Protestors gather over Cho Kuk "scandal" investigation

(Source- YTN News 9.28) Cho Kuk, South Korean Minister of Justice, "I realize deeply the saying that reform is more difficult than revolution." Minister Cho, right center carrying file.

Cho Kuk (Korean: 조국, born 6 April 1965[1]) is a South Korean jurist and politician. From 2017 to 2019, he served as the Senior Secretary to the President for Civil Affairs in the Moon Jae-in Cabinet. On 9 August 2019, President Moon Jae-in designated Cho as Minister of Justice, replacing the incumbent Park Sang-ki; he was officially appointed on 9 September.*

*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cho_Kuk

In what appears to be a familiar pattern in South Korean politics and society, family relations of the prominent Cho Kuk, may have used his prestige to advance their own interests. His daughter is accused of not being qualified for educational opportunities and credentials she was granted by prestigious institutions allegedly based upon influence peddling. Other family members including Cho Kuk's wife and in-laws are suspected of arranging suspicious investments in a fund used to purchase real estate and to have received funds improperly. Cho has categorically denied many of the specific allegations against his daughter and wife, and claimed lack of knowledge of alleged financial transactions said to involve his wife and in laws.

Cho was recently appointed Justice Minister by the Moon Jae In administration to clean up imbalances and improper influences on the justice system in Korea. The investigation of the alleged corruption of Cho's family has dominated the South Korean headlines for weeks as investigative leads, and search warrant particulars have been leaked to the press in an effort to derail his cabinet appointment as Justice Minister. The story has dominated South Korean media distracting from other issues, including important international issues challenging the democratic Moon administration. The extensive scope and probing nature of the ongoing investigation by the prosecutor's office along with the leaks suggests internal resistance to justice reform initiatives desired by Moon, and ostensibly to be initiated by Cho. The underlying political subtext involves the loss of power and influence by the pro-Japanese commercial and political interests traditionally supported by the right wing political opposition in South Korea attempting to recover political momentum since Moon Jae In was elected.

(Source- Daum.net News 1 9.28 구윤성 Koo Yoon Seong reporter ) Candlelight demonstration in support of Cho Kuk in front of Supreme Prosecutors Office, Seoul, South Korea.

The situation seems to have resulted in a serious backlash, as a huge candlelight demonstration took place in Seoul this morning, involving hundreds of thousands of Cho Kuk supporters and advocates for justice system reforms.*

* https://news.v.daum.net/v/20190928185345834?f=m

Some observers have claimed substantially more than a million persons may have participated. The crowd has been chanting "support Cho Kuk," and "Moon Jae In, Moon Jae In!" Signs also said "stop political prosecutors," and "investigate Liberty Korea Party." In another video of the massive demonstation, the crowd sang the patriotic national song, "holo Arirang." One poll earlier this week showed Moon's popularity rebounding to 48 percent, and democratic party support now above 40 percent, clearly a setback for conservatives. The right wing Liberty Korea Party has been calling for Cho Kuk's removal and even impeachment proceedings against Moon.

About Andrew Yang

Andrew Yang is a Chinese-American campaigning to be the Democratic Party's candidate for President of the United States. My point of reference is as an observer of politics in South Korea. I know the following analogy isn't on all fours but I suspect this is where Yang's notion of political maneuvering comes from or perhaps it is just developing this way as a result of similar world trends.

Andrew Yang reminds me of the technocratic no. 3 candidate in the last South Korean general election for president, Ahn Cheol-soo , from the "People's Party ( 국민의당 )." Ahn ended up with just over 21 percent of the South Korean vote for president. My perception is that the US press doesn't take Yang seriously because he's Asian-American. This is the stereo-typical American response to any Asian who asks to be taken seriously. Andrew Yang should be taken very seriously as a presidential candidate, even if one is not a Yang supporter. His anti-government, smart technocrats from the private sector (namely Andrew Yang) can do it better approach is a reaching out to the populist right clothed in a progressive disguise. This is similar to the centrist "new politics" of Ahn Cheol-soo in South Korea. New politics failed and moved to the right apart from its token democratic and progressive representations. Ahn's new political party is known as the "Righteous Future Party," ( 바른미래당 ). Ahn Cheol-soo claimed to be the Bernie Sanders of South Korea, and to hold FDR as his model of politics. He's really center right. Bernie Sanders is the Bernie Sanders of US politics. Moon Jae In is the Bernie Sanders of South Korean politics. Ahn Cheol-soo was a rich entrepreneur turned politician looking for new conquests.

Yang's relevant experience seems to be as an entrepreneur, community organizer and now as a campaigner. There is no question about his intelligence or ability. It's understandable why he received recognition from the Obama administration. Andrew seems too ambitious to run for the House or Senate first. He can only start at the top. Ahn Cheol-soo had more political experience before running for president of South Korea.

Japan follows Trump's bad foreign policy example

T.K. Park is clearly one of the leading analysts of South Korean affairs in the US today. I particularly liked his insight near the end of today's installment, of his series of articles titled Korea-Japan and the End of the '65 System. * He observes that Abe crossed a line in Japan- Korean relations by confusing the economic and security relationship between South Korea and Japan with the untended historical disputes. This was a decisive step in the wrong direction following the poor example set by Trump's chaotic shake it up and see what happens approach to international relationships including security alliances. T.K.'s insight is this:

It is difficult to overstate the damage that Abe’s trade war caused to the ’65 System. The ’65 System was able to persist and grow because South Korea and Japan had separated the cost of System—namely, the historical issues—from the benefit of the System, namely the economic and security partnership. This was initially achieved by South Korean dictators suppressing the Korean victims of Japanese imperialism. But even after the victims began voicing their injury in the 1990s, South Korea and Japan were able to continue the ’65 System by drawing a clear line between the historical issues on one hand, and the economic and security issues on the other.

Abe’s trade war crossed this critical line. To exercise leverage on the historical issues, Abe used economic cooperation with South Korea as a chain around Seoul’s neck. When the blowback began for engaging in a trade war, Abe made up a national security excuse that no one believed in. From there, the decline of the ’65 System passed the point of no return.*

*Korea-Japan and the End of the '65 System - Part V: the End of the '65 System
http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2019/09/korea-japan-and-end-of-65-system-part-v.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter


During the transitional period of more liberal governance since the period of authoritarian rule in South Korea, T.K's article provides some explanation of how the separation of historical grievances from the need for cooperation somehow survived to preserve a pragmatic relationship between South Korea and Japan which he now feels is gone.

There is also a congruent but slightly different perspective. Kim Dae Jung's liberal administration only came to power by compromising with Kim Jong Pil, the former head of the KCIA during the Park Chung Hee, pro-Japanese ( 친일파 ) right wing dictatorship. Roh Tae Woo's conservative administration continued to represent the interests and parties that had flourished under dictators Park and Chun Doo Hwan until Chun was forced out of power by pro-democracy demonstrations in the late eighties. Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung did not and could not come to power until they accommodated those pro-Japanese right wing interests in a political alliance with Kim Jong Pil, a minority regional politician and conservative stalwart. During DJ's rule as president, he pursued progressive initiatives such as the Sunshine Policy with North Korea, but was presented with the same obstacles Syngman Rhee had faced decades before. Namely, the notion that the popular grievances against domestic colonial era criminal colloborators with Japan (and their conservative progeny) would arrive at some just denouement was stifled by political compromise, this time by the need to form a governing coalition in a representative government. Forming a governing coalition could not yet be achieved without once again reigning back the historical issues domestically. This is what the NY Times had to say in its eulogy to Kim Jong Pil, the former KCIA director, and advocate for the 1965 Agreement with Japan:

...Any politician with presidential ambitions had to pay respects to Mr. Kim and win his favor.

He helped Kim Young-sam win the presidency in 1992, forming a political alliance with him and Mr. Roh, in which their three parties merged. Later, after a falling-out with Kim Young-sam, he merged his new party with that of Kim Dae-jung, who went on to be elected president in 1997. He became prime minister under President Kim Dae-jung, who would win a Nobel Peace Prize for his policy of outreach to North Korea, including a historic summit meeting with Kim Jong-il, then the North’s leader.*

*Kim Jong-pil, Political Kingmaker in South Korea, Dies at 92, NT Times obituary, By Choe Sang-Hun, June 23, 2018; https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/23/obituaries/kim-jong-pil-south-korea.html

The experiment of returning to a nostalgic revisionist view of South Korean dictatorships by electing Park Geun Hye, the daughter of the former Japanese Imperial Army officer, and dictator of South Korea, failed. This has allowed Moon Jae In, to finally repudiate the costs of the pro-Japanese element in conservative Korean politics to the chagrin of the right wing governments in Japan and the US.

Correction: this article was edited Sep. 18, to delete a misstatement about the relationship of Kim Jong Pil to the Chun dictatorship and to add Kim Jong Pil's relationship to the Kim Yong Sam administration.

Upcoming US - Korea summit and military alliance cost sharing

(Source- JTBC News 9.14)

So the current 2019 cost sharing contribution for US Forces Korea is US $881,178,161.00 at current exhange rates. This figure doesn't include the 9 billion dollars the Republic of Korea recently spent on expansion, modernization, and construction of new facilities at Camp Humphreys, in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, to facilitate the transfer of US Forces Korea and many of its military commands and units to what is now the largest US military base outside the United States. Additionally, not considered are the cost to South Korea of the transfer of some 26 former US military bases back to the host nation including untold billions in cleanup expenses for environmental damages, and personal injury claims based upon pollution and damage to surrounding communities and individuals. The US has been stonewalling cleanup costs in an attempt to foist them on South Korea with zero accountability. On a per capita basis the Republic of Korea spends more on its defense than other US allies. Yet, President Trump, in his coercive, transactional, and undiplomatic style, repeatedly publicly raises this issue, in a hyperbolic and unfair manner, and has in fact, demanded a five hundred percent increase in the South Korea contribution to the alliance's military costs. This is not helpful to the alliance and represents poor public relations with the people of South Korea.

JTBC reports that pending issues for the summit will naturally include military cost sharing, South Korean withdrawal from GSOMIA (military intelligence sharing) and other contentious issues with Japan, and, of course, denuclearization issues with North Korea. These present the prospect of a difficult summit ( 고난도 담화 ) between President Moon Jae In and President Trump, when the former arrives for a three day visit in the US September 22, for the upcoming UN General Assembly.

Unfortunately, the concurrent poor treatment of South Korea by the far right leaders, Abe and Trump, has the appearance of great power manipulation of the democratic government on the basis of pure power politics reminiscent of late 19th and early 20th Century imperialism which destroyed Korean sovereignty. South Korea is still struggling against unjust political legacies imposed by the US and Japan that the latter allies disingenuously evade. It is extremely unlikely that President Moon will acquiesce to their pressures to give up South Korea's recently asserted sovereignty or submit to "make Japan great again," initiatives or other Japanese revisionist moves, tacitly supported by the US. He will however, while weathering the current storm, do his best to keep the US-Korea alliance as strong as possible, and encourage measures to facilitate new diplomatic talks between the US and North Korea.

Always with a view to fighting the next war vs. the signpost.

Listened to two US "experts" advise the South Korean people on VOA that all political decisions must be considered from the point of view of fighting the next war with North Korea. According to this analysis the South Korean dispute with Japan is little more than irrational, "populist" rabble rousing manipulation. The elephant in the room is the fact that there is absolutely no establishment US interest in the divisive, harmful, and deceitful measures taken by the far right wing Abe regime against South Korea.

The US barely awakened from its semi-comatose state after the Moon administration gave notice of withdrawal from GSOMIA, to blame South Korea without examination of the historical issues or current Japanese policies. This slumbering state has been referred to elsewhere as the "silence of August." * Now disturbed from sleep, the US just repeats Japanese contentions about the 1965 Agreement with Park Chung Hee in a knee jerk fashion. Criticism of Japan by the US is virtually nonexistent, due to Japan's status as a major customer of US military sales, in addition to funishing the US forward military base structure in the Japan, indispensable for anti-China strategies. Abe essentially has Trump, the deal maker, over a barrel, with a lot of room for unilateral maneuver to achieve its own nationalist agenda to "make Japan great again." With the GSOMIA decision, the US only has one remedy, to criticize the democratic government of South Korea, as if badgering them will accomplish something.

*The Silence of August, ROBERT L. GALLUCCI, AUGUST 21, 2019; https://www.38north.org/2019/08/rgallucci082119/

Beyond gross over simplification about the issues between Japan and South Korea, the US is unwilling to examine its own role in creating the problem or its current policies which are destabilizing East Asia. The US, like Abe, is wishing the Moon government would go away rather than taking a more reflective view of how and why the plan to make South Korea and Japan allies moved to the fail column. Erasing the US historical role is a necessary corollary. At the same time, Pompeo and Beigun futilely insist that North Korea must come to the negotiating table while offering nothing but the abortive Bolton "all or nothing" formula. Stephen Beigun's speech on September 6, at the University of Michigan, offered little but vague platitudes unlikely to result in renewed dialogue with North Korea. In fact, his speech was less promising than public statements he has made in the past and represents the retrenchment to the hardline position by the US, revealed at Hanoi, alongside his apparent lack of authority to negotiate.* The world looks on with wonder. Do these experts, know what their doing? Are they the "best and the brightest?"

*Remarks by Special Representative for North Korea Stephen E. Biegun at the University of Michigan’s Weiser Diplomacy Center, Sep 6, 2019; https://www.state.gov/remarks-by-special-representative-for-north-korea-stephen-e-biegun-at-the-university-of-michigans-weiser-diplomacy-center/

( Source- SBS News Videomug Insight 1.17.2017 ) "When walking on a snow covered path don't walk in a disorderly way, because the path I walk forward on today, will later serve as a signpost for others." Bek Beom, Kim Ku

IOC allows Japan to display Rising Sun Flag at Tokyo Summer Olympics

This has been a headline issue in South Korean broadcast media yesterday and today. The South Korean Foreign Ministry regards the IOC judgement as a violation of political neutrality rules in the Olympic Charter. It remains to be seen how other Asian states who experienced Japanese imperialism during the Pacific War in the 20th Century will react to the decision. Most likely, China's position will have great impact. The Chinese have not objected to the use of the Rising Sun Flag at international naval reviews. However, the Asian Football Association does not permit the use of the Rising Sun Flag.

The IOC ruling was ostensibly based upon the fact that the Rising Sun flag motif is common throughout Japan and has "no political meaning." The South Korean Foreign Ministry regards the flag as symbolic of Japanese militarism and imperialism in the 20th Century and equivalent to displaying the Swastika at an international event. It's possible that the Chinese will not take a position in order to allow further deterioration in the US alliance structure in East Asia. If the decision is not reversed there is a possibility that Korean athletes may not attend the Tokyo Olympics. This is another prickly issue in addition to the matter of residual radioactivity near the Fukishima venue and the representation of Dokdo (Takeshima) as Japanese territory on their Olympic literature and accessories.

(Source YTN News - 9.3) South Korean legislator says cheering for the Rising Sun Flag is an IOC contrivance.

(Source- JTBC News 9.4) The medal design for the Tokyo paralympics brings to mind the Rising Sun Flag but is ostensibly a design based upon a fan. This is a transitional device much like the athletic uniform worn by Japanese athletes (shown below) during the 2012 London Olympics to condition the world to the revival of Japanese militarism desired by the west to counter China's rising influence.

(Source- JTBC News 9.4)

Emblem of Japanese Imperialism- Dokdo

President Moon Jae In recently described Japan's oft repeated claims to Dokdo as "preposterous." A Japanese scholar, Haruki Wada has recently characterized Japan's current disputes with Korea, historical, economic, and territorial, as the end of Japan as a peaceful state.*

*“Abe’s refusal to engage with S. Korea marks end of Japan’s status as peaceful country,” says Haruki Wada, Hankoryeh, August 27. http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/907372.html

As most observer's are aware, the government of Japan, led by the LDP's Shinzo Abe, is intent on removing the restrictions on offensive military operations in Article 9 of the Japanese constitution. In light of the upheaval in South Korea- Japan relations, some notes from my interpretation of an EBS broadcast last February examining the historical issues related to Dokdo follow.

In February 2019, the South Korean EBS program had an expert on Dokdo, aka Takeshima, aka Liancourt Rocks, on to make the historical case that Dokdo (island) in the middle of the Sea of Japan/East Sea is and always has been the territory of Korea. The narrator, Professor Shin Yong Ha, dates the claim from the fifth century during the Shilla dynasty. The islands were recognized as under Korean jurisdiction during the reign of Se Jong the Great in the 15th Century. Two historical documents cataloging Korean territory during the 15th and 16th Century were received by neighboring states, "without objection." The Japanese claim dates from a historical document in 1667, referred to by them in 1960 in an attempt to back their claim.

(Source- EBS South Korea Feb 2019) The Korean author/expert Shin Yong Ha uses subsequent charts, this latest one by a famed European geographer J. Klaproth, from 1832 to disprove the Japanese claims.

Evidently South Korea's EBS presented the senior scholar's history lesson after military confrontations in the Sea of Japan to make the historical case. The so called "radar tracking dispute," described in earlier articles here as maritime patrol incidents had taken place in December and January. The first such incident had taken place not too far from Dokdo on December 20, 2018. Analysts believe the incident was Japan's initial escalatory response for the South Korean Supreme Court decision in respect to wartime slave labor claims against Japanese corporations.

In 1696 the Shoganate prohibited Japanese fisherman from approaching Dokdo. The Japanese government claims that the historical documents that Professor Shin Yong Ha has unearthed in various national libraries are not authentic. They "dispute the credibility" of the documents.

The Japanese invaded the Korean island of Euleongdo in 1895 during the Sino Japanese war. They took over the police force there. They had no legal authority to do this. Then the Japanese without notice in January 1905, "transferred" the "stateless" nearby island of Dokdo to itself. The islands were neither stateless, nor was any state notified of the transfer per the requirements of international law. The Korean legation in Tokyo was not informed. It has to be said here parenthetically, that the press typically recounts Japanese colonization of Korea as beginning with the annexation of Korea by Japan in 1910. This is simply a pro-Japanese affectation in the western press. The Japanese invasion and occupation of Korea started with the Sino-Japanese war much earlier and never ended until the Japanese surrender August 1945. Japanese revisionist history declares their occupation and annexation of Korea, not as an invasion and oppressive occupation, but "beneficial to Korea." The colonization was entirely illegal, accomplished by military invasion, characterized by exploitation of the people and resources of Korea, and enforced by torture and summary executions.

On Feb 22, 1905, the Japanese notified the Shimane Prefecture government in its own country that Dokdo had been transferred to its jurisdiction. This day is know as Takeshima Day in Japan. The Korean government even at the end of the year still didn't know. The Eulsa Treaty had been forced on Korea Nov 18, 1905. They effectively became a protectorate of Japan and lost their right to conduct foreign policy which was transferred to the resident general of Korea. So when the King found out in March 1906, his government's complaints were not forwarded to Japan by it's protectorate administration.

The Allied Supreme HQ issued an order on Jan 29, 1946, declaring Dokdo to be Korean territory to be returned to Korea, Order 677.* However the order was not styled as a final determination of the status of the island. There has been no contradictory indication in any other international document pertaining to territorial claims relative to imperial Japan and the island of Dokdo. The only contrary claims come from Japan itself. Japan seized Dokdo as part of imperial offensive that actually began with the Japanese Chinese war in 1894, and then annexed the island by a series of actions undisclosed internationally and consummated in 1906 after the infamous Eulsa Treaty in November 1905. The treaty established the Imperial Japanese protectorate over Korea and took away it's power to make foreign policy completely. Thereafter the issue was laid to rest until the defeat of Japan by the allied powers.

*http://whathappenedtodokdo.blogspot.com/2014/01/scapin-677-separated-dokdotakeshima.html


The status of the island was not determined in the San Francisco Treaty after WWII, in which Korea wasn't represented. The US attempted to give Dokdo to Japan in order to obtain rights to establish military facilities there (to use it for bombing practice). Other allied nations disagreed, and the status of Dokdo was avoided completely in the San Francisco treaty. This is by no means an affirmative or dispositive indication of the islands territorial status or a contraindication of the Allied Powers original disposition in Order 677.

The Korean government regards Japanese claims to Dokdo as so unsupportable they will not submit the issue to international adjudication because the Japanese claim is spurious. According to Professor Shin, UN documents from the period unequivocally recognized the sovereignty of Korea over Dokdo.

Here is the link for reference. It apparently is no longer available:
https://www.dailymotion.com/embed/video/k21a17B0oh0nrzsBDIP

(Source- EBS South Korea Feb 2019) According to the professor, a noted Japanese cartographer, Hoyashi Shiheiga, depicted Dokdo as within Korean territory in 1785.

(Source- Weekly Chosun Newroom supplement 2011.6) 1785년 일본 실학자 하야시 시헤이가 그린 <삼국접양지도>. Chart drawn by Japanese geographer Hoyashi Shiheiga "Three kingdoms boundaries map" (samgukjeopyangjido) Dokdo appears in the upper right corner of the red lined insert. The yellow color indicates Korean territory.

A description of the islands in 1667 in a Japanese complilation from the predecessor to the Shimane prefecture described the islands in comparison to the Oki islands, indicated that the latter marked the limit of Japanese territory. According to Professor Shin's interpretation of the document, "Eulongdo and Dokdo are to Korea as Oki is to Shimane prefecture." Japanese reliance on the documents is erroneous and misplaced.

(Source- youtube Northeast Asia History Foundation May 2016) Why is Dokdo Korean territory? Shin Yong Ha, Dokdo Studies Dean (Seoul University Emeritus Professor)

This is an earlier lecture on the topic by the professor available on youtube:

독도, 왜 한국 영토인가? - 신용하 독도학회장(서울대 명예교수) Northeast Asia History Foundation May 2016
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7qN6byv1mY