2 Harvard International Review Blog » 2007 » August

August 21, 2007

PyongYang Revisited

Filed under: East Asia/Pacific — Yuna Han @ 4:16 am

President Roh’s announcement to visit Pyongyang was another surprise attack on the Korean society–typical of the President most famous for his atypical remarks. With the struggle to free 19 remaining hostages in Afghanistan and the upcoming primaries decorating the front pages, Roh’s decision to revisit Pyongyang has received less scrutiny than necessary. The establishment of a civil economic community, which further extends the current trickle of economic exchange between Pyongyang and Seoul, has been announced as the main focus of the 2nd summit. Roh is expected to propose comprehensive plan of economic cooperation; however, expectations of success is very low among political circles, as Roh himself remarked “[…]the summit is not for immediate results[…]”. Then, what is Roh really trying to achieve by this second North South Summit with just months left until the presidential elections?

Premier conservative papers have criticized this summit as a mere political scam to change the political climate before the presidential elections. This is not an unreasonable criticism, for Roh’s own party has suffered a devastating blow in the past parliamentary elections, and its most promising candidates have left the party in an effort to form a second leftist party. Furthermore, the memory of Kim Jung-Il’s alleged remark to ‘cause harm’ if the South Koreans elected another conservative president, and the subsequent political clamor afterwards, still rings fresh in the ranks of the conservative politicians. The ambiguous agenda of the summit and Roh’s sudden announcement, which draws a stark contrast to the historic summit between Kim Dae-Jung’s meeting with Kim Jung-Il, only strengthens this criticism.

The recent delay of the summit has created more cynicism regarding the upcoming summit. As Pyongyang requested, and Roh agreed to, to delay the meeting till October, this puts the summit directly in the winds of the presidential elections. Currently, the Conservative Grand National Party has gained great momentum, selecting the highly popular and successful former mayor of Seoul as its candidates. On the other hand, the ‘ruling party’ has splintered into dozens of factions, each with a potential candidate of more or less equal strength, only to rejoin under a single banner. Thus, the newly formed ‘New Democratic Party (Minjushindang) lacks a strong representative of leftist politicians that can defeat the well organized and comparatively unified Grand National Party. It becomes understandable at this state Roh would want to pull off a ‘stunt’ as conservative papers call this summit to regain popularity for the leftist politicians.

Here, the question would be: who will benefit from Roh’s final ‘stunt’? The disjointed and chaotic array of leftist to central leftist politicians can be categorized not necessarily by ideology but by past loyalties. There are more traditional politicians who represent the opposition voice that put a period to the 50 year long rule of the Grand National Party by electing Kim Dae-Jung as president, past supporters of Roh who represented the ‘new’ Korean intellectual in the 30’s and 40’s who eventually betrayed Roh as the president became more unpopular, and yet another group which is a potpourri of a handful of Roh loyalists and ‘new’ leftist who left the Grand National Party as the conservative party consolidated its strength behind the mammoth candidates. Among these, Roh’s visit to Pyongyang would most likely give strength to the past supporters of Kim Dae-Jung, known as the ‘DJ line’. This assumption seems to gain strength as the previously dormant Kim suddenly reappeared in the political scene, consolidating the might of his past supporters. Roh’s decision to back the ‘DJ line’, which he originally broke away from by forming his Uri Party, is understandable as most of his supporters have been busy distancing themselves from his failed politics, and the young intellects he had seduced are highly disillusioned by his economic policies. Thus, Roh’s visit to Pyongyang would most likely serve as a nostalgic reminder for both leftist politicians and supporting citizens of the ‘good old days’ of when DJ almost seemed to have solved the puzzle of peace between the Koreas. Furthermore, it could potentially highlight Grand National Party candidate Lee’s lack of emphasis on the issue of unification.

Roh has taken South Korea through a bumpy ride, creating an image of a capricious and spontaneous politician. The proposed October seems to be his final ‘stunt’, again brewing another storm in South Korean politics. Will this storm deliver victory to the leftist politicians? At this rate, the Korean public does not seem to be ready to forgive all the mistakes and broken promises. However, Roh conquered the hearts of Koreans five years ago in a matter of weeks—who says it could not happen again?

August 10, 2007

Pakistan’s Deep Crisis: Dictatorship or Democracy?

Filed under: General, South Asia, Terrorism — Nadira Lalji @ 7:11 am

Since Benazir Bhutto announced her decision to enter Pakistan between September and December of this year and contest the national elections against Pakistani President General Pervez Musharraf, speculation about the future of Pakistan has taken centre stage. Only last month, on 20 July 2007, Bhutto delivered a policy address at the International Institute for Strategic Studies in London on Pakistan’s current political crisis, “a deep crisis, a crisis that began almost fifty years ago when President Ayoub Khan seized power in 1958.” The “crisis,” she argued, is a product of the country’s unstable political history and its turbulent regime changes, namely, the military dictatorships that have consistently overthrown democratically elected governments in Pakistan.

Bhutto presented a compelling case for the restoration of democracy as a means of quelling the extremist threat. She contended that democracy was “never given a chance to grow” in Pakistan: Bhutto was granted only five of the ten years she was elected to serve as Prime Minister. At the crux Bhutto’s earnest call for democracy is her understanding of the options with which her country is currently faced. In her unwavering faith in democracy and her disregard for Musharraf’s military dictatorship, Bhutto repeatedly asserted her belief that “the choice facing Pakistan is not [one] between the military and the mullahs, it’s [a choice] between dictatorship and democracy.” Yet, can Pakistan afford to give democracy a chance?

Yesterday, Musharraf backed away from declaring a nationwide state of emergency. His actions may have provoked an unwarranted sense of relief in the international community. Nothing could be further from reality. On the ground, the chaos is undeniable, the lawlessness is palpable, the state of emergency need not be officiated. The past year has proven costly for warring parties in Pakistan, both sectarian and tribal. A spike in violence in the Federally Administered Tribal Areas (FATA) as well as North and South Waziristan may be the product of short-sighted government strategy. The government has made concessions: some argue the government has sought to placate militants, rather than confront them.

This sentiment was exacerbated by the signing of the Miramshah Peace Accord on 5 September 2006, following a series of negotiations initiated through tribal jirga committees. The accord, which established a ceasefire in North Waziristan, required that the Pakistani Army withdraw troops from newly installed checkpoints and respect tribal laws. The Pakistani government’s actions have thereby proven to be a source of contention with the U.S. government. In light of the marked upsurge in Pakistani jihadist violence, and in particular, July’s Red Mosque events, the central government’s efforts to suppress al-Qaeda and the Taliban have been deemed too lenient by the U.S. government. Nevertheless, the U.S. continues to unequivocally back Musharraf’s military dictatorship. The U.S. has granted an unlevelled $10 billion of security aid to Pakistan since the war against terror began six years ago. Such linkages between the U.S. and Musharraf’s military dictatorship are so transparent that Bhutto has labelled Musharraf’s international supporters the “enablers of Pakistan’s dictatorship,” and more accusatorily, “the suppressors of the democratic aspirations of the Pakistani people.”

Bhutto can scathingly remark upon present day U.S. relations with Pakistan, but is there another way out for Pakistan? Would a democratic state fare any better? Bhutto’s policy address concretely outlined her plans to stop the radicalisation of Pakistan’s 20,000 madrassas and to develop and finance the 48,000 primary schools she built during her office, so that people have alternatives when they choose to send their children to school. The long term benefits of such policies are irrefutable. But in the short term, a democratic regime change may push Pakistani extremism over the edge. What is certain, however, is that if no drastic political measures are taken immediately, as Bhutto predicts, another five years of Musharraf’s present governing strategy will allow for an Islamist takeover of Pakistan. The international community will then have to deal with the repercussions of a potentially insurmountable force, a strengthened Islamist threat with its “tentacles spread” across the state.

August 7, 2007

Santa has Company

Filed under: Geopolitics, New Kid on the Bloc — Michael Jaskiw @ 11:00 pm

Last week, a Russian team planted a titanium capsule with a Russian flag under the ice caps of the North Pole. This mission was touted as scientific, but its primary purposes seem to be political and propagandistic. The ostensible goal is to establish a Russian claim to the Artic region. According to a 1982 provision of the Law of the Sea, a nation can make a claim to artic territory if it can prove that the territory is connected to its own continental shelf. While the legal issues surrounding such claims are nebulous, two larger lessons can be drawn about modern Russia.

First, Russia is increasingly styling itself as an energy state. Russia has little interest in ice and frigid waters. It does, however, have an interest in a potentially vast energy supply: up to 25 percent of the world’s remaining untapped oil and gas sources may lie under the Artic Ocean. Though the mission may do little to advance Russia’s claim to the Artic, it does show that Russia is actively (or at least more actively than other states) pursuing these new energy supplies. Gas and oil are coming to dominate the Russian economy and also guide Russian foreign policy. Russia is usually categorized as a post-Soviet state and as such it is generally compared to and grouped with countries of the former USSR. Perhaps this theoretical perspective needs revision–a comparison with oil-rich states in the Middle East could be fruitful as well.

Second, Russia is pursuing an increasingly nationalistic and aggressive foreign policy. The “Artica-2007″ mission was largely a political stunt–it was backed by president Putin and led by Artur Chilingarov, a deputy speaker in Russia’s parliament and famous artic explorer. The rhetoric surrounding the event is worth analyzing. Chilingarov remarked, “The Arctic always was Russian, and it will remain Russian…and I don’t give a damn what some foreign individuals think about that.” He will need his thick skin: the mission has drawn ridicule from most western nations. The deliberate act of flag-planting as claim to territory befits a 16th century conquistador, not a modern state engaged in a complex web of international law and regulations. But Russian authorities are no doubt well aware of this–they decided, however, to rekindle the fires of Russia’s imperial past. This incident should not be dismissed as an instance of mere bravado or as a cry for attention. It seems to fit well into a recent pattern of contrarian and confrontational foreign policy.

Russia has refused to back down and extradite a suspect in Alexander Litvinenko’s death, thus escalating tensions with Britain. Russia has used hostile language in its opposition to plans for US missile defense systems in Europe. With its claim to the Artic, Russia has irked Canada, which also maintains a keen interest in the region. All of these actions are justified as some sort of self-defense against a world order that is trying to control Russia and deny its rightful status as a great power. Russian political analyst Vyacheslav Nikonov brushed aside criticism of the mission as “nothing but the latest attempt to put Russia in its place.” The submarine mission can thus be understood as an instance of Russia asserting itself. The troubling question is whether Russia’s future acts of self aggrandizement will be as harmless as a tiny titanium flag locked miles below the polar ice cap.

August 6, 2007

Editor’s Notes: Gov. Richardson, Gallup, and Africa

Filed under: General — Omar Abdelsamad @ 2:36 pm

The new print issue of the Harvard International Review “Courting Africa: For Better or Worse?” is now on newsstands. The issue’s feature examines whether the answers to Africa’s ever-present problems of war, famine, corruption, and instability are to be found with foreign benefactors such as China or within the continent’s own borders. We are privileged to have President Mogae of Botswana discussing Africa’s “Crisis of Image.” He is joined by Ambassadors Chaveas and Shinn along with Professors Kane and Keller covering topics such as the involvement of the United States and China in Africa to Islam’s role on the continent. You can read the introduction to the feature here.

We are also pleased to have Governor Bill Richardson of New Mexico contributing with his article: A New Realism: Crafting a US Foreign Policy for a New Century. Not only is he a presidential hopeful, but he also brings with him a wealth of experience in international relations, allowing for an interesting assessment of the challenges facing US foreign policy today.

Through our relationships with the Gallup Organization, this issue also features a Gallup Exclusive on Muslims in the West. The data provides a unique perspective on Muslims as European citizens. In addition to Africa, Richardson, and Gallup, the issue also includes an interview with Ambassador Moose on the role of the United Nations and a contribution by Professor Kim on Global Health.