“When the next financial crisis kicks in, say eight months from now, and the Bank of America and Wells Fargo Bank go bankrupt and cannot honor their depositors, what will your administration do?”
There is tremendous dissatisfaction with Korean economics and politics on the part of ordinary citizens and an increasing desire to single out some group of bad people who are somehow responsible for the increasing distance between the priorities expressed by government and corporations and the actual needs of ordinary citizens.
But although there is a lack of concern for the plight of ordinary people on the part of many in authority, they are not the cause of the disconnect between national policy and the economic reality of ordinary citizens. Rather, there has been a breakdown of the assumed contract between the citizens and their rulers.
The best way to understand this problem is not to dwell on the latest statement by a contemporary politician but to return to Confucius’ most important political imperative: “The rectification of names.” Confucius saw the “rectification of names” as a means of reducing the discord between the names that we employ to describe institutions and professions and the reality of what those institutions have evolved into.
We use terms like “government,” “university,” “lawyer,” “doctor,” and “corporation” to refer to institutions we think we understand, but the functions of each of these institutions has shifted rapidly over the last decade, and even more in the last five years. For example, banks have evolved technologically and become globalized in a dramatic manner that has profoundly altered their function in our society and their goals. Sadly, because the media simply continues to use terms like “bank” or “national assembly” without ever stepping back to assess how these institutions are changing, there is much confusion among citizens.
Rising tensions between China and Japan over territorial issues, combined with disputes over historical issues such as the Korean comfort women, have created a political environment that encourages military responses and confrontation. The recent nuclear test by North Korea has heightened the distrust to such a level that we can look forward to a massive arms race that will involve not only the nations of Northeast Asia, but possibly those of Southeast Asia as well.
Now is the moment for moral courage on the part of the United States. The United States, and specifically the Pacific Command, must step forward and engage in honest and practical dialog on security issues. It needs to suggest innovative, collaborative approaches to security problems, interacting with all the nations of the region in a transparent manner that encourages cooperation, not competition. We must make sure that security and defense policies are not rooted in an unimaginative and outdated Cold War conception of deterrence and containment, but rather are responses to emerging nontraditional threats.
The recent Paris Climate Conference (COP 21 Paris) has laid down concrete demands for a rapid shift to a low-carbon model for development that should serve as the basis for closer collaboration in military affairs between the United States, Japan, Korea and China, and ASEAN nations.
The Pacific Command should engage all members of the Asian community in a deep dialog about how the region’s militaries can transform military relations in the region. This transformation would take place through the military’s transitioning to play a leading role in mitigating and adapting to climate change, and it would create a new, regional, cooperative culture in the Pacific.
Emanuel Pastreich
Pastreich:
Harvard University had obtained a remarkable global role since the end of the Second World War. Of course it has been a strong institution for a long time, but if we think back, in 1900, or even in 1930, it was not considered to be on the same level as some universities in England, Germany or France. What exactly was it that allowed Harvard to reach the status that it enjoys today?
Rosovsky:
The task of building a great university is never simple.
Let me stress one point because it’s so often misunderstood, and we see this in Asia today: To become a world-class university takes a lot of time. There are simply no shortcuts. People tend to assume, and I have encountered this sort of thinking all over the world, that if they just sink enough money into a university, it will emerge in a few years as a first-class institution. But such rapid growth never happens. It takes time; it takes generations.
That said, there are a few clear factors that determine the potential of a university to reach the highest levels of excellence. In the case of Harvard University, it was true that by the time of its tercentenary (300th anniversary of its founding) in 1936, Harvard had already achieved a reputation as a world-class institution. Harvard did not have the stature that it does today.
So what specifically happened between the nineteen-thirties and now? Well the United States became more economically powerful and attracted more resources and faculty from around the world after the Second World War. But one very important development were the innovations introduced by President James Bryant Conant who served as president from 1933 to1953.
Pastreich:
What were the specific steps that President Conant took as president to transform Harvard?
The entrepreneur-turned-politician Ahn Cheol-soo is scrambling to create a new political party and I have heard the gossip about which politicians may, or may not, join him in this venture.
But although some friends have voiced their hopes that a new party will breathe life into the stagnant political discourse of Yeouido, most assume that other than a few ritualistic changes, and yet another name change, politics will continue pretty much as usual. Political parties will remain as relevant to ordinary citizens as the fantastic cloud formations that pass by in the sky.
Interestingly a similar struggle is taking place simultaneously in the United States in the Democratic Party. In that case, although presidential candidate Bernie Sanders does not want a new party, he wants to take control away from Clinton loyalists and create a party that is not as close to corporate interests. His supporters are waging a silent war with Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the head of the Democratic National committee who ran Hillary Clinton’s 2008 campaign and is accused of bias in favor of Hillary. Supporters of Ahn and Sanders hope that somehow they can wrestle politicians away from cozy relations with business and media and make them focus on the needs of ordinary citizens.
일부 친구들은 ‘안철수 신당’이 정체돼 있는 여의도 정가에 새로운 생명력을 불어넣을 것이라는 희망을 피력한다. 하지만 대부분의 친구들은 몇 가지 의례적(ritualistic)인 변화가 있고 또 한 번 당명이 바뀌는 것뿐이지 정치가 예전 모습을 그대로 유지할 것이라고 예상한다. 그들은 이렇게 비유한다. 환상적인 모습의 구름이 하늘을 수놓으며 지나간다고 해서 우리 삶이 바뀌는 것은 아니다. 연관성이 없다. 정당과 보통 시민들의 관계도 마찬가지라는 것이다.
흥미롭게도 비슷한 몸부림이 미국 정치에서도 민주당을 무대로 일어나고 있다. 미국의 경우를 보면, 대선 후보인 버니 샌더스가 새로운 정당의 창당을 바라는 것은 아니다. 하지만 샌더스는 힐러리 클린턴의 지지자들로부터 민주당 당내 통제권을 탈취하려고 한다. 재계의 이익과 가까운 현재의 민주당을 다른 모습으로 탈바꿈시키기 위해서다.
샌더스의 지지자들은 데비 와서먼 슐츠 민주당전국위원회(DNC) 의장을 상대로 총성 없는 전쟁을 치르고 있다. 슐츠 의장은 2008년 힐러리 선거운동본부의 공동 본부장이었다. 그는 이번 선거 과정에서 힐러리 쪽에 유리하도록 편향됐다는 비난을 받고 있다.
TAI The Asia Institute has been carrying out a seminar series with major thinkers on East Asia and the United States which has been published for the most part through “The Diplomat”
Please see the following links for the interviews in English
October 15, 2015
Kyobo Books has a whole table piled up with books about North Korea.
The woman defector in search of freedom seems to be a popular genre.
