Rescuing Women (1)

12 EDITORIALS & OPINION

Address: 1-17, Jeong-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul, Korea Tel: 727-0114 Fax: 727-0670 Internet: www.koreaherald.com

WEDNESDAY AUGUST 12, 2009

Are some women worth more?

Park Haeng-hwan, CEO & Publisher Choi Nam-hyun, Editor in Chief, Yu Kun-ha, Managing Editor National Desk: Business Desk: Subscription:

727-0220 727-0231 1588-0533

News & Opinion Desk: Culture & Sports Desk: Advertising Tel:

727-0210 727-0230 727-0301

EDITORIAL PARTNERS

CHRIS WILLIAMS

EDITORIALS

Change of tactics Hyundai Group head Hyun Jung-eun’s sudden visit to Pyongyang this week raises hope that one of her employees at the Gaeseong Industrial Complex, who has been detained by North Koreans for over four months, will be released soon. Pyongyang’s “invitation” of Hyun’s visit at this time is a strong indication of their readiness to end the controversy which did not serve the interests of either side. North Korea’s official Central News Agency promptly reported the conglomerate chairwoman’s arrival in Pyongyang Monday afternoon at the invitation of Chosun Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, the North’s official body responsible for interKorean businesses. Her trip was made by the ground route across the border via Gaeseong, which the Northern authorities rarely permit. Since the North Koreans put the Hyundai employee into custody in March on a claim that he did something detrimental to national security, they have neither allowed any Southern officials to meet with him nor provided information on his whereabouts or conditions. At the same time, the North has pressed the South for a fourfold raise of salaries for the 30,000 North Korean workers in the inter-Korean industrial complex and huge additional rentals for the ground where over 100 South Korean firms have their production facilities. It was typical of the arbitrary action the North has often shown in the past decade of increased inter-Korean contacts. Seoul has, however, responded with patience and caution despite complaints from civic groups of government inaction for the man’s release. Time must have come for the North Koreans to realize the need for a more practical approach especially after they “pardoned” two U.S. journalists who they had detained for more than 140 days for illegal entry into the Northern territory from

China. If Bill Clinton’s visit to Pyongyang saved face for Kim Jong-il, Hyun Jung-eun’s visit, perhaps with a proposal for certain material benefits, could suffice as an excuse for the North’s release of the Hyundai employee, as no official compensation from Seoul was to be expected. Pyongyang will also be seeking to use the occasion for a breakthrough in inter-Korean tourism, in which Hyun’s Hyundai-Asan Co. is the exclusive partner. Since tours to Mount Geumgang were suspended a year ago after North Korean guards shot to death a South Korean woman who inadvertently crossed into an off-limits area in the mountain resort, Hyundai suffered a loss of over 150 billion won ($120 million). North Korea lost a similar amount. The North Korean military commander responsible for the area is known to have apologized to Hyundai officials for the incident. A stern warning has been given to the North with the year-long suspension of the tour program. If Pyongyang wants a deal upon the release of the Hyundai employee, the Seoul authorities may positively consider reopening the Mount Geumgang tours, a project with profound symbolic significance. But problems remain. The wayward, unilateral manner of business shown in the North’s demand for drastically higher wages and rent as well as in halving the supporting manpower from the South at the Gaeseong complex has sorely disappointed South Korean businesses investing in the joint industrial project. The extended detention of a South Korean employee, instead of a denial of entry, for whatever mistake he made, amounts to hostage taking. It may be still too early to predict a campaign of smiles replacing a round of confrontational approaches but experience tells us that the best strategy is to set up our own rules and stick to them in tackling the North Koreans’ changing tactics.

KSLV and Taepodong While the launching of South Korea’s first space rocket is being delayed by days and weeks, North Korea has come up with an interesting logic to refute the international community’s sanctions against it for its firing of long-range rockets. A North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said: “We will be closely watching whether the participants of the six-party talks will also refer South Korea’s launching of a satellite to the U.N. Security Council.” The comment from Pyongyang meant that the UNSC which had issued a president’s statement to condemn the North’s launching of what it claimed to be a communications satellite last April should either do the same for South Korea when it launches a satellite or should admit inappropriateness of its punitive action on Pyongyang. The spokesman stressed that the UNSC sanctions against the North “destroyed the principle of respect for independence and equality which was the vital element of the six-party talks.” He said Pyongyang would look upon how the other parties of the six-way talks respond to

South Korea’s satellite launch to determine whether the principle of equality still exists or not. Some technical problems again forced the delay of the launch of the KSLV-1 at the Naro Space Center from the tentative D-Day of Aug. 11. But even before the firing of the twostage rocket into the space, we can tell the North Koreans how differently the international community will react — from what they did about the launch of Taepodong rocket. The UNSC condemned Taepodong because the world knows it was developed to deliver nuclear weapons to transcontinental targets. The members of the six-party denuclearization talks know that South Korea’s KSLV-1 is not a weapon. Here, the North Koreans should be reminded that the development of rocket technologies in South Korea was triggered late in the 1990s following the launch of Taepodong-1 and the work is being spurred by the firing of Taepodong-2 last April. They should just think of what consequences such competition on the Korean Peninsula would lead to.

TODAY IN HISTORY Today is Aug. 12, the 224th day of 2009. There are 141 days left in the year. 1986 — Rod Carew becomes the first player in the history of the California Angels franchise to have his uniform (#29) retired. 1988 — “The Last Temptation of Christ” opens. 1992 — The United States, Canada and Mexico announce that the North American Free

Trade Agreement has been created after 14 months of negotiations. 1998 — Swiss banks agree to pay $1.25 billion as restitution to World War II Holocaust victims.

THOUGHT FOR TODAY Many would be cowards if they had courage enough. — Thomas Fuller (1608-1661), English clergyman and historian

Last May, Hilary Clinton and President Obama successfully argued for the release of the U.S.-Iranian journalist R oxana Saberia, w ho w as arrested because she did not have a proper press card.

Former U.S. President Bill Clinton put all concerns about North Korea aside to go and rescue two American journalists. Yet the current Secretary of State Hilary Clinton, who is on a special visit to Africa, has made no move to help another woman journalist in distress in Sudan. Lubna Ahmed Hussein faces being flogged in public just for wearing trousers. Should Western women expect special treatment, whatever the circumstances? Of course it was wonderful to see Laura Ling and Euna Lee reunited with their families. We do not know the full story yet, but it does seem that they strayed into North Korean territory. As their Chinese guides were not detained, perhaps they were set up. There is nothing strange about a country arresting people for straying across borders. Imagine what would happen if two North Koreans wandered into USA from Canada, across Lake Superior. Claiming it was a mistake would not bring instant release. Some people may feel that women with families and young children, who could easily be mistaken for South Korean or American spies, would have been wiser to keep well clear of North Korea. Others would commend them for their bravery. But whatever the perspec-

tive, Ling and Lee were taking a risk. In contrast, Lubna Hussein has simply dressed in the same way as millions of Muslim women in Islamic countries like Iran and Pakistan. Wearing trousers is not against Islamic or Sudanese law. Lubna is not even a Muslim. The Sudanese justice system seems to be acting contrary to its own rules, and to Islamic norms and laws. Yet the U.S., and other Islamic countries, all remain silent. Lubna faces a cruel and degrading punishment that is against international law. She could be taken to a public place, tied to a post, and her clothing pulled down. She would be whipped to the bone, which would leave her scarred for life. Some die of infection after this torture. Whatever “hard labor” means in North Korea, it is unlikely that Lee and Ling would have faced such treatment. North Korea was unlikely to give Korean-American journalists, who would eventually be released, the chance to see what happens inside a labor camp. And, whatever its failings, the regime is smart enough not to degrade its national integrity through public acts of barbarism. On the same day as the news about the return of Lee and Ling, a British woman prisoner also returned home from Laos.

Samantha Orobator had been arrested for trafficking 68g of heroin through Laos airport last August. The usual sentence is death, but she became pregnant while in prison. Under Laotian law pregnant women cannot be executed. Views about Orobator are easily clouded by views about the death sentence and pregnancy. But the fact is that she was trafficking a drug that harms and kills people. There are doubtless many Laotians in the same situation who do not escape punishment. Last May, Hilary Clinton and President Obama successfully argued for the release of the U.S.-Iranian journalist Roxana Saberia, who was arrested because she did not have a proper press card. But what of the 41 Iranian journalists who have been imprisoned during the recent public protests? The women among them include Henghameh Shahidi, the editor of the “Paineveste” blog, and Somaieh Nosrati, parliamentary editor for the newspapers “Teheran Emoroz” and “Hayat No”. There has been no official expression of concern from the west. American diplomats would quickly point out that there is a distinction between helping U.S. nationals, and interfering in the internal affairs of another country. But although Aun San

Suu Kyi is not an American citizen, President Obama stated publicly, “I strongly condemn her house arrest and detention”. It seems unlikely that any American leader will venture to Myanmar to negotiate her release, yet it was a foolhardy American who gave the junta the excuse to imprison her, because he swam uninvited across a river to her house. Would it not be appropriate for a high ranking U.S. leader to go and say sorry, and suggest to the junta that it is not creditable to punish a woman for a crime that a man has committed against her wishes? It was left to U.N. envoy Ibrahim Gambari, and U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon to visit Myanmar and negotiate. In South Korea, Lee Chunkeun, a male journalist employed by the public TV station MBC, was arrested in March, following a complaint from the agriculture ministry. This was a reaction to an investigative program which probably fuelled the beef protests last year. Lee and his colleagues faced up to five Continued on Page 13 Chris Williams is based at the Center for International Education and Research, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom. He can be reached at [email protected]. — Ed.

A summer Obama drama By Fred Hiatt Washington Post Service

INTERNATIONAL OPINION

Financial regulation reform plan under attack Don’t look now, but another one of the Obama administration’s signature reform efforts is running into trouble. It’s not health care this time, but the also important financial regulatory overhaul that Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner unveiled in June. President Barack Obama has argued that there could be a repeat of last year’s financial panic some day unless the existing patchwork of financial oversight agencies is modernized. The question more and more people are asking, though, is whether his plan will get the job done. Wary of taking on deeply entrenched bureaucracies, Obama opted for a proposal that left in place all eight regulatory bodies but one (the Office of Thrift Supervision, which covers federally chartered savings and

loans). This went against the recommendations of many who felt that consolidating the agencies would eliminate the regulatory forum-shopping that had enabled some of Wall Street’s riskiest practices. The administration concluded it was more realistic politically, and sufficient in policy terms, to realign responsibilities among the agencies, while adding two new bodies, one for financial consumer protection and one to monitor systemic risks. Sen. Mark R. Warner, Democrat-Virginia, has come out against the administration plan in favor of what he says is a necessarily bolder one that would assign to a single new agency the banking regulation functions that are currently spread among the OTS, the Federal Deposit Insurance

Corp., the Federal Reserve Board and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. Meanwhile, the heads of some of these same agencies have trooped to Capitol Hill to complain that the proposed consumer agency would usurp functions that should belong to them. A key point of contention is the administration’s insistence that the consumer agency have not only rule-making power for the entire financial system but also enforcement and examination authority. This offends community banks, which make up a powerful lobby. They argue that they were innocent of the riskiest subprime mortgage lending and securitization that helped bring on the crisis, so they should remain under the

aegis of traditional bank regulators - while the consumer agency supervises mortgage brokers and other parts of the “non-bank” financial sector. Both the FDIC and the OCC have publicly agreed. This was directly counter to the Obama administration’s position that the consumer agency should police a “level playing field.” Small wonder that Geithner recently unloaded on the regulators behind closed doors. Insofar as he was trying to jar these regulators out of their traditional turf-conscious mentality, he had a point. But it’s also true that, by positioning itself in the cautious middle, the administration opened itself to attacks from all sides The Washington Post, Aug. 10

H1N1 and schools: common-sense guidelines Stay open. That was the guidance issued Friday by the Obama administration to the nation’s schools as they prepare for the fall return of students, and swine flu. Ultimately, it’s up to local authorities whether to shut their schools. But the information gathered during and since the initial outbreak in April shows that in many cases it will make more sense to keep school in session. Fears of swine flu (or H1N1, the scientific moniker preferred by the administration and the pork industry) led to the closure of more than 700 schools across the country in

the spring. The guidelines released by the departments of Education and of Health and Human Services and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention outline three situations when a school closure would be warranted: one, children with special needs are the majority, and swine flu emerges; two, large numbers of students and staff are hit with H1N1; or, three, parents send sick, feverish kids to school. The CDC also recommends that students and staff return to school 24 hours after their fever is gone, not after an extra week. Schools with students

and staff members who appear to have flu-like symptoms are encouraged to send the sick to a separate room until they can be sent home. Students with ill household members should stay home for five days from the day that relative got sick. For more information, go to www.flu.gov. Concern about swine flu is understandable. It roared to life in Mexico, came to the United States and then made its way to just about every corner of the world. The World Health Organization classifies it as an unstoppable pandemic. So far, it is less deadly than regular flu, which claims 36,000 lives in the

United States every year. But researchers are carefully following the virus’s progression and potential mutations as it makes its way through the Southern Hemisphere’s winter. As they have since the initial outbreak of swine flu, federal officials are counseling common sense in responding to the next wave of illness. Those who feel sick should stay home. If you sneeze or cough, cover your mouth. And wash your hands frequently or use a hand sanitizer. In the end, you are your best defense against the pandemic’s spread. The Washington Post, Aug. 10

Here are two versions of the summer sizzler “President Obama and the Exploding Deficit,” playing in a cineplex near you: In Version One, President Obama pronounces himself ready to make hard political choices to tame the federal debt. But after spending a trillion dollars to extinguish an inherited economic crisis, he proceeds to insist — as if nothing had happened — on the biggest expansion of federal government spending since Medicare: guaranteed health insurance for all. He claims to want a bipartisan bill but refuses to consider any component that might offend a Democratic constituency, no matter how essential to a coherent plan: no malpractice reform (trial lawyers), no taxing of employer-provided health-care benefits (unions), no meanstesting of Medicare benefits (middle-class seniors). The president says this new entitlement will be “deficit-neutral.” But he proposes to pay for it in part with “Medicare savings” that will be so unpopular that Congress will never let them kick in, and in part with a tax on the wealthy that might have been used for deficit reduction — thereby reducing the prospects for real deficit reduction from dim to dismal. Only after health care is in place — as well as, oh yes, a second unprecedented expansion of federal power into the economy on behalf of energy reform — will he put deficit reduction on the table. And when he does that, he will support, at best, an apolitical commission that will remove any need for Obama himself to put forth any unpopular proposals. Plausible? Does this scenario mesh with the facts? Well, but consider Version Two: President Obama cares deeply about controlling the federal debt, appreciating the existential risk it poses to America’s future, and is ready to make hard political choices to deal with it. But he also understands a couple of fundamental truths: First, that rising healthcare costs are one of two basic drivers of that debt (the other being the aging of the population), so no solution to the federal quandary is imaginable without getting a handle on those costs. Second, that America’s political system simply will not swallow, even from a popular, persuasive president, a reform plan built exclusively on cost control — a diet of Continued on Page 13 Fred Hiatt is the Washington Post’s editorial page editor — Ed.