The Korean Imbroglio and Asian thoughts

I've spent a good part of the day talking with a very beautiful woman about Korea and I think that I am beginning to get what is going on in the Peninisula, though I pretend to no special knowledge. I'm trying to learn the language and am picking up bits and pieces, as I've blogged before.

Roh moo-hyun, the former president who died in a fall and who is revered by many Koreans, both of conservative and democratic disposition, has been given a funeral this past week that has convulsed South Korea. Mr Roh, a catholic democrat (and religion is an important dividing line in Korea, even down to the protestant/cholla 'antichondokyo Marxism' of the Kim family up north) was a sort of RFK figure. He was known by some as a sort of Asian Mandela.

Conservative elements had tried to kill him several times. His sunshine policy with North Korea was not liked by various groups inside or outside the fiercely nationalistic peninsula but was very popular with ordinary folk. Kim Jong Il, presumably wondering about his own succession, is said to have liked him.

The present President, who is a sort of protestant evangelical admirer of Margaret Thatcher, was not, unlike Ryu and Ban-Ki Mun, a disciple of Kim Dae Jung. KDJ was a sort of radical centrist who led a democratic element and gave rise to the present challengers to Korea's democratic order. He again was associated with Korea's large Catholic centre; indeed a note from Pope John Paul II probably saved his life whilst imprisoned.

The 'scandal' that brought down Roh is not believed by many to have personally implicated him (even though it did) and seems, though not a set-up, to have eventually revealed him in a good light, not least because he was a politician who felt guilty about money he didn't take. In retirement, he had actually just gone home to his town.

North Korea has chosen this moment of mourning to escalate its sabre-rattling and to drive Korea into a state of anxiety. If the South and the United States responded with severe force, an escalated series of breaches and provocations, possibly moving into war, could be unleashed. Their special forces are exceptionally large and well trained and they have been hiding their war materiel all across the North. However, the deeply unpopular conservative government and the US would be plunged into a crisis of public confidence amongst the people of the South.

This would please China no end. It went unspoken in my conversations today, but if the US 'stands up' to North Korea directly, as some wish it to do, I can't help but wonder if the People's Republic of China wouldn't ultimately benefit. It doesn't seem to me that the US could massively increase troop deployments or destroy Korea in order to save it; and anyway, since they need the Chinese to keep funding them, they wouldn't want to directly confront their ally. I assume that is what Tim Geithner is being told in China this weekend.

The outcome of such a confrontation is highly likely to be the expulsion of the US from its remaining bases on the Asian continent, and a Korean swing towards China, which would pose as a country restraining the North. This would effectively cede the Sea of Japan to China, leave it dominant in the China Sea, and set up a Spratley islands play. It would also leave China in a good position to accumulate the minerals and metals of south-east Asia, and probably give it an overwhelming advantage in any disputes over the Straits. Taiwan would immediately come into play.

Equally, the blue water and energy strategy that now sees China building a huge navy and developing ports in territories such as Sri Lanka, where it helps prop up the government, would be given another boost.

In a more fevered world, the actions of the past year--the build up of Chinese forces, the disparate cyber-attacks testing the west (and also just looking for money), the clear surge in special forces in Korea and the securing of resources by China, and the financial neutralisation of the United States, would be seen as a prelude to an attack. Thankfully, that early twenty-first century fever seems to have passed for now, but I can see why some are worried. It helps to know that people are worried in China, too.

In circumstances like these, it may well be that neither the United States nor South Korea want a direct confrontation. Kim Jong Il, to whom it makes no sense to attribute any rational motives, though he may have them, is in a very strong position, and a bizarre number of southerners seem to like his grandstanding against the Americans. President Obama, meanwhile, seems to be avoiding the issue in public, and trying to avoid being brought up to the line.

All this illustrates, as does my previous post, how much the world is shifting back to Asia after a couple of hundred years or so focussed on the Atlantic. It also illustrates the relative decline of the USA. Whilst I am not given to great catch-all theories--I think history much more about accidence, accidents, convergence and coincidence--I am fascinated by the North Asian and Indian Ocean game.

There's a wider reality this weekend too. The Iranians, in a presidential election, seem to be suffering suicide bombings and the threat of Islamic hijackings of planes. I pray for the victims, but it's not true to say that my heart bleeds. How long is it before we start reading headlines about them, the Pakistanis, the Afghans and the Indians taking on radical Sunni Islamic elements along the arc of instability, with an oil pipeline to follow the Carthaginian peace? We've forgiven more from the Turks...just a thought, though one that occurred to The Seoul Times this week too.

UPDATE: Since writing this post, I have come across a story that suggests that one of a number of motives for the North's behaviour is a determination to create the conditions for Kim Jung Un, a potential successor of Kim Jong Il, to rise to power. You can read the story here.

Here's a beautiful rendition of a Korean anthem by Xiah Junsu.