Why is Yoon so unpopular? and other random observations

I’ve been watching/reading South Korean independent media reports of the escapades and history of Yoon, his wife and mother in law for more than two years. Yoon has been disciplined twice for unprofessional conduct as a prosecutor. The wife, Kim Gon-hee was the only suspect in insider trading scandal, that didn’t get jailed and sent to prison. Likewise mother in law Choi had her conviction reversed for what Americans would call institutional Medicare fraud. The conservative press in South Korea has avoided discussing Yoon family reports negative in nature. The latest episode involves the alleged plagiarism in wife’s masters and doctoral theses in addition to her falsified resume.

As the prosecutor general, Yoon was disciplined professionally before the presidential campaign for compromising the political impartiality of his office, for unlawfully investigating judges and interfering in a case in which he had a personal conflict of interest. He was suspended for two months, and left the office. On appeal of an injunction Yoon obtained against the decision the Supreme Court later found Yoon was wrong and could have been dismissed for his unethical behavior as a prosecutor.

Yoon’s politics are known as “revenge politics.” He and his crony, the current Justice Minister Han Dong-hun politicized the prosecutors offices. They not only control all the prosecutors offices in South Korea, but they have changed the administration of the National Police Agency in a manner similar to that of the prior Chun Doo-hwan dictatorship without legislative authority. They have a track record of investigating and/or prosecuting political opponents and critics. They have basically nullified the prosecution reform laws prompted by Yoon’s actions by taking over the national police. Yoon’s office was the mover behind the harassment of Moon Jae-in at his retirement residence, investigations of Democratic Party presidential candidate Lee Jae-myung and his family, etc. Yoon and his wife are petty, vindictive, and incompetent. This has become plainly apparent and his domestic support has evaporated. The fact that Yoon whimsically changed the location of the presidential office, has been unavailable during a pressing national security incident and natural disaster, and has an obvious drinking habit doesn’t help.

(Source-열린공감TV youtube 5.25) The hands of his escorts which appear to be steadying President Yoon on his feet are visible. Their faces are blurred out for privacy and/or security reasons. Typically, identity of non-public figures are protected on Korean media for privacy reasons. Witnessess said Yoon's party ran up a bill of almost 4000 dollars, which represented a 50percent discount at Yoon's favorite five star bar and restaurant "because he's a regular customer."

Yoon Seok-yeol's incompetence for presidential duties exceeds that of Park Geun-hye. He thinks he can run the national disaster command post from his living room couch in his private apartment in Seocho. He left the office just as the flood warning for Seoul districts and other areas was announced at five pm, with predictions a major flood disaster was likely. His staff did nothing for four and a half hours issuing an "orange alert" at 9:30 pm August 8. The third stage of disaster preparations (condition red) wasn't implemented until 1:00 am the following day, Aug. 9, when major flooding, property damage, etc. in the region had already been confirmed at 9:26 pm. Yoon is said to have returned to the office at 11:26 pm. It is likely that the inept performance of Yoon and his staff was the result of reluctance to call his majesty back to the national command center after he had left for the day. Yoon's movements between his Seocho apartment and the presidential office require extensive security and traffic diversions and the mobilization of his security team and police. Why didn't he just move into the Blue House where the real national command center was located like the other presidents before him?

Corruption of South Korean educational institutions reaches new levels as Kookmin University declares plagiarism in Kim Gon-hee's academic theses unproven. The "revenge politics" of Yoon Seok-yeol and his wife, have officials private and public fearful of prosecution against themselves or their family members should they paint any of the first family's questionable past in a poor light. The University declined to reveal the record of its review proceedings to any media or critics of its findings. Alumnae and academic groups from Kookmin University and Sukmyung Women's University where Kim did her masters thesis, demonstrated against the Kookmin decision. They demanded a review by Sookmeong University of her masters thesis which also appears to be largely plagiarized from a translation of a book about the artist Paul Klee. Passages from the two theses are compared to the works from which plagiarized paragraphs and sentences were taken without quotations, footnotes or other attribution, have been broadcast on opposition news programs on the internet. One professor declared that it was "100 pecent certain that Kim's work was plagiarized. " Consequently, the credibility and approval of the Yoon administration reaches new lows in the most recent polls as he returns from his vacation after less than three month in office.

VOA's Kim Yeong-kyo interviews Mitchell Reiss and Mark Fitzpatrick on Taiwan tensions, the Pelosi visit to South Korea, and South Korean relations with China: Kim announced it was her last broadcast. The program is in English, ignore the first two minutes of programming hype in Korean. I was particularly interested in the program starting about the 15 minute mark after which the US analysts indicate their dissatisfaction with the Yoon failure to meet with Pelosi. Whether by self indulgence or on his foreign minister's advice, it's probably the first thing Yoon has done right, although he is being panned in the dominant conservative media in South Korea and also by the opposition media. This is probably the best interview session I've seen by this host. I think the Americans were perplexed by Yoon's move. Washington Talk is a weekly VOA program.
VOA 워싱턴
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VTguWAbs1E

There are some ironic aspects to Pelosi's visit to South Korea. First there was no one to meet her at the airport, no protocol, nothing apparently. This is similar in nature to Yoon's arrival with his wife Kim Gon-hee at Madrid for the NATO meeting. Then when it came to meeting with Pelosi, first the presidential office said that it wouldn't be possible with Yoon's "schedule." This is similar to the treatment Yoon got from some European leaders at the summit. Then of course there was the Biden "no look handshake" while Yoon stood grinning stupidly in embarrassment. One domestic critic noticed that this sort of reprisal is characteristic of Yoon's wife, who never fails to note a slight, or get even whenever the opportunity arises.

So the speculation is that the first lady, one whom Yoon claimed during the campaign "wasn't interested in politics," is actually the advisor running the show. While one Yoon advisor said that efforts were being made to harmonize Yoon's schedule so he could meet with Pelosi it wasn't meant to be. The final statement in the afternoon said there would be no meeting.

While Yoon was avoiding Pelosi, he was pictured doing a mukbang type meal with some young men, perhaps an effort to mend his his image with the young male electorate after stabbing young party leader Lee Jun-seok in the back.

South Korea's THAAD missile dispute with China- Yoon's self inflicted damage

According to an interview with a South Korean political analyst who has studied the THAAD issue, Kim Jong-tae, ( "저런 스투피드들이 외교를 하니…" 김종대 ) Yoon Seok-yeol, for campaign purposes, simply adopted a deviation from bi-partisan consensus regarding THAAD when he sought to reject the Moon Jae-in administration's "three nos policy." Yoon initially indicated his intention to deploy more THAAD batteries in a facebook post during South Korea's presidential election campaign. This was a part of Yoon's red baiting policy to paint then outgoing President Moon Jae-in as an appeaser to communists. Yoon has no idea what he is doing. Former president Park Geun-hye, who had consented to the deployment of THAAD batteries in South Korea prior to Moon's administration, had no idea what she was doing either, she was impeached, in part, for her incompetence, and neglect of her office. The Moon administration expended a great diplomatic effort to resolve the issue with China which had resulted in serious damage to South Korean Chinese relations and the South Korean economy. Why raise the dispute again? THAAD doesn't protect South Korea from North Korean missiles. Hankyoreh submits that this is a new development based on relatively recent observations of North Korean missile testing. It likely never afforded protection against North Korea's shorter range missiles. Moreover, South Korea has no control over how US ABM systems are used. According to the analyst, they are under the control of the US Indo-Pacific Command, which in itself, is an erosion of South Korean sovereignty. Yoon thought he could gain legitimacy simply by blind adherence to US initiatives. Public support for the Yoon administration is remarkably low at this point. The South Korean military doesn't support this, despite the US analysts who assert otherwise. According to Kim Jong-tae, South Korea's military want their own missile systems, under their own control. Control of Combined Forces Command during wartime is another political goal of the South Korean defense establishment, which the US has been stalling for years.

Yoon can talk tough about China but there is little inclination inside South Korea to repeat the earlier THAAD crisis in relations with China that Moon Jae-in's three nos policy resolved in October 2017. On VOA's Washington Talk program, US "experts" complained South Korea had been giving Taiwan the "cold shoulder." Why should South Korea participate in a dispute which others have unwisely precipitated? Any repetition of the economic impact similar to that which accompanied the prior THAAD dispute with Beijing is not desired by sane South Koreans. After the presidential office issued a recent statement to the press saying that THAAD operations in Seongju would be "normalized," they called upon the press to change the statement to "the American base in Seongju will be normalized," meaning that there would be permanent improvements on the facility for the US troops there, a statement only somewhat less incendiary. The presidential office didn't want China to misunderstand the statement as some direct confrontation. Further tangible and public South Korea official repudiation of the three nos policy will likely meet with a far more serious and lengthly economic impact than the 2017 episode. In addition to the impact on trade figures and corporate revenues, there would be an equally serious opportunity cost in terms of future economic development with China that would be permanently lost. No one is going to compensate South Korea for such losses undertaken to please other foreign interests.


[News analysis] Why China is so wary of S. Korea's THAAD anti-missile system
Posted on : Aug.12,2022 17:21 KST Modified on : Aug.12,2022 17:21 KST
https://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_international/1054570.html

[박정호의 핫스팟] "저런 스투피드들이 외교를 하니…" 김종대 "'사드 상처' 왜 헤집나, 선무당 사람잡나"
OhMyNews Hotspot 8.14 youtube
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HrCE5gfmoz0

VOA [워싱턴 톡] “중국 ‘3불 요구’...북중러 협력 가속화”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_G7THUiX7E8&t=76s

One More Time

The US unilaterally abandoned the nuclear negotiations at the Hanoi summit where the negotiating team officially adopted the "one bundle" approach to denuclearization in North Korea. This is also known as the all or nothing approach, and the "Libyan approach." North Korea didn't need any more examples of US unwillingness to negotiate. The national security sector of the US economy, and the associated think tanks, academic endowments, and their spokesmen in the media, know that any success or rapprochement with North Korea jeopardizes the US alliance with Japan, which contrary to their public statements is adamantly opposed to negotiations with North Korea that are anything short of a total surrender. Therefore, no intermediate "step by step" process that relies on reciprocity and trust building among the parties can be allowed. Russia, China, South Korea, and North Korea, all favored the step by step approach.

The US military complex in northeast Asia has no raison d'etre without the ongoing 70 year conflict with North Korea. Proposals for negotiations with North Korea are just not taken seriously in the US. Claims that the US is open to negotiations with no conditions are just posturing for public relations purposes. Efforts by South Korea's Unification Ministry were vilified in US media during the entire Moon Jae-in administration while they were threatened with sanctions and told to get in "lock step" with the US and Japan which have zero consideration for Korean national aspirations. Regardless of the improvidence of the recent North Korea ICBM launch, the recent US-Japanese carrier strike force operating in the East Sea/ Sea of Japan merely cements North Korean perception of the hostile intent of both nations toward them. It's the same old gunboat diplomacy from both countries during the imperialist era of the 19th Century that they know so well after it culminated in two million or more deaths in Korea during the Korean conflict, and a brutal and oppressive Japanese occupation long before that.

Koreans didn't need Ukraine to remind them of anything. Japan wants to erase its past history of crimes against humanity during the Pacific War. The US ignores any Korean history before June 25, 1950, and its saturation bombing campaigns thereafter that destroyed virtually everything in North Korea. US diplomats ask stupidly "why can't they get over it?" Koreans will never forget.

University "clears First Lady"*

Corruption of South Korean educational institutions reached new levels as Kookmin University declared plagiarism in Kim Gon-hee's academic theses unproven. The "revenge politics" of Yoon Seok-yeol and his wife, have officials private and public fearful of prosecution against themselves or their family members should they paint any of the first family's questionable past in a poor light. The University declined to reveal the record of its review proceedings to any media or critics of its findings. Alumnae from Kookmin University and Sukmyung Women's University where Kim did her masters thesis, demonstrated against the Kookmin decision. They demanded a review by Sookmeong University of her masters thesis which also appears to be largely plagiarized from a translation of a book about the artist Paul Klee. Passages from the two theses are compared to the works from which plagiarized paragraphs and sentences were taken without quotations, footnotes or other attribution, have been broadcast on opposition news programs on the internet. One professor declared that it was "100 pecent certain that Kim's work was plagiarized. " Consequently, the credibility and approval of the Yoon administration reaches new lows in the most recent polls as he returns from his vacation.

*See- University clears first lady of academic misconduct
20:40 August 01, 2022 Yonhap News Agency
https://en.yna.co.kr/view/AEN20220801011300315

Martyanov's analysis on Two Major Theater Wars*

Generally I'm a fan of Andrei Martyanov's analysis. Agree with his assessment of the "leadership" of the government in DC. In his presentation, I only take exception to his dismissive analysis of the Chinese military. I think it's somewhat ethnocentric. It's the PLAN which is a bit different from the western concept of navy. That orientation implies the historical context of its role and development. The whole concept of struggle to offset the historical forces of imperialism in CCP doctrine puts this contest over Taiwan in a longer term perspective which frankly Americans don't understand. They dismiss the record of imperial aggression against China as ideological cant. It wouldn't be the first time the US and it allies blundered into another Asian debacle.

I follow others who are experts on the Chinese armed forces, and while they admit there are some weak points in the PLAN relative to the US Navy, it is the US armed forces who are not prepared to fight China over Taiwan. I don't think that either side wants war. Nevertheless, given the humiliating history of gunboat diplomacy in East Asia, China could be easily provoked to war over Taiwan. In that event, Chinese commitment would be higher than that of the US, whose policy views on East Asia are based more on custom and past practice than reality. It's not surprising that Martyanov also has this blind spot. After the Russian revolution, Russia saw itself almost in a big brother role to emerging Chinese military organization.

Other experts who acknowledge certain US advantages also recognize the US disadvantages. The Chinese will quickly compensate for any weaknesses and bring their strengths to bear to overcome them. Any conflict that takes place in the Chinees littoral around Taiwan or elsewhere in close proximity to China allows it to respond in a way that would gravely damage US and allied forces and resources. (For this reason I fear the US would entertain use of nuclear weapons sooner or later to "end the conflict" as it has in the past ).

Former Admiral Bill Owens has said there is no military solution to Taiwan. Other experts say sooner or later the US would likely be defeated in a conflict over Taiwan, or at a minimum sustain serious military losses. Chinese strategic depth, resourcefulness, and organizational skills should not be treated dismissively so close to its shores. Yes, the Chinese PLAN is not yet optimally ready. Yet it has enough resources and military assets to cause widespread damage in the theater which will shock Americans out of their China fantasy. The outcome of any such conflict cannot be easily foretold.

*Andrei Martyanov - Weekend Improv, youtube 8.6;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HgJ8Q9RTmzM&t=541s

Deja vu- Decapitation Strategy

The "preemptive attack/decapitation scenario" will be played out during the summer US-ROK CFC summer military exercises according to an article in the Daily Beast, US to Enrage Kim Jong-un with Assassination Dry Run.*

For the first time in years, joint exercises between the U.S. and South Korea this month will culminate in a trial run of decapitating the North Korean leadership.

According to David Maxwell, retired Special Forces Colonel, "If you get the head of the military forces (which is Kim Jong-un) theoretically you gut (sic) the head of the snake."

Several questions arise in connection with the preemptive attack scenario. Namely, how do US forces ascertain the location of Kim Jong Un? Second how do they move into position without being detected crossing the maritime northern limit lines and the extended buffer zones around them? Third how do they succeed in obtaining permission from South Korean political and military leadership to carry out such a risky attack? Fourth, how do they avoid the risk of a nuclear retaliation against US targets in South Korea and the region? How do they avoid the risk of a conventional retaliation against urban areas such as Seoul? Fifth, what preparations have they made for a Chinese military intervention when their security interests inside North Korea are jeopardized? It should be noted that even right wing experts on the situation in North Korea, such a Victor Cha, and Thae Yong-ho, have warned against preemptive military attack on North Korea as a means to resolve the denuclearization stalemate in the past.

It's quite likely that a target of the new "tactical" nuclear warhead on the submarine launched ballistic missile is North Korea. The weapon appears to be specifically designed to destroy a deeply hardened target in a tactical environment. The US conventional military tactic of “decapitation” of North Korean leadership has been discussed openly in South Korean media in recent years. It never seemed practical, a special operations tactic to resolve a strategic problem.

In any case, if one were to consider the response from North Korea due to a “decapitation” attack with a small yield weapon like the W-76-2, let’s assume it succeeds with the precision and accuracy the new weapons are believed to have. Then in the aftermath of such an attack there remains a nuclear armed North Korea with unknown military commanders in unknown bunkers deciding what the response, if any, should be. Perhaps following US game theory they would decline to escalate the nuclear conflict. Or perhaps they wouldn’t. On the other hand, if the location of the bunker, or Kim Jong-un, was not precisely ascertained, and consequently the chairman or his successor survived, even for only for a brief time, a question arises about what would happen at that point. If one considers the desperation of the moment, the uncertainty, the confusion, and the likelihood of total destruction at the hands of the US military's vastly superior nuclear forces, what is the likely reaction of the North Korean leader? This thought arises, “Even though futilely suicidal, would he not respond in kind with nuclear armed ballistic missiles capable of reaching US bases in the region, where US and allied forces and command and control elements were plainly vulnerable?” Is this not in fact, exactly what would occur, given the ideological basis of North Korean communist doctrine and its self conscious role as the sacrificial victim of great power imperialism? Does the current deployment of US anti-ballistic missile forces in the region really give 100 percent assurance that this wouldn't be an effective response?

This is why Thae Yong-ho refers to the North Korean strategy as a "doomsday machine."

*US to Enrage Kim Jong-un with Assassination Dry Run, by Donald Kirk, The Daily Beast, Aug 3, 2022.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/us-to-enrage-kim-jong-un-with-assassination-dry-run