Today was a day I will remember for a long time. It went
something like this: expecting not much -> meeting for two hours with the
Ambassador for the DPRK -> lunch with the editor of Global Scholarly
Publications = a crazy wonderful day.
A groggy nothing much morning, a missed bus, surprisingly
slow morning traffic, all to arrive at the office a little later than normal. Into
the morning routine of checking emails, reading the news, and almost about to
begin writing another article BUT the a reminder that THIS morning was the
meeting with the Democratic Peoples Republic of North Korea. A meeting that had
been briefly mentioned to me late yesterday. How could I have forgot!!!
This led to frenetic preparing as the director and I
realised we were out of sugar for the coffee! So off I ran to the corner store
– milk and sugar – and back I ran. After a power briefing on the topics we
hoped to cover, two articles read, and coffee made, everything was set with two
minutes to spare.
In walks Ambassador Rei (Permanent Representative to the UN)
and Mr. Moon his associate. Cordial greetings are exchanged, tea and coffee are
served in our cramped office, and off we go.
Highlights:
Having some of the most frank discussion with an ambassador
to date. He was very open to our ideas, paraphrased and took copious notes, and
enthusiastically jumped on ideas of cultural exchange (although saying now was
not going to work because of the heightened antagonism by the US since the
April launch of a satellite by DPRK. A Satellite launched in celebration of Kim
Il-Sung – on his 100th birthday. He died in 1994). The frank
discussion completely out did the briefing I had attended with the US Ambassador.
The US
was much less direct, much more elusive, much more hidden in their intentions.
Hearing an unfiltered Northern perspective on the ongoing,
wrongly named Korean War. The North was never at war with the South, but with
the US.
The ceasefire was with the US,
the South had no part in it. Therefore, when in 1994 the US attempted to shift the ceasefire relations
from a US
colonel to a South Korean, it was rejected because the South had never signed
anything. Also raising the question why a peace agreement was never pursued
after the ceasefire – as in every other international conflict.
He also told the North’s account of the recent (last 10
years) military flashes in the last 10 years. All of which occurred in the
disputed territory in the Western/Yellow Sea. The North holds to the 38th
parallel (the same line across the Korean
Peninsula), while the
South/US claim the ocean because of three Islands in it that were held onto by
US troops. So the North Claims the ocean even though they do not control the Islands. They warned the South/US not to do live
ammunition military drills, when they went ahead with the drills the North “had
no option but to respond”. (It would be like doing live military exercise in
the Straight of Juan de Fuca by Vancouver Island
and saying that is not a threat or infringement on Canadian/American
sovereignty.)
The ambassador also cited the Disney dancers that were
recently in Pyongyang.
After which he stated, “We are open, it is the US who is closed!” A refrain he
would return to on multiple occasions citing various examples where the North
Koreans have been open to dialogue and the US continually refuses.
Dr. Parviz joined us at this point, editor of Global
Scholarly Publications. His focus is the Globalization of Knowledge, increasing
east-west dialogue and communication without the influence of western media. Further
discussion occurred around opportunities for better relations with DPRK,
specifically the facilitation of academic interchanges.
Topics of an entirely free Korean
Peninsula are affirmed by all
involved, while acknowledging the hypocrisy of the US who places nukes in the South
and aboard the aircraft carriers floating just off shore. This combined on the US desire to remain militarily near to China,
without having to directly engage them. Thereby ensuring a proxy location for
war; remaining far beyond the continental USA.
Two hours pass. We say good-bye and thank you to the
Ambassador. Dr. Parviz is not done however. He and I briefly discuss the
article I am writing for his journal. Then he offers to take Doug, the
director, and me out to lunch to continue our discussion.
Off we trot to a wonderful Turkish restaurant. Dr. Parviz
orders this, and that, and then some more, then three appetizers, the some
wine. We feast. The topic for the meal is how to deal with the upcoming opening
of the General Assembly, specifically dialogue with Iran and Ahmadinejad. Can it be
done? How to avoid ruining families and careers by avoiding Zionist attention.
What people? Where could it be done? Is it even possible? What could one say? –
I am completely enthralled.
Then the spry Uncle Parviz (that is what he says people call
him), at the tender age of 78, questions an unassuming, beautiful, waitress,
“Are you old enough to be working here? It must be illegal you still look so
young!” There is a twinkle in this old Iranian’s eye and a smile on his face.
She blushes, and assures us she is 27. All of this is quite unexpected. He tells me to make sure I remember that one.
But honestly how could I forget! It is not everyday one witnesses a
professor/editor/diplomat/author cracking cheesy lines on waitresses in
up-class Turkish restaurant.
We are not done; desert is still on the menu. As I continue
to gorge of delicious food, we discuss asceticism, Islamic understandings of
hedonism, and the psychology of human pleasure. Concluding with “the pleasure
of the body if finite, but the pleasure of the mind is unlimited. We could sit
here forever and count irrational numbers!”
So stuffed to the gills, doggy bags in hand, we depart. A
wonderful lunch, a wonderful day, and wonderful conversation. It is one for the
personal record books. One I do not expect a repeat any time soon.
Other highlights of conversation:
Imagining the development of a new economic system between
Marxism and Capitalism based on post-Hegelian understandings of the world.
Thoughts on Syria,
where to go from here, what might the outlook be???
The self-destruction of America because of its demonization
of the “other”. One it cannot destroy, yet fails to embrace, will cause its
downfall. – A Machiavellian concept
“Imagine you are Obama, how many political options do you
truly have? He is bound by a capitalist system so entrenched and supported by
military expenditure that America
cannot financially afford not to be at war.”
A wonderfully engaging day.
I'm sure that engaging with people from different countries at this level is a fascinating experience. But I doubt you can reasonably expect to take anyone at face value, at this level, either; whether they appear open or closed.
ReplyDeleteI would assert, from a pretty broad historical perspective, that all nations ultimately work to further their own national interests. They may be mistaken as to what those are; but they will persue them. That goes for the U.S., as well as European countries, as well as Asian countries.
So I am by no means asserting that the U.S. is a moral nation that is intent on doing the right thing. They are, I expect, persuing their national interests, as they see them, the same as other nations do.
I would also expect that to be true of North Korea. I think you would be wise to keep some perspective on North Korea. Despite the ambassadors protestations to the contrary, North Korea *is* a closed country. It is difficult to get in, difficult to get out, and difficult to get accurate information on events inside there.
I would think you would be wise to monitor the difference between talk and concrete steps. He was enthused about cultural exchange, but wasn't actually undertaking to do anything.
Finally Korea had been ruled by Japan. At Potsdam in 1945 it was divided into US and Soviet trusteeships, with the intention of them becoming an independant nation in 5 years, after a kind of "contest" in which Korea would decide which political system they would adopt. Amid lots of unrest the two Koreas formed (the Soviets blocking UN oversight). Soviet and US troops were withdrawn in '48 and '49. Kim Il-Sung travelled to Moscow and Beijing to seek support for unification. The war started in 1950. Now, there was lots going on here, and I by no means claim to know the rights and the wrongs of it. However, characterizing the conflict as "North Korea being at war with the US" looks to me so oversimplified as to be misleading.
Thanks for your response. I am glad you are critical of what I posted. Let me respond in turn by saying that I do not endorse or stand by the perspectives articulated in this post. It was more a post of relaying a perspective than attempting to answer what is the "true" history or a correct understanding of the conflict. It is an experience based post articulating in a fairly direct way an experience of the day.
ReplyDeleteI am keenly aware that not everything is as it seems, there are personalities, lies, misinformation, disinformation, cultural nuance, a long history that goes much further back than the 40's in the case of Korea.
I also agree there is a major difference between talk and concrete steps. However, in a time of severe brinkmanship on both sides, talk is an action! - Yes North Korea is closed from a western perspective, but from a North Korean perspective America is equally or even more so closed. This we have a hard time grasping because of our cultural conditioning. To be challenged by a reversal of roles one may be able to step beyond oneself and do ones utmost to attempt to comprehend the others position, to take it very seriously before critiquing or dismissing it.
A note on the cultural exchange - the US state department is the one doing their utmost to block it not the North Koreans.
Responding to the History, as we in the west attempt to understand it. As it began to look like Korea might choose communism. The US did what it does best, got its fingers dirty in various ways. CIA, spies, and eventually full blown military involvement. The US, and some other western countries, were unable to maintain dialogue because of the full blown demonization of communism. Rooted in fear, things quickly devolved into open military action.
What I do stand by in this post it the necessity to hear AND to take very seriously perspectives that are not ones own. I think part of why I did not add a disclaimer was to force people to consider a different perspective and story, one not many people have had a chance to hear.
I thought is was a well articulated and thought inducing post Silas, I'm glad you're have a good time in New York. PS that paper you are editing for Winnipeg? Will you be presenting it in Winnipeg?
ReplyDeleteYa the director Doug will be presenting it. I do not expect that I will make the trip. It should be a good conference though, I would encourage you to go.
ReplyDelete