Skip to main content

Walk - or run - away from Gaeseong (The Korea Times, July 9, 2013) by Casey Lartigue, Jr.



By Casey Lartigue, Jr.

The South Korean government is on the verge of snatching defeat from the ''jaws of victory" as it agreed to reopen the joint Gaeseong Industrial Complex.

Although I support a ''sunshine approach" in dealing with North Korea, I do believe the South Korean government made the right decision to withdraw from the Gaeseong complex in April when the North Koreans started acting like damned fools, yet again. The South Korean government pledged to financially support the South Korean companies suffering losses (an estimated $1 billion).

I oppose providing subsidies for businesses, but in this case, it is the best option to make a clean break. Offer payoffs to the South Korean companies doing business in the complex, then the South Korean government should wipe its hands of the complex. That's right, walk ― if not run ― away from the Gaeseong complex.

If South Korean businesses want to do business with the North Korean regime, they should not be blocked. It is inevitable that the North Koreans will use the complex as part of its ongoing game of chicken with the South and that the South Korean companies will eventually have their property seized or shut down.

The problem is that the taxpayers lose their shirts right along with those South Korean companies when the South Korean government stays involved.

I have watched South Korea long enough to know that the government here can't break its habit of being involved in everything, even having Cabinet meetings discussing whether or not men should be defined as hostesses or the appropriate lengths of skirts of ladies.

So the South Korean government will work with the North Korean regime to reopen the complex and maintain the guarantees for South Korean companies. Then the next time the North Koreans shut down the complex, the price tag will be $10 billion or some other ridiculous amount.

To be clear, I support a sunshine policy allowing businesses, individuals and charitable organizations to deal with the North Korean regime. But shouldn't it be obvious by now that the two Koreas won't come to a meaningful agreement?

The New York Times recently took a stroll through history, writing about squabbles between the two Koreas at their peace talks: ''During border talks decades ago, the sides took the competition over protocol and appearances to the extreme, with North Korean military officers secretly adding inches to the legs of their chairs so they would look taller than their counterparts across the table from South Korea and the United States. In those cold-war-era meetings, the sides usually exchanged invectives and retorts.

''But they also sometimes persisted in silence ― for over 11 hours in one session in 1969 ― challenging the other side to speak first. In the best-known contest of pride on the divided peninsula, North and South Korea once engaged in a race over which country could raise its national flag higher over the heavily fortified border. That battle was eventually settled with the North beating the South; today, the North's flagpole stands over 500 feet tall, beating the rival South's by roughly 200 feet."

Of course, there are many more examples not mentioned, such as high level meetings being delayed or halted because of disputes over seating arrangements.

I mention that because Gaeseong is just another bargaining tool between the two Korean governments, a chess game being played according to North Korea's rules.

Stephen Linton of the Eugene Bell Foundation pointed out at a Cato Institute event in 2010 that countries tend to adopt North Korea's tactics. ''South Korea tries to approach North Korea the way North Korea approaches South Korea, by funneling everything through government ministries, by strangling in a sense or denying its private sector full participation," Linton said. The result is too much government, not enough private sector activity in dealing with North Korea.

The South Korean government can, in this case, walk away from the industrial complex, cut the guarantees, and allow businesses to deal directly with the North Koreans.



Photo Casey Lartigue took during Prof. Lankov's presentation.

At his office, getting his critical but helpful advice about my projects.

I connected him with 10 Magazine for a speech in July 2013, then went to the subway to direct him to the location.

I arranged for Prof. Lankov and some refugees to be in a PBS special. He was on the phone, so they asked me to sit in his seat for a few minutes so they could adjust the lighting or whatever...

Prof. Lankov

Making!

HIS!

POINT!
Introducing Prof. Lankov to Yeonmi Park and Stephanie Choi (one of Yeonmi's 19 teachers in the Teach North Korean Refugees project that I am co-director of.


September 2011, Center for Free Enterprise. Prof. Lankov agreed to come over to my office to give a speech although he had no idea who I was.

Popular posts from this blog

Diverse Secondary Education (2016-10-09)

  This morning I was one of the featured speakers at "Diverse Secondary Education in South Korea." www.lovetnkr.org/donate Young Collyer, host of the event, wrote: Diverse Secondary Education in South Korea (학생들에게 직접 들어보는 교육이야기) 쌀쌀한 가을의 휴일, 이른 아침부터 토론회에 참석해 주신 TNKR 대표 케이시 라티그(Casey Latigue)님, 하파엘 (Rafael Miliati Ramalho) 중대 북한개발협력과 석사과정), 한대의 (세종대 생명공학과), 레이첼 스타인 (Rachel Stine 허핑톤 포스트 컬럼니스트, 파고다) 외 글로벌 유스 인스티튜트 회원들 한국국제학교의 장정환, 윤지수 KKFS의 Mohamed와 Esther. 특히, 참석을 위해 익산 원광여고 민정이와 알렉스가 익산에서 서울까지 왔습니다. 무척이나 열정적이고 알찬 토론회였습니다. 특히 자원봉사자 선생님들과 함께 북한 이주민들을 대상으로 무료로 영어교육하고 있는 케이시 선생님에게 많은 영감을 얻었습니다. 케이시 선생님은 하버드대학교에서 교육학 석사과정 중 워싱턴 D.C. 의 빈민가정의 아이들을 대상으로한 교육을 필두로 해서 지금까지 사회의 음지에 있는 이들을 대상으로 양질의 교육을 펼치기 위한 교육을 펼쳐 왔으며, 우연히 북한이주민 영어교육 프로그램을 시작하게 된 뒤 계속해서 이 일을 해오고 있다고 합니다. 또한, 오후에는 청소년들과 함께, 우리나라의 교육 현실에 대한 토론을 하였습니다. 현재 사교육 중심으로 돌아가는 한국의 교육제도, 창의적 교육 운운하면서 실상은 창의를 말살시키는 한국의 교육제도, 내자식은 1등이 아니면 안되라고 생각하는 한국의 어머니들때문에 사교육 시장으로 내몰리는 한국의 청소년들.. 스스로 창의적인 사람이 될 수 있도록, 남들보다 잘하기 위해 1등이 되는 것이 아니라, 내...

KC=GQ

I am featured in the April 2013 issue of 2032 Magazine.

Latest and upcoming

"Escap e from Camp 14," with author Blaine Harden, 10 Maga zine forum, May 3, 2013 (moderator) "Road to Life " radio interview, "This Morning" on TBS eFM, May 1, 2013 (radio interview). "Road to Life"--Rally for North K orean escapees, Seoul, April 30, 2013 (speaker). " On Expertise and Ethics: Tourism in North Korea ," by Alexander James, NK News , April 27, 2013 (quoted) "Casey Lartigue update , " Plan B Lifesty les Radio Show, April 17, 2013. In terview on D reams , 2032 Magazine, April 2013.   "Western tourism on the rise, says N Korea ," by Simon Mundy, The Financial Times, March 15, 2013 (quoted) Liberty Society Emerges as a top global think tank, 2032 Magazine , March 2013 (feature article) Is Touris m in North Korea Really Booming? If tourism is growing, should it be encouraged? , NK News , February 21, 2013 (quoted) There's no place like home, The Korea Times , February 12, 2013 (op-ed) ...

Park Jin welcoming remarks to FSI (and Casey Lartigue)

  National Assembly member Park Jin makes the welcoming remarks at FSI's conference featuring North Korean diplomats. Park Jin | Greeting message to FSI and Casey Lartigue mention - YouTube

Manufactured cases

My former Cato Institute colleague Bob Levy is profiled by the Associated Press for his role in the challenge to the DC gun ban. One great thing about Levy is that he tells it like it is. As the article quotes: And Levy freely admits the case is manufactured, not one that bubbled up by chance from the district's steady flow of criminal cases involving guns. He wanted presentable plaintiffs to make a case for gun rights, not criminals. "We didn't want crack heads and bank robbers to be poster boys for the Second Amendment," he said. Is there a problem with this case being manufactured? I heard a talking head on the radio complaining a while ago that this case wasn't from real DC residents, that it was from outsiders. What's wrong with that? There may be some times that it takes an outsider to challenge an injustice or bad law. Did DC residents claim that Martin Luther King Jr. was an outsider who should have minded his own business? And about the case being ...