Nostra Culpa

I would not usually link to a Times op-ed piece, but I'm doing so now, not because this one is particularly timely or well-written, but because Frank Rich makes a point that I almost never hear made. Namely, WE are to blame for our country's failures. We, all citizens, are the U.S.A. We are culpable for the lives taken, in Iraq and elsewhere, as well as for the complete loss of respect and influence the U.S. has suffered around the world.

I have often consoled myself, and defended my country against Bush-haters, by saying that America has been lead astray. Or that most people in the U.S. are good, and that the mistakes made in Iraq are not representative of my country. Or, I say, just wait a few more years, and we'll vote him out.

This, I now realize, is bull shit. If the people in the U.S. wanted to change course, we would have. Bush is obviously not so secure in his power that we cannot influence him. And even if he were, his power is based solely on public approval, or, perhaps, apathy. I'm not saying that we are to blame because we live in a democracy. In the modern era, I'm not convinced that democracy functions at all differently from any other type of government. Instead, public opinion, or lack there of, is the defining feature of a country. Just as Germans enabled Hitler even if they did not all support him, by allowing Iraq to happen we are just as guilty as if we were the ones actively participating. The relevant comparison here is not Bush to Hitler. And we can no longer be consoled by the limited scope of Iraq. The conflict there is spilling over into the entire region and into all aspects of our foreign relations.

What's to be done? A society is easily poisoned when the people who govern control the press and the organization of its citizens. I'm thankful that, in the U.S., these freedoms are guaranteed, or at least not currently challenged. But a democracy of the sort we have today has it's own dangers. Power is shielded behind a legislative and executive bureaucratic system that blunts public action and diffuses responsibility. Merely voting is not enough; in fact, it can be a distraction. Our elected and non-elected employees and representatives must ask for our mandate every day when they wake up, not just every two, four or six years. By tacitly granting it, even as they mire us deeper and deeper into immoral policy, we are participating in our own demise. God bless America? God have mercy...

And free speech can be a distraction as well. It's not clear whether Frank Rich is claiming this, but he is not absolved simply by writing this piece. A spot in the Times is little more than a soapbox. Perhaps the reporters who expose Blackwater massacres are doing their part, but pundits (including me) clearly are not. There is a sense in which we are mesmerized by the free press. Because we are able to say anything, we have an excuse for failing to act. What, pray tell, has Internet mobilization achieved? We need people in the streets.

Rights and Duties

Observed: Whereas in Manhattan, pedestrians always have the right of way and cars always obey the traffic laws, in Seoul it's the opposite. In Seoul, nobody crosses the street, even if it's totally clear, until the light turns green. On the other hand, if the street is clear, taxis don't think twice about running a red. Why the difference?

I think this little thing actually provides a pretty clear demonstration of the different social rights and duties characteristic of our two countries. In the U.S., we emphasize negative liberties when distributing social duties. Americans have the right not to be blocked or prohibited from pursuing our lives or projects; and we have the corresponding duty not to interfere with other people's lives or projects. Walking in New York is a perfect example of this principle of non-interference. Since cars can interfere more profoundly with pedestrians' lives than pedestrians can interfere with cars, cars have the greater duty. The responsibility falls to drivers not to hit anyone. So, pedestrians are given a licence to wander the streets at will. This right is defended greedily. If a car starts to encroach upon pedestrian freedom, you can always count on somebody banging the hood and shouting "Hey! I'm walking here!"

But Koreans don't really have the principle of non-interference. They have, instead, something like the "principle of not making a mess that the rest of us will have to clean up." The pedestrian, if she does not follow the traffic rules, risks creating a big mess that everyone else will have to clean up. Drivers, of course, have a duty not to hit people, but pedestrians have a bigger obligation not to put themselves in a situation where their safety is uncertain and out of their control.

Instead of a duty to live and let live, as it were, Korean think that they have, not just a right, but a duty to interfere in each other's lives. I've elsewhere said that Koreans think of themselves as a big family, and this seems the best way to understand their rights and duties. If someone is doing something a little wrong, it's better to get him back on track now, than to wait until he creates a big mess that everybody has to clean up.

Another example of this is the Afghan hostage crisis. In case you missed it, 23 Korean missionaries were kidnapped by the Taliban in mid-July. Two were killed; the rest were eventually freed in late August, after much national hand-wringing and soul-searching. Their freedom was paid for with guarantees from Seoul that it would withdraw its medical and construction military units from Afghanistan.

Once the hostages were freed, and even well before this, the public consensus was that they were to blame for their own misfortunes. As one "netizen" quoted by Yonghap said, "These people defied the government's warning against travelling in Afghanistan, and they should pay for whatever happened in the course of the negotiations." And there we calls for Korean churches to disband their missionary operations all together. The missionaries made a mess that the rest of the Koreans had to clean up. Like a big family, the Korean people did whatever they had to do to get their brothers and sisters back. But also like a big family, they all felt personally affronted by the mess that was created. In Korea (if you're Korean, anyway) you've no right to be left alone to your own projects. Instead, everyone has a duty to take care of each other. So, you as an individual, have a specific and weighty duty to take care of yourself and not cause other people problems. So, don't risk crossing that street when the light is red!

Korean Cuisine: An update

So, I brought some banchun to work yesterday, and it was a huge success--mostly because someone else brought a heap of bulgogi (trans: delicious beef), and I was able to eat it qualm-free. I can get used to this.

While I'm here, I'll let you in on another related observation I've made about Korean eating habits: Koreans generally do not talk while they're eating; they save the conversation until after the meal. But this is not, I think, just etiquette, since it's not wrong to talk a little while you're eating. I think it's just necessary given that all the food is shared. If you're the one who wants to get involved in an extended discourse about politics over dinner, then you're the one who goes home hungry. Your best bet, when eating a Korean style meal, is to gulp down the food as quickly as possible. Luckily, eating with chopsticks prohibits taking big bites, so even if you eat as fast as you can, you're not too likely to choke.

Thought for the day...

If there can be life forms that are not carbon-based, then can there be language that does not have syntax?

Torture Fatigue

If anyone still doubted whether the U.S. is torturing prisoners, or whether there are legitimate legal concerns about it, they should check out this article. It seems that in 2005 the Justice Department endorsed, in secret, the legality of torturing prisoners deemed to be terrorists. First, if this wasn't already old news, we should leap out of our seats and say, "What has the world come to!?! My government is torturing prisoners!!!" Second, we should be appalled by the very possibility that this can be justified legally. And finally, we should seriously doubt that it can, in fact, be so justified. I have elsewhere outlined reasons for doubt, but we should also be skeptical of the simple fact that the Justice Department kept their endorsement secret!!! In an open democracy, laws must by nature be public. It makes no sense, then, for interpretations of those laws to remain secret, that is, until they are inevitably leaked to the press. A secret legal justification of torture has the smell of a conscious-soother, not a serious legal argument intended for use in court.

Let me make one more point. This is a moral, rather than legal point, but it cuts close to the moral foundations of the law. The Bush Administration and the Justice Department strove to find loopholes in treaties and U.S. laws that would protect their agents in the field, military and otherwise, from prosecution once they got back home. But by eliminating the laws, they eliminated the rules that establish and limit what counts as proper procedure. They opened a Pandora's box of unregulated activity. Abu Gharib is the obvious result, but there have no doubt been many such incidents. (If you have not, you should read "The General's Report" about a general assigned to investigate Abu Gharib.) When soldiers, or anyone, are given a carte blanche to act however they want, we can no longer expect them to act rationally or to any longer conform to decorum. (See the infamous Stanford Prison Experiment.) Laws are there for a reason, and not simply to limit executive power. The Bush Administration was foolish to even suggest that rules about torture should not apply. I hate to say it, but the U.S. deserves the bad reputation it has lately acquired.

Korean Cuisine: An observation

What I've learned since I started working at an office in which I'm the only foreigner:

The major difference between Korean cuisine and Western is, not the high quantities of garlic, hot-pepper paste, or cephalopods, but the fact that all the food is shared. I went to a great little Korean place on Sixth Street in Racine, and the food was pretty authentic (and delicious). The owner even made her own kimchi. But the meal was totally American, right from appetiser to dessert.

Koreans, when they eat, usually have their own bowl of rice, and then share a variety of banchun, often translated as 'side dishes.' But that doesn't really capture it because the "side dishes," together with the rice, are the meal. In fact, calling them 'side dishes' in English, and the fact that we don't have a better word for it, exactly emphasizes the point I'm making here. The whole structure of a Korean meal is different from the structure of an American, or a French, meal. They do not have appetizers, entrees, main courses, salads, deserts, or side dishes. Occasionally for a large meal, you will have one big helping of meat, but that too is shared. Usually, you just have a bunch of banchun, especially salty things like dried fish or seaweed, kimchi, a bit of cooked meat, or some finely chopped veggies.

This is a great system, I think. When I'm with friends, I'm always sticking my fork into their food anyway. There is no such thing as food jealousy here. But in an office, you can imagine the difficulties. Everyone, especially the boss's sister (who often hangs around) assumes that all the food on the table is fair game. And inevitably, some people bring better or worse things, and there is always a bit of tension as to who is getting a free ride (or anyway, that's how I perceive it). Imagine what it must be like in elementary school! And, as the foreigner, I can't tell if I have to stay out of the system or what. I mean, I don't really know what banchun is or how to make it, so I usually just have my own food, which sits in a little bubble at the edge of the table. (Resolved: Tonight I will stop at the banchun shop, where they make fresh banchun for busy housewives, and bring something tomorrow.)

So, next time you're having some ethnic food, stop and think whether you're having it ethnically. From what I know of Thai and Indian food, there is supposed to be a lot of sharing going on, too. The meal experience is just as important as the food, and this is something that is often overlooked at Americanized ethnic restaurants, even when the food is very good.

One final observation (which did not originate with me): While French/Western cuisine is focused on flavor and texture--aesthetics--Chinese/East Asian cooking is basically an extension of medicine. Much attention is given to what your food will do inside of you, and how it will safely get out. When we talk about cuisine, we would be short-sighted think only about aesthetics. More than merely food or flavor, cuisine is a way of eating and a purpose for eating.

Diplomacy? What diplomacy?

Well, who'd of thought it, but kudos to President Bush, or, perhaps Assistant Secretary of State Christopher Hill, for finally netting a diplomatic success. In Beijing yesterday, the parties to the six party talks signed an agreement in which North Korea will disable its nuclear program in exchange for increasingly normalized relations with the U.S. and Japan and economic aid (full text). In February, North Korea agreed to shut-down its reactor and reprocessing facilities, and in July inspections showed that they had followed through. They have now agreed to permanently disable these facilities.

Whether there is any reason to trust Pyongyang is an open question. What Bush and co. deserve credit for is offering to "[remove] the designation of the DPRK [North Korea] as a state sponsor of terrorism and advance the process of terminating the application of the Trading with the Enemy Act with respect to the DPRK." That is, to finally renounce the "axis of evil" bigotry and approach foreign affairs in a rational manner.

Of course, credit is also due to Kim Jong Il, for pushing our buttons in just the right way to get just what he wants. Having nukes is not about blowing things up--it's about threatening to blow things up. We've all know this since 1945. Did anyone notice that the Bush administration's stance softened only after a nuclear weapon was successfully tested? Does anyone else foresee a parallel here with Iran?

It's interesting, though, that North Korea has totally abandoned its old claim of self-sufficiency. It is now quite clearly willing to trade whatever it can for energy aid and open economic relations. Perhaps this has something to do with its cooling relations with China. Whether willing to admit it or not, North Korea has been on a rapid decline at least since the fall of the Soviet Union and the famines in the early '90s. According to the CIA (who cites an OECD estimate from 1999 as their best source), North Korea's GDP is about $40 billion. From parity with the North after the Korean War, South Korea's economy has grown to be thirty times that size. (The South's population is about double the North's). The only possible way for reunification to happen is for North Korea to greatly expand economically. And this will clearly take incorporation, to some degree, in the the international market.

To that end, South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun arrived in Pyongyang on Oct. 2. His goal is to set up another special economic zone in North Korea, like the one at Kasung, and to expand the integration of the two economies. If you haven't seen the video of President Roh's arrival in Pyongyang, you should check it out here.