Whispers From Korea
Thursday, August 9, 2018
Thursday, June 1, 2017
Trump declares 'Red' Day
It’s
all going wrong, it’s getting ‘red’.
US president Donald Trump, the leader of the ‘free world’, has announced the
United States’ withdrawal from the Paris
Accord today.
The
following pictures were taken at an exhibition l attended in Tokyo, June 2009.
Is this the future of the world?
Present Day
Earth
The Earth in 2039
The Earth in 2048The Earth in 2078
The world
future generations will inherit
Do something. Let us not rely on
government, make smart choices through your consumption patterns. Together, we
can make a change.
Tuesday, May 30, 2017
DID MULTILATERALISM EVER STAND A CHANCE?
There
once was a dream to integrate the world’s population financially, and through
transport and trade routes into one big community. A dream in which the most
pressing problems were solved through diplomacy and concerted efforts, where
the rich held on to the poor and pulled them out of poverty. Nations trading
themselves out of extreme poverty and people moving around freely to fulfill
their dreams and better themselves and their communities.
This
was the dream of multilateralism. The dream that the World Trade Organization,
the United Nations and its agencies, International agreements like Copenhagen,
and the Millennium Development Goals sought to achieve. While that dream seemed
achievable in the 2000s, very few will argue that it is stuff for the textbooks
and seminars as the world stares as work that was done towards achieving
multilateralism is being dismantled.
We did
have a taste of multilateralism, and it got us excited about what the world
could achieve, if we all worked together. Through a number of high-level
conferences, the world leaders were able to come to an agreement on curbing
emissions for environmental protection. This was followed by emission trading
schemes and the World Economic Forum made it a point of involving the business
communities in efforts to protect the environment.
The World Trade Organization launched
the Doha Round of Trade negotiations with the specific aim of boosting trade in
developing countries and helping in their development process. The United
Nations and its agencies launched the Millennium Development Goals (now
replaced by the Sustainable Development Goals), engaging partners and resources
at all levels around eight goals that were aimed at halving poverty by 2015.
G20 summits were highly anticipated, and measures were taken towards improving
trade, curbing protectionism and stabilizing fiscal and monetary policies
around the world to strengthen development. A lot was achieved, and there was
more to come, until things turned sour.
We can
blame it on the financial crisis in 2008/2009, the wave of terrorism that
increased vigilance around the world, the rising wave of nationalism and more
recently the rise of populist leaders. The truth is, we cannot stop wondering
if multilateralism was only ever a dream. Many wondered the effect an explosion
of Regional Trading Agreements in the late 90s and 2000s will have on the
Multilateral Trading System. It all seemed so positive, that only a few had the
foresight to see that all it took was some hardships, stumbling blocks, and ‘a
threat to our way of life’ for multilateralism to become the forgone
alternative. Who would have imagined, that it would take an American president
to put in doubt the outcome of a global push towards environmental protection,
achieved by another American president by chasing a Chinese delegation in the
hallways at Copenhagen. That the Chinese would today emerge as the leaders of
the free world, advocating for free trade and movement of goods and services
while the Americans resort to building ‘walls’.
The
European Union is threatened by the exit of the United Kingdom from the EU, and
there is uncertainty regarding the process of negotiation that will ensue in
the following months and years. Temporary camps for refuges around Europe are
likely to become permanent homes, as thousands meet their fate in oceans and
high sees escaping persecution, hunger and violence. It is not hard to see why
in a recent rally, German Chancellor Angela Merkel calls on fellow Europeans to
take their fate into their hands, and depend on Europe.
As one
would imagine, in the midst of all these uncertainties, aid and development
initiatives in Africa and other poor regions of the world have been relegated
to the background. There is a new socio-political map about to be drawn, and
the changes that will accompany this new map are not necessary bright for those
whose waist deep in poverty or whose livelihoods are threatened by
environmental changes.
Yes,
multilateralism is about to become one of those theories for International
Relations textbooks and the subject of conferences, except it receives a jolt
in the direction. It is hard to see where that jolt will come from, but one can
only hope that a recovering world economy will bring with it a new push for
global problem solving.
Friday, December 16, 2016
Groundhog Day, again 1
The
growth trajectory of the Korean economy has been the envy of most developing
countries around the world. The story of poverty to riches, of hunger to
plentiful, of a country that has moved from being one of the biggest aid recipients
to an aid donor and a member of the ‘prestigious’ OECD-DAC is one that many
developing countries seek to emulate. The country is today at the forefront of
technological advancement, environmental protection and healthcare services.
However, the scandals that have engulfed Korea in recent months have exposed
serious problems in the building blocks of the country; the curse of
authoritarian development.
As a
graduate student a few years ago, I had passionate and in-depth discussions with
my colleagues and professors on which form of government was most appropriate
for most developing countries as they strived to achieve economic growth and
development. For most of us- most of who were from developing countries- we
thought a ‘benevolent dictatorship’, or authoritarian development was the right
path towards rapid economic growth. Why have a divided country and waste vast
amount of resources on multi-party democratic reforms when the entire country
needed to head in the same direction and dedicate all available resources
towards achieving economic growth. Participation rates in most elections were
very low, and in most countries long serving presidents were always almost
certain to win. The democratic process seemed like a huge waste of national
resources. It was hard to hear some of my Korean professors and friends
criticize the regime of president Park JungHee, considering he oversaw the
rapid economic growth of the country.
In
hindsight, l now realize just how wrong l was. That president Park had a vision
for this country, that he set the path for Korean economic growth and pushed
forward to achieve that objective against adversity from home and abroad
remains a profound achievement. This country owes him gratitude, as do l and
many others who have benefited from the hard work and kindness of the Korean
government and people. However, the policies adopted during his presidency and
those of subsequent leaders have had a rather negative long-term effect on the
country. The political and institutional development was stifled along with
dissent, and that has had serious repercussions on the progress of the country.
Consider
the following extract from a write up:
“…It does not require much effort to
speculate how it had been possible to raise black money of such a astronomical
figure. The vast majority of the amount, as it has been revealed, came from
businessmen as extortion payments to get around heavy government regulations or
to receive contracts for government projects.”
“… Assembly is for the most part failing in
its duty to pass legislation whose priority is to contribute to the public
interest and to rigorously exercise its power of legislative review to prevent
the deviant behavior of the executive branch.”
“…The role of the judiciary is to restrain
the deviation of these government branches. However, a huge chasm separates the
current state of the judiciary and the public’s expectation”
If
you’re thinking this is a recent publication on the state of events for the
past month in Korea, you’re wrong. This is an extract from a paper by Professor
IIjoong Kim in November of 1995 on
the scandal that rocked South Korea after the discovery of the $650 million
slush-fund by former president Roh Tae-woo. Twenty-one years later, Korea is
faced with another scandal of the same nature, except this time the reputation
of the nation that performed ‘the miracle on the Han’ is at risk. We pose the
question: why have the regulations enacted in the aftermath of that scandal,
subsequent scandals, and administrations been so ineffective? The situation
brings to mind the 1993 hollywood movie “GroundHog Day” starring Bill Murray. It’s
like waking up to the same day all the time. In part two, we discuss just how
it all went wrong.
Friday, December 9, 2016
NEW FRONTIERS; Korea’s Trade with Africa
NEW FRONTIERS; Korea’s Trade with Africa
Like many other countries in East Asia,
South Korea has developed rapidly in the past four decades through an export
oriented growth strategy. Korea’s development and investment in education has
put the country at the forefront of technological development. To sustain
growth, most Korean companies have outsourced parts or their entire production
processes to many countries in Asia and South America. With an ever increasing
wage bill in Asia as many countries continue to grow, and the recent election
of Donald Trump to the US presidency (one of his campaign promises was to scrap
the NAFTA and renegotiate all trade deals signed by the US including the
US-KOREA FTA), it is time for South Korea to pivot towards Africa.
Africa offers some exciting opportunities
for trade and cooperation with South Korea. A lower wage bill and a youthful
population provide an attractive option for Korean companies as they look to
maintain their competitive edge in the global market. It is imperative that
companies keep their costs of production low, as they face stiff competition
around the world. Costs of living and other expenses have increased calls for
higher wages across many Asian countries. It is time for Korea to look towards
Africa for cheaper labor to maintain its competitive edge.
Another important point is the growing
demand for ‘sustainable’ technology in Africa. African countries continue to
grow, and contrary to early developers who had little regard for the
environment, the emphasis is on sustainable development now. Korea is in a
unique position to provide the technology required for sustainable development.
Korea’s Green Growth drive has seen a huge investment in green technology in
the past decade, which can be readily made available to growing economies in
Africa. Recycling technology is one such area in which Korea leads for the
world to follow.
To sustain economic growth, Korea also
needs a constant supply of raw materials. There is an abundance of raw
materials in most African countries, and pivoting to increase trade with Africa
will give Korea access to raw materials needed by most of their companies.
There is no doubt that a growing middle class and an expanding private sector
in many African countries will provide a market for Korean products.
China, the US, and Europe have had a
longer history of dealing with many African countries. However, Korea’s history
and rapid development presents an example that many new governments in Africa
would love to follow. Most new governments will be looking to break the hooks
of neo-colonialism that Europe has had on Africa through their multinationals.
Korean companies will provide a fresh start for most governments, and a
trustworthy partner in the development process.
Increasing trade with Africa will be
mutually beneficial to Korea and many African countries.
Is deepening trade between Africa and South Korea in the interest of the parties concerned?
Have your say.
Thursday, December 8, 2016
The End of the ‘Yes We Can’ Era
Very few people would have forgotten the jubilation
and fanfare that accompanied the election of Barack Obama to the presidency of
the United States in 2008. There were celebrations around the world from Europe
to Asia, Africa to the Americas as we all looked to the silver lining in a year
that had seen the world hit hard by the financial crisis that began in the US.
There was a glimmer of hope to all the ‘Davids’ around the world. If the US had
finally had its first black president, the message to every child in every
corner of the globe was that the world was ours for the taking; if we worked
hard at it. At least that is what it meant to me.
Fast-forward eight years and it’s 2016
when Obama is saying goodbye to the White House. The question on most minds is
‘Did he live up to our expectations?’ I doubt he did, no human could have. The
world was in such a terrible state when he took office that we expected him to
do almost the impossible; fix what was broken with the US economy- that was
waist deep in financial crisis, divided, and in no hurry to attend to pressing
problems of health care and environmental protection. Above all, the ‘fix’ had
to be for the US, but it also had to trickle down to the rest of the world
because we have always looked to America for leadership. It did the president
no good that he was black, as a number of politicians vowed upon his
inauguration to ‘do everything possible’ to limit him to one term in office.
Fareed Zakaria presented a very
insightful assessment of president Obama’s legacy in his December 5th
episode of GPS. He argues that Obama brought a dramatic change to US policy,
and may go down as one of the most consequential in US history. Obama may have
failed in closing Guantanamo Bay detention center, overseen the rise of the so
called ‘Islamic state’, the collapse of Libya, Syria and domestic issues like
the rise of health care premium, but the fact remains that he did achieve a lot
during the two terms of his presidency. The US economy has since stopped
bleeding jobs, and the world has taken its cue from there. The environment,
healthcare, gay rights and a more diplomatic approach to resolving world issues
are among some of the things Obama will be remembered for.
We are holding our breaths, waiting to
see what will happen as now president elect Trump vows to undo the legacy of
President Obama. The uncertainty is not only at home in the US, as he has also
called to question the role the US played in the Paris Climate change
Agreement, NATO, the Iran Nuclear deal and Regional Trading Agreements the USA
has signed with other countries.
What are your thoughts on the Obama
presidency, and the future of the world?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)