how the scandal has not only tarnished President Park’s reputation but also that of the Saenuri Party itself, it is clear why Saenuri lawmakers would be opposed to a sudden resignation. They would have the most to lose. Furthermore, the Saenuri Party’s most likely nominee, Ban Ki-moon, would be ineligible to run as he is still serving as the UN’s Secretary General.

(Assuming that Ban Ki-moon still plans to run for president and he doesn’t choose to be another party’s standard bearer, he may need to rename the Saenuri Party, again, and purge the party off Park Geun-hye’s most loyal supporters.)

The same goes for the Minjoo Party. Prior to the Choi Soon-sil scandal, it appeared that it was the Minjoo Party that would be engulfed in flames when former Foreign Minister Song Min-soon mentioned in his memoir, A Glacier Inevitably Moves, that Moon Jae-in had given the green light in 2007 to ask Pyongyang for its opinion on the UN resolution on North Korean human rights violations, a charge that Moon has yet to deny.

(Personally, I think this ought to disqualify Moon Jae-in from being elected dog catcher, much less president.)

The Minjoo Party may be enjoying higher approval ratings than the Saenuri Party, but that’s not saying very much. Should the presidential election take place today, there is no guarantee that Moon would be elected president. Until recently, Moon was operating under the assumption that he would have more than a year to campaign for the presidency. It is likely that he would rather not deviate from the plan.

The two major political figures who are openly calling for President Park’s resignation, Ahn Cheol-soo and Park Won-soon, were facing steep uphill battles of their own against Moon Jae-in to become the progressives’ nominee for president. But if President Park resigns, seeing how Moon is facing his own political scandal, they would have a much better chance of sealing the nomination for themselves. Although they are both right to demand President Park’s immediate resignation, their naked ambition and lust for power are not very subtle.

The show must go on!
Image Source

Readers of this blog already know my biases. Although President Park has shown herself to be an unremarkable, underwhelming, and disappointing leader in more ways than one, I have felt nothing but unadulterated admiration for her hawkish policy toward North Korea and her dogged pursuance of free trade deals with as many countries and trading blocs as possible. Conversely, I find many of South Korea’s progressives’ willingness to appease Pyongyang and their slavish devotion to unions and (even more than conservatives’) nativist outlook on trade despicable.

Should President Park resign immediately, there is a very good chance that I would find the next president’s views on trade, tax policy, welfare reform, labor reform, economic regulation, and foreign policy deplorable and downright dangerous for the country’s future. But the fact remains that through no one else’s fault other than her own, President Park has lost the trust of the people and turned her administration into an international laughing stock. You know you’re a joke when North Korea pokes fun at you. Irony truly is dead and President Park’s fingerprints are all over the murder weapon.

South Korea survived ten years of Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun. It survived Lee Myung-bak and it has thus far survived Park Geun-hye and it will survive the next fifteen months should she choose not to step down. South Korea will also survive the next president whoever he or she may be.

But whether or not South Korea will be able to survive the long-term consequences of her refusal to step down is less clear.

If President Park refuses to step down, she will also bring the Saenuri Party down with her. For all of its faults, and they are legion, a Saenuri collapse could lead effectively to a one-party state and God knows that far too many progressive politicians appear to live in a world that is very remote from reality - full of fantasy and whimsy. Despite its many flaws, for a healthy and vibrant republic to exist, there has to be at least two opposing political parties.

For the sake of the country’s future, President Park should resign.

Go. Definitely go.
Image Source

The War on Hoarders and Misers

According to this report from The Korea Herald, President Park Geun-hye is seriously considering levying a tax on corporations for holding on to its profits. To be specific, if corporations do not spend “enough” of their profits on investments, salaries, and dividends, the government will levy a ten percent tax on those profits.

How much would be considered excess profits and how long a corporation has to hold on to its profits before the taxes are levied have apparently not been hammered out in detail just yet.

On top of that, the Bank of Korea cut interest rates to 2.25 percent just recently, which is the lowest that it has been since November 2010. What's more, further interest rate cuts are expected and it is feasible that interest rates could fall as low as 1 percent. And about a month ago, the Korean government expanded tax deductions for debit card users.

In other words, the Park administration wants us to spend money. And preferably a lot of it.

Ka-ching!
Image Source

The government's rationale is that if business owners come to terms that their “excess” profits will be taxed, they will choose to pay higher wages, salaries, and dividends so that people will spend more money, thereby spurring economic growth. Furthermore, assuming that businesses increase workers' wages (instead of diverting more of their profits to off-shore shell companies and tax havens), coupled with low interest rates and tax incentives for debit cards, the government hopes that the people will choose to spend their money rather than save it (instead of investing their money in riskier but higher-yielding investments).

(It is my opinion that the government is either completely ignorant of the concept of unintended consequences or it is aware of the concept but simply does not give a damn about it.)

The government's rationale behind this series of decisions is that savings is deleterious to economic growth. It is an idea that was made popular in the twentieth century by the great (which does not necessarily mean “good”) John Maynard Keynes.

People who subscribe to this economic school of thought often compare money to some kind of metaphor that can be found in the natural sciences. For instance, only just recently someone mentioned to me that money is like water; that it's supposed to flow freely. But does money flow? The words “flow” and “circulate” are often used to refer to the movement of money within a given economy. It allows people to simplify money; something which is far more complicated than people actually think it is.

However, money does not actually “flow” or “circulate.” In fact, I think it is misleading to say that money “flows” or “circulates.” It implies that money is somehow spent independently of human will. Money does not flow or circulate. As boring as it may sound, money is transferred from one person's cash balance to anther’s. And this transference depends entirely on how much people are willing to hold on to their money at any given time.

Believe it or not, this does not happen in reality.
Image Source

The basic argument behind the government's series of policy changes is the assumption that “hoarding” money (something that more sober minded people refer to as “savings”) somehow causes economic stagnation. It assumes that if far too many households and businesses save money rather than spend it, the savings will stifle demand for goods and services, thus leading to an economic contraction.

Many Keynesian economists have therefore always urged people, and especially the government, to spend. Even when there is no money to spend.

Image Source

However, these policies do more than to simply set the stage to get people to spend more money. It also tacitly makes villains out of people who wish to save money. Though the language used has thus far been benign, what has remained unsaid but expressed tacitly nonetheless was that those who do not spend their money are causing the economy to shut down. It assumes that businesses that choose to save money inevitably lead to reduced sales, which in turn leads to increased layoffs. Then as the total social income decreases, this leads to less money being made available for overall consumption. Then, as individuals begin to fear for their economic well-being, they too will begin to refuse to spend their money. The government's rationale is that hoarding begets more hoarding and that it causes the economy to sink ever deeper into a downward spiral.

In the end, what the government is actually saying is that people who save their money, these selfish hoarders, will eventually doom the economy into a permanent economic stagnation.

DOOM!  DOOM, I TELL YA!
Image Source

But is there any truth to this viewpoint? I, for one, do not think so.

There is a question that we have to ask ourselves. Why do people even save their money in the first place?

There is only one answer to that question. People save their money so that they can insure themselves against an uncertain future. Think about it. If the future weren't uncertain, if each and every one of us had the gift of being able to accurately predict when and how much money we will need, none of us would need to save our money. We would simply spend our money and make the necessary investments so that we may receive the amount of money we need to spend on the day we need to spend it.

Fortunately or unfortunately, however, the future is uncertain. We do not know how or when or where we will face our next calamity or good fortune. And the more uncertain and fearful we are, the more money we tend to save. And considering the fact that Korea is the fastest aging society in the world, and further considering all the financial troubles that are associated with aging, Koreans have all the reason in the world to be fearful of the future.

Image Source

There is another reason why businesses save money. If businesses expect the value of money to fall in the near future, they will spend their money now while the money is more valuable. However, if businesses expect the value of money to rise, they will wait to spend their money later when it is more valuable.

Milton Friedman once said that there are four ways to spend money. One of the ways to spend money is for an individual to spend his/her own money. When people do that, people try to get the most for their money and tend to be more careful about how they handle their money. Therefore, for the most part, people's decision to save or spend their money tends to be based on very sound reasons.

The Korean government might think that its recent policy changes is for the benefit of the public. In the short-run, the Park administration might just be vindicated. But what happens in fifteen years when Korea becomes a “super aged” society (meaning that more than one-fifth of the population will be over the age of 65), when there will be more retirees, who will have minimal income and will therefore need more government handouts, than there are working people?

For those unaware, Korean subway cars reserve the seats at the end of each train car (where the two kids are seated) for senior citizens whereas the other seats are for everyone else.  This picture asks its viewers to imagine a future when those seats will be reserved for children instead of senior citizens.
Image Source

The idea that savings somehow impedes economic growth is a popular one, especially among politicians. However, just because something is popular does not make it right. Saving for a rainy day does not cause negative economic growth or economic stagnation. That is because savings don't take money out of the economy. Savings are an insurance. Therefore, savings is really just another word for deferred consumption.

There is, however, yet another rationale behind the government's series of policy changes. It is the presumption that the more money there is, the more wealth there is. As counter-intuitive as this may sound, that is just not true. The units of money that we have in our wallets or bank accounts do not matter. If such a thing actually mattered, Zimbabweans would be the richest people in the world!

Image Source

What people really want is not more money, but more bang for their buck. In other words, they want their money to be able to buy more things. Simply increasing the amount of money, which is all that the Korean government will be able to achieve with its policies (assuming that it is successful), will simply dilute the effectiveness of the money that people do own. It will not improve the people's standard of living.

The only thing that can make the money more valuable is for there to be a fall in prices aka deflation, which is the very thing that every government wishes to avoid. After all, although deflation is what people need, it is not what they want (whether or not deflation is a good thing is an entirely different topic that shall be dealt with on another day).

To be specific, people want the prices of all goods that they buy to fall. However, at the same time, they want the price of the goods that they sell to rise. Therefore, though nobody will actually claim to want it, what their actions often belie is that everyone actually wants inflation. And politicians are only too happy to give people what they want, rather than what they need.

It is possible that the Park administration's war on savings might lead to some short-term economic gains. After all, almost anything can be proven to be correct by resorting to clever statistics. But in the long run, I just don't see how it is anything but doomed to fail.

Image Source