Tuesday, June 01, 2010
North Korea Watch: McPaper Weighs In
USA Today, that beacon of all that American journalism has become, has weighed in on the North Korea issue under the subtle headline of "Tension in Korea: A sunken ship, and talk of war."
Now, if it were just any newspaper, I'd be worried about a paper that doesn't have all that much to say on this issue suddenly churning out a story in these tense times as written by a guy with distinctly non-Asian sounding name. I'd be concerned that maybe, just maybe, the guy would lack the proper context to know just what the heck he's talking about. Given the hard times newspapers are going through, I'd be tempted to think that USA Today might just be covering the story now for the purpose of sensationalism, just to scare up readers.
But given USA Today's reputation, I gave it a chance. And guess what! In this case, Calum MacLeod has actually taught me, an almost five-year-resident of this peninsula, some things I didn't know! For example:
Silly me! I was under the impression that there were 104 on board and that all but 46 had been rescued. Also, I had come to the conclusion that the Chinese were rather neutral in all this, what with all the economic ties to South Korea, so thanks for clearing that up!
Interesting! Opinions on the Sunshine Policy differ, but I thought it was because the economic consequences of a sudden collapse of the North Korean regime would devastate the South Korean economy, which they have worked so hard to build up, even under peaceful conditions.
Or it could be that communications themselves are actually a recent development (2004, in fact), and that war didn't break out for all the decades before communications were established. In fact, it could be because the two sides have coexisted for decades without going to war despite the North's statements.
But, hey, you've got all the answers.
Oh. I thought South Koreans had no stomach for seeing their capital city obliterated, millions killed and their way of life reduced to third-world status all over again. But I could be wrong.
And, of course, the hawkish types like Park above and the apolitical soccer-centric types like Park below are the only two types of South Koreans that exist. Really, those are your only two choices.
Ah, if only the South Koreans weren't such pessimistic losers they could stand up to the North. Show them the way, USA Today!
Yeah, and look at all the great things unity and a lack of "inertia" did for us!
Of course, if you put that quote near the top of the story as opposed to the end, it doesn't sell papers, because who is going to read "all-out war unlikely" when "talk of war" is available? If nothing else, USA Today knows how to sell papers!
Of course, North Korea's troops are impoverished and stunted in growth, plus their weaponry is outdated as demonstrated by the lickings they took in the naval skirmishes of 1999 and, hey, just last fall, but they must have had some reason not to include that context.
Say what? What does China stand to gain from having North Korea destabilize the region and thus threatening their growth? Why would China relish having Japan, the US, and pretty much the rest of the Western world line up behind South Korea, thus causing the Chinese to feel the pressure of having to act?
I'm beginning to think that USA Today's sources aren't the best-informed on this subject. Oh well. At least this time their sources actually exist.
Now, if it were just any newspaper, I'd be worried about a paper that doesn't have all that much to say on this issue suddenly churning out a story in these tense times as written by a guy with distinctly non-Asian sounding name. I'd be concerned that maybe, just maybe, the guy would lack the proper context to know just what the heck he's talking about. Given the hard times newspapers are going through, I'd be tempted to think that USA Today might just be covering the story now for the purpose of sensationalism, just to scare up readers.
But given USA Today's reputation, I gave it a chance. And guess what! In this case, Calum MacLeod has actually taught me, an almost five-year-resident of this peninsula, some things I didn't know! For example:
The March 26 sinking of the South Korea warship Cheonan by a suspected North Korean torpedo, killing all 46 sailors aboard, has grown into a crisis in which the world's two largest militaries — those of the United States and China— are lined up on opposite sides behind the South and North, respectively.
Silly me! I was under the impression that there were 104 on board and that all but 46 had been rescued. Also, I had come to the conclusion that the Chinese were rather neutral in all this, what with all the economic ties to South Korea, so thanks for clearing that up!
For several years, South Korea has pursued a policy of aid and diplomacy to the repressive and closed Stalinist country on its northern border, as a way of keeping peace.
Interesting! Opinions on the Sunshine Policy differ, but I thought it was because the economic consequences of a sudden collapse of the North Korean regime would devastate the South Korean economy, which they have worked so hard to build up, even under peaceful conditions.
Koreans have long lived with the nightmarish possibility of a devastating war, but the likelihood of conflict increases when all communications are cut off as they are now, says Daniel Pinkston, a regional analyst based in Seoul for the International Crisis Group, a think tank.
If war does break out, "there could be casualties like we've never seen," Pinkston says, as the North will "get off a lot of artillery" before being stopped, and there is the potential that chemical and even nuclear weapons could be used.
Yet for now, "people are going about their business and discount the possibilities," Pinkston says. "It may be denial, as the possibility is too horrible to imagine."
Or it could be that communications themselves are actually a recent development (2004, in fact), and that war didn't break out for all the decades before communications were established. In fact, it could be because the two sides have coexisted for decades without going to war despite the North's statements.
But, hey, you've got all the answers.
South Koreans show no stomach for a fight, complains Park, who runs the activist group Fighters for Free North Korea from a small office in Seoul.
Oh. I thought South Koreans had no stomach for seeing their capital city obliterated, millions killed and their way of life reduced to third-world status all over again. But I could be wrong.
Unlike in the isolated, impoverished North, there are many non-political diversions for South Koreans, one of Asia's most successful economies.
"I pay more attention to soccer than North Korea," telephone salesman Park Sang Kil says.
And, of course, the hawkish types like Park above and the apolitical soccer-centric types like Park below are the only two types of South Koreans that exist. Really, those are your only two choices.
At the nearby Noryangjin fish market, stall owner Ko Yang Lin, 56, is fatalistic about the crisis.
"I don't care about war, I'm happy to die as I'm too tired to live!" says Ko, who works daily from 2 a.m. to 6 p.m. Ko says she is angry at the North but high taxes are more of a concern.
Ah, if only the South Koreans weren't such pessimistic losers they could stand up to the North. Show them the way, USA Today!
All South Koreans know "the danger of war is worse for us as (we) have a lot more to lose economically and socially," says Lee Shin Wha, a professor of political science at Korea University. Lee worries her fellow citizens suffer a "security inertia," she says.
"After 9/11 in the USA, there were many diverse views, but when it comes to security, Americans are united."
Yeah, and look at all the great things unity and a lack of "inertia" did for us!
Recent polls indicate people are thinking harder more about the North. A poll by Gallup Korea published in The Chosun Ilbo said 60% of respondents supported sanctions against the North. In Washington, analysts say that the current situation escalating into an all-out war is unlikely, but the situation remains tense and could become more dangerous.
Of course, if you put that quote near the top of the story as opposed to the end, it doesn't sell papers, because who is going to read "all-out war unlikely" when "talk of war" is available? If nothing else, USA Today knows how to sell papers!
South Korea has 680,000 servicemembers backed by 28,500 U.S. troops, but it is outnumbered by the North's troops and vast advantage in rocket launchers, tanks and artillery.
Of course, North Korea's troops are impoverished and stunted in growth, plus their weaponry is outdated as demonstrated by the lickings they took in the naval skirmishes of 1999 and, hey, just last fall, but they must have had some reason not to include that context.
"(China) may want this (issue) to stick around a while to keep their dog on a leash and keep the United States looking weak. It serves them politically."
Say what? What does China stand to gain from having North Korea destabilize the region and thus threatening their growth? Why would China relish having Japan, the US, and pretty much the rest of the Western world line up behind South Korea, thus causing the Chinese to feel the pressure of having to act?
I'm beginning to think that USA Today's sources aren't the best-informed on this subject. Oh well. At least this time their sources actually exist.
Labels: Journalism, north korea
Tuesday, March 09, 2010
North Korea Watch: Parsing Reuters
North Korea (claims to be) on combat alert as U.S., South hold drills
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea said on Monday it had put its army on full combat alert, ready to "blow up" South Korea as joint drills between the South and the United States got underway (which they traditionally do, though we will of course neglect to mention that they make this threat every friggin' time there are joint exercises between the two allies, at least until the attention-getting part of the story is past).
The drills, seen by Pyongyang as nuclear war maneuvers (at least according to their Central News Agency, which has been making ridiculous claims about its impending actions as long as any of us can remember), last for about two weeks and are aimed at testing the allies' defense readiness. They draw fiery rhetoric from the North each year (which every single news source dutifully reports regardless of how incredible it is) that fuels tensions on the Korean peninsula, though they have been held for decades without major incident.
"The units of the three services of the KPA (Korean People's Army) should keep themselves fully ready to go into action in order to blow up the citadel (whatever that means) of aggressors once the order is issued," the North's KCNA news agency quoted its military command as saying (though they probably never did).
The comments were made after China, the North's main benefactor, said it wanted stalled nuclear disarmament talks resumed before July. It urged all parties to the six-country forum, including the United States and South Korea, to try harder (although the talks will remain meaningless as long as China, along with Russia, is determined to reward North Korea's behavior with trade and economic aid. Still, we really should "try harder").
The North has come under pressure to return to the disarmament (which won't ever happen) -for-aid nuclear talks because of (pointless) U.N. sanctions imposed after a May 2009 nuclear test.
The North said at the weekend that any talks to denuclearize the Korean peninsula would "naturally come to a standstill" because of the drills. North Korea conducted "live fire" exercises near sea borders with the South earlier this year.
Sanctions have dealt a blow to its wobbly economy (or so we like to tell ourselves), and a botched currency move late last year has sparked inflation and rare civil unrest.
The two Koreas are technically still at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice and not a peace treaty.
The Resolve/Foal Eagle drills involve about 18,000 U.S. troops, U.S. Forces Korea said, with 8,000 coming from abroad and 10,000 already stationed in the South.
The South's Defense Ministry said about 20,000 of its troops would participate.
The United States, which fought on behalf of the South during the war, has about 28,000 troops in the country to support its 670,000 soldiers. The North's deploys most of its 1.2 million troops near the border with the South.
(This is where the story ends, without context or any sense of history. But it sure does have an eye-catching lead that will surely land it at the top of more than a few search engines, guaranteed to make those in Middle America who know none of these things for themselves believe war is a distinct possibility. And to think, some people question our credibility.)
SEOUL (Reuters) – North Korea said on Monday it had put its army on full combat alert, ready to "blow up" South Korea as joint drills between the South and the United States got underway (which they traditionally do, though we will of course neglect to mention that they make this threat every friggin' time there are joint exercises between the two allies, at least until the attention-getting part of the story is past).
The drills, seen by Pyongyang as nuclear war maneuvers (at least according to their Central News Agency, which has been making ridiculous claims about its impending actions as long as any of us can remember), last for about two weeks and are aimed at testing the allies' defense readiness. They draw fiery rhetoric from the North each year (which every single news source dutifully reports regardless of how incredible it is) that fuels tensions on the Korean peninsula, though they have been held for decades without major incident.
"The units of the three services of the KPA (Korean People's Army) should keep themselves fully ready to go into action in order to blow up the citadel (whatever that means) of aggressors once the order is issued," the North's KCNA news agency quoted its military command as saying (though they probably never did).
The comments were made after China, the North's main benefactor, said it wanted stalled nuclear disarmament talks resumed before July. It urged all parties to the six-country forum, including the United States and South Korea, to try harder (although the talks will remain meaningless as long as China, along with Russia, is determined to reward North Korea's behavior with trade and economic aid. Still, we really should "try harder").
The North has come under pressure to return to the disarmament (which won't ever happen) -for-aid nuclear talks because of (pointless) U.N. sanctions imposed after a May 2009 nuclear test.
The North said at the weekend that any talks to denuclearize the Korean peninsula would "naturally come to a standstill" because of the drills. North Korea conducted "live fire" exercises near sea borders with the South earlier this year.
Sanctions have dealt a blow to its wobbly economy (or so we like to tell ourselves), and a botched currency move late last year has sparked inflation and rare civil unrest.
The two Koreas are technically still at war because their 1950-53 conflict ended with an armistice and not a peace treaty.
The Resolve/Foal Eagle drills involve about 18,000 U.S. troops, U.S. Forces Korea said, with 8,000 coming from abroad and 10,000 already stationed in the South.
The South's Defense Ministry said about 20,000 of its troops would participate.
The United States, which fought on behalf of the South during the war, has about 28,000 troops in the country to support its 670,000 soldiers. The North's deploys most of its 1.2 million troops near the border with the South.
(This is where the story ends, without context or any sense of history. But it sure does have an eye-catching lead that will surely land it at the top of more than a few search engines, guaranteed to make those in Middle America who know none of these things for themselves believe war is a distinct possibility. And to think, some people question our credibility.)
Labels: Journalism, north korea
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Glenn Greenwald, Arianna Huffington discuss Iran
Eyes Wide Shut on Iran
This piece in the Columbia Journalism Review takes the major networks to task for failing to diversify their sources, falling back on those all to willing to promote bombing, including (sigh) Tom Friedman.
After calling the Iraq war an "audacious roll of the dice," why would anyone listen to this guy's opinion's on foreign policy again? Marc Lynch and Glenn Greenwald are the pundits we need to hear more from.
"the only thing the Arabs are afraid of more than an Israeli strike is the absence of an Israeli strike. I guarantee you one thing, George, if the Israelis do decide to strike against Iran, there’s going to be a lot of Arab radar off that day. “Oh Ahmed, you forgot to turn the radar on? Shame on you!” That’s really what they’re rooting for."
After calling the Iraq war an "audacious roll of the dice," why would anyone listen to this guy's opinion's on foreign policy again? Marc Lynch and Glenn Greenwald are the pundits we need to hear more from.
Labels: Journalism, War
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]
