South Korea was a country that seemingly had the coronavirus under control and was widely praised for its effective response to COVID-19. Now hospital beds are now running short.

South Korea Struggles Under Third Wave

The country is currently going through its worst crisis since the outbreak of the pandemic. Given the rapidly increasing number of COVID-19 infections, there are hardly any beds available for seriously ill coronavirus patients.

Doctors in South Korea are under pressure to decide who the beds will be assigned to whom. Over five hundred COVID patients are reportedly currently waiting to be admitted to the hospitals, a spokesman for the Ministry of Health said in Seoul on Friday.

South Korea’s Minister of Health, Park Neung-hoo, even spoke of Seoul being a “COVID-19 warzone.”

In spring, the country was unanimously praised for its handling of the virus. With coronavirus mass tests and meticulous tracking of infection chains, Seoul was able to locate infection clusters quickly and successfully contain them across the country. It minimized the burden on the hospitals, and doctors and nurses could concentrate on seriously ill patients.

COVID-19 is Getting Out of Control in South Korea

The results were positive. The country has only had about 50,000 infections and 659 deaths. However, the comparatively low mortality rate is likely to rise rapidly from now on in view of the health system’s overloaded status. Over 1,000 new COVID infections were registered for the fourth day in a row on Saturday, according to the Korea Disease Control and Prevention Agency (KDCA).

Moreover, the current wave is also making it difficult to treat other serious illnesses, likely resulting in more deaths.

The Ministry of Health instructed all large hospitals and university clinics on Friday to move some of their beds from other wards and make them available to seriously ill COVID patients.

What About Contact Tracing?

South Korea’s contact tracing was seen as a role model around the world at the start of the pandemic. It was also so successful because the government relied on smartphone and location data without any great inhibitions or privacy concerns from citizens. Credit card statements were also used to track people’s movements. Given the tremendous success of the measures, the Korean public backed the invasion of privacy.

However, given the rise in infections, the routes are no longer traceable and have become too jumbled together.

One reason for the increase in cases is likely the cold weather. Sub-zero temperatures mean that people across the country spend a lot of time in poorly-ventilated indoor spaces, which increases the risk of infection. However, Seoul’s coronavirus policy could also have played a role. In October, for example, Korea’s provisions for social distancing were lowered to the lowest level for economic reasons.

Seoul’s Return to Work May be to Blame

The South Korean return to work boosted industrial production significantly. In the first ten days of December alone, Korean manufacturers exported 52 percent and 60 percent more semiconductors and mobile phones than in the same period of the previous year, according to Asia’s fourth-largest economy’s customs authorities.

However, the revitalization of economic life appears to have brought the virus to the fore once again. After it became clear in November that the opening had pushed the numbers up, the government made a U-turn. Schools in Seoul were closed, and traditional celebrations and end-of-year gatherings were banned. Nonetheless, the authorities are still having a hard time calling out the third and highest coronavirus alert level for the first time.

At level three, everyone except essential shops would have to close, meetings of more than ten people would be prohibited. According to the authorities, the first declaration of a real lockdown for South Korea would result in the closure of 1.2 million smaller businesses, which would drive many entrepreneurs to the brink of ruin.

In the face of worrying developments, South Korea is now “with its back to the wall,” as President Moon Jae-in said last week.

L'articolo South Korea Hit By Third COVID-19 Wave proviene da InsideOver.

“Eating dogs is inappropriate, inhumane, and only heartless blood-suckers encourage it for their benefit,” said a man holding a picture of a cute dog in his hand in front of the Blue House Presidential Office in Seoul, South Korea. He also had several placards, one in his other hand, and others dispersed around him, hand-written almost the same message requesting the president to push a bill against the habit of consuming dog meat in South Korea.

He seemed left alone trying so hard on his own to make every passenger in the street to participate by starting a semi-debate conversation with them. I believe he wanted to encourage pedestrians to realize that their actions could make a difference if they joined with him in trying to make a change.

Eating Dog Meat Was Normal in South Korea Until Recently

Eating dog meat is an old habit in East Asian communities. It was just recently in the past several decades that cats and dogs became popular as pets partly due to individualism and Western cultural influences. We need to consider that habit of consuming dog meat in old south Korea was not meant or considered savagery, nor was immoral.

It was an available source of nutrients. For what it’s worth, there are all different tastes of food and ingredients all around the world. For example, Lechón (a Spanish word referring to a roasted baby piglet which was still fed by suckling its mother’s milk) and Khash (or kalle-pache, a dish of boiled cow or sheep parts, which might include the head, feet, and stomach) are two dishes that seem disgusting to many modern people but are famous in their regions.

We need to take historical and geographical circumstances into account to understand the eating of dog meat. The very same animal can be considered an ordinary animal, food, pet, friend, or even a deity due to these circumstances. Rabbit, in my case, being a dish had never been an option, and I always considered bunnies as the cutest animal pets; or as cows for Hindus, animals may not only be removed from some menus but also respected as in animism.

The Dog Meat Debate

The contradiction of treating this type of canine as a pet or as a dish became a hot topic among some Koreans only recently; and here I am, a West Asian in Korea, graduated in Cultural Studies and interested in cultural differences and, of course, in anyone who is protesting against the government. I was looking at the protesting man with interest in finding out what had made him so committed to his cause. I changed where I was going and walked over to him.

“I feel hugely responsible for eliminating this bad habit,” he said and explained that it was his routine to protest every weekend and sometimes stay overnight in his small tent. He is ashamed of dog meat still being consumed despite the dramatic modernization of the country.

“How come we could change so many things to be better, but still there are many people who eat dogs like barbarians? Why can’t we get modernized in this country?” he said.

It seemed like he has repeated the sentence a hundred times before, and he found himself confident with this statement.. However, probably unlike the common responses that he was expecting, I came up with a different one. I pointed to a fluffy dog with a red shirt that happened to pass by near us and told him:

“So is your request for the sake of modernization being fulfilled or for the sake of justice being pursued for dogs, these lovely animals?” He answered, “I want them to be treated fairly and with respect.”

“Why do you expect the president to bring up a law that guarantees fair treatment for dogs but not for other animals?” I asked. To his surprise, I added: “Isn’t it the time to stop excluding dogs from dozens of other animals who are suffering? Including those who are suffering from our imbalance privilege for dogs? I mean if we care about being fair, we may want to broaden our list. Shouldn’t we add all current edible farm animals to come in a presidential law bill? if we care about nature, we should ask for a bill that stops us from having pets at all because we are changing their lifestyle and also ruining nature’s life cycle by protecting from one species? and if we care about…”

Blah, blah, blah, I listed all perspectives I could find and didn’t find any logical one that justifies excluding dogs, and he said his reasons, again I told mine. It was a long talk that I wouldn’t have the length to list it all, but I’ll share some things that I saw from his perspective and some from mine.

Dogs as Pets in South Korea

Dogs are everywhere in South Korea. Several shops only provide services and items for pet dogs: dog clothes, different types of food and dog hotels, dog kindergarten, dog barbershop, dog photo shoots, dog swimming pools, and dog taxis are just a few businesses affiliated with dogs in this country.

The industry is also expanding with thousands of dog products like smart pet trackers or nonalcoholic pet beers. This industry focuses on its product as a cute, intelligent, and kind animals (which they indeed are) that we need to “take care of” or as a widespread motto in South Korea puts it: “have them as a family member.” Billions of dollars are funneled into this idea. The South Korean pet industry was worth $864.9 million USD in 2018 and around seventy percent of it was for dogs.

‘Your Dog Deserves to Live Like a Human’

“Your dog deserves to live like a human.”

It was written in a dog accessory shop in Seoul. We already know what that lifestyle looks like as humans speedily use up the world’s resources. As the pet industry statistics show us, this industry, like every other business, is based on consumption (the more we use, the more they produce), though responsible for a significant portion of South Korea’s unsustainable way of life. Dog owners spend around $100 USD per month on their pets in this country.

The pet population in Korea has been steadily increasing over the last decade. The country’s aging, the increased single-member households, and rising incomes have helped support this trend. As just for the pet food market, it was worth more than $870 million in 2019.

Increasing Opposition to Dog Meat

However, unlike the pet industry, dog meat is moving in the other direction. Western media and animal activists have written many articles on it. “Hell for dogs” and “Barbaric” are just some of the words they have used to introduce the issue. Their miserable way of breeding and the cruel and uncivilized practice of eating a smart and cute animal are some of the reasons mentioned by the media against dog meat. But not only are these approaches very selective and even specie-favoritism in an animal context, but it’s also not even scientific and reasonable.

Dog farms are more or less the same type of miserable as other farms for around 9 billion chickens, 33 million cows, and 113 million pigs raised and slaughtered brutally every year — small cages, dirty and smelly atmosphere with lifespan suffering through the same painful process. However, one critical fact is usually not considered: the amount of dog meat has declined from one million dogs to 20,000 per year in South Korea. It consists of less than 8% of consumed meat worldwide, while other meat consumption had increased, as FAO reported: “Pork is the most widely-eaten meat in the world accounting for over 36% of the world meat intake. It is followed by poultry and beef with about 35% and 22%, respectively.”

Other Animals are Also Cute

Being cute is also not exclusive for dogs as rabbits, lambs, and chickens are extremely cute in my opinion. Dogs are usually smart, but so are pigs. You probably need to read about the research on pigs that confirmed they are wise enough to play a video game! Pigs are also super social and can learn very fast. For the last argument on barbaric habit, I suggest to stop seeing the world from Europe and remind how millions of Hindus would feel about others who are eating cow’s meat.

The consuming way of life advertised by media uses natural resources for dogs and burns forests to raise cows. Instead of pointing at the significant issues, eating dogs has become the focus of “animal activists” and ignorant celebrities that want to push themselves as authorities on the subject. Dog meat is one of the most comfortable and accessible options for them, as it is exotic, and there is a vast hatred against this declining business around the world, including in South Korea. Simultaneously, the meat and pet industry is rising as it has never been recorded in history, which indirectly resulted in severe damage to other animals.

Ecological and Wildlife Devastation

Earth has lost half of its wildlife in around the past 40 years, mostly because of our way of life. We need 1.5 planet Earths to sustain the current consumption rate. Instead of a widespread action to save animals worldwide, we have limited ourselves to a few overpopulated and well-loved domesticated animals like dogs. Just last year, near 800,000 new pet dogs were registered in South Korea.

Thanks to thousands of shallow but accessible reports and quotes about dogs, the bigger picture usually misses the point. It’s perfectly common for an “animal lover” to bring a pet dog home and make it consume human products and call it “protecting animals.”

The UK has one of the worst reputations to its overusing the world’s resources, and it’s been calculated that we would need 2,5 Earths to match UK consumption levels extrapolated into the future. However, a British Instagram star can come to Korea and “rescue” a dog from a cage and fly it back to the UK. Then he can post pictures of dogs playing on the grass, and he obviously feels cool to rescue an animal that was supposed to be a meal for an allegedly cruel people. After taking all the pictures he enjoys a bacon sandwich at the same time.

American skier Gus Kenworthy is one example who could get thousands of Instagram likes by merely “flying” a dog from a cage in Korea to his yard in the USA and take a shortcut to getting tons of likes online. The pictures of the dog, buying him a “dog cake” for a birthday gift, added to his continually posting photos of his consuming lifestyle in a country that is the second globally in overusing world resources.

‘A Cultured Country Does Not Allow its People to Eat Dogs’

“Cows are grown to be eaten; dogs are not.” This non-scientific and sentimental words came from a French actress Brigitte Bardot who, thanks to her movies, gets attention to her terms about animals. “I accept that many people eat beef, but a cultured country does not allow its people to eat dogs.” She concluded. France is number 19 in the mentioned list of world over-consumption, and according to UC Davis university: “livestock are responsible for 14.5 percent of global greenhouse gases.”

I personally have never eaten dog meat, and I try to avoid other kinds of meat in general. But as someone who thinks a lot about the environment, I don’t understand why dogs should have so much privilege above other animals. I also don’t get why “activists” feed this bias if not because of their ignorance of the bigger picture they play in it.

Back to the Debate

“We should start from somewhere. We should stop producing red meat in general, but we can start from dogs as there is more public agreement on it,” the man wanted to conclude, unable to convince me with his previous reasons.

“But why should we start from a business that is already declining while the bigger issue that’s spreading is left more or less in silence?” I asked.

“Anyway, people are different. We don’t all have to think the same,” he answered.

He didn’t want to hear more of me. He slowly raised a cute picture of the dog and tried to change the mood with his fake smile. Did I make him consider the issue from a new angle? I’m not sure.

How many other dogs did I see on my way back home? How many of their owners call themselves animal activists or animal lovers? And how many of these animal activists or animal lovers think about the 41,415 species that are currently in danger of extinction?

Edited by Alireza Soltani Koupaei

L'articolo After All, It’s Just a Slice of Meat – This One From a Dog! proviene da InsideOver.

Recovered coronavirus patients are retesting positive for the virus according to the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (KCDC).

Does COVID-19 Reactivate?

As of Tuesday, May 5, 277 recovered patients who originally tested negative for the virus retested as positive during a subsequent test. The KCDC previously feared that the COVID-19 virus became reactivated after formerly going dormant.

On Tuesday the country’s infectious-disease experts concluded that the positive test results were false: a result of fragments of the virus that remained in patients’ bodies showing up in test kits. There was no live virus present in all 277 cases.

False Positives?

Dr. David Denning, Professor of Infectious Diseases in Global Health at The University of Manchester’s Division of Infection, Immunity and Respiratory Medicine, told InsideOver that the method of testing for the virus in formerly infected patients can produce false positives.

“Almost testing for the SARS CoV2 is done by detecting RNA (nucleic acid) using PCR (reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction), not by viral culture,” Denning said.

“PCR is highly sensitive and in the category level 3 labs in which it is done, it is possible some low level lab contamination of RNA occurred, which produced false positive results.

“It is equally likely that patients recovering from infection have a few residual cells containing dead virus that are picked up by the PCR assay,” Denning added.

This refutes theories in the scientific community that the coronavirus can be reactivated or reinfected in former patients. Withal, the false positives seem to be good news for the future of herd immunity, as countries worldwide begin to lift quarantine restrictions.

There are now over 3.6 million cases of coronavirus worldwide, as of May 5, 16:00 BST. Nearly 1.18 million people have, in turn, recovered. One of the first nations to report a COVID-19 outbreak, South Korea has reported only 254 deaths as of May 5. Out of more than 10,800 confirmed cases, the country has seen 9,283 recovery cases so far.

This is because the country enforced one of the world’s most effective pandemic strategies, using contact tracing and widespread testing. Although it did not close most venues, the country’s leaders implemented mass social distancing guidelines to keep people apart.

The Future of Herd Immunity

Denning remains cautious about the future of herd immunity. “It is likely that symptomatic patients with COVID-19 develop partial or complete immunity to SARS CoV2,” he said.

“One way this is measured is with neutralising IgG antibody in blood. Other arms of the immune system are probably important, including saliva antibody (sIgA), T cells and probably natural killer cells.

“These parts of the immune system are a little hard to measure in terms of documenting herd immunity,” he continued, adding that “complete immunity means no chance of re-infection. Partial immunity means a possible chance, if exposed to lots of virus, and/or a milder infection. The term herd immunity would apply to both.”

Herd Immunity Isn’t Enough

Like other practices executed to defeat the virus, herd immunity is not a complete strategy on its own. Denning argues that the success of herd immunity will rest in “sustained immunity”.

“It is not clear to what extent those with asymptomatic SARS CoV2 (i.e. without the disease COVID-19) develop immunity and whether this immunity is partial or complete,” Denning said.

“It is also not clear how sustained immunity will be over time – other coronavirus immunity lasts a few months or years,” he added.

Experts around the world have warned of a second wave of the coronavirus as countries relax their lockdowns. As the search for a vaccine continues globally, experts also remain cautious and pessimistic about finding a vaccine soon. They have also called for renewed efforts towards identifying possible cases, tracing contacts, and monitoring symptoms.

L'articolo Why are Recovered Coronavirus Patients Retesting Positive for the Virus? proviene da InsideOver.

Reportage / Society 07.04.2020

Pros and Cons of South Korea’s Approach to Fighting Covid-19 

Covid-19 has impacted corners of our world, but not all countries have faced it the same way. The Republic of Korea (ROK) – with its unique economic situation and history – took strong steps to stop the spread of the…

Komeil Soheili

Covid-19 has impacted corners of our world, but not all countries have faced it the same way. The Republic of Korea (ROK) – with its unique economic situation and history – took strong steps to stop the spread of the coronavirus and control the pandemic in its country.

“There must be something between our president and the Chinese government. They just care about the economy, but this policy doesn’t make anyone any happier,” said Mina, a 28-year-old college student in political science, now living alone in quarantine. Mina said she regrets her vote for President Moon Jae-in a few years ago. “I understand this is a new epidemic and they couldn’t have made a right decision on time, but I don’t understand why they still keep the borders open and even give so many facilities for non-Koreans, which made so many Europeans come here and make it out of control again,” she added. Mina said she is angry with her government who also spends lots of money from their taxes on free check-ups for foreigners who are still allowed to come to the country.

However, preparing for testing facilities wasn’t the only thing the ROK learned from 2015. During MERS, the Korean Ministry of Health and Welfare initially withheld details from the public to avoid anxiety. This policy lacked public acceptance and was heavily criticized as preventing the Ministry from properly notifying hospitals and municipal governments. Experiences from that incident showed that keeping the public in the dark actually increased fear. This time the government didn’t hesitate to share all information with the public and decided to be fully transparent. Even an app was designed and published that shared all details of infected people; the system would also ring an alarm for people if they got close to a place that an infected person had visited. This system made sure that people can be doubly careful and possibly choose alternative paths. Also, important updates were sent directly to the phones of residents in all affected regions and neighborhoods.

Unlike flights which it kept open, Korea closed public events and schools immediately as coronavirus hit and educated citizens with different means. All religious worship places were also required to close or hold services with extra conditions and safety precautions. The conditions do not include Shincheonji which has been sealed due to its vastly higher number of infections. South Korea’s Buddhist temples also closed for the first time in the last sixteen centuries.

L'articolo Pros and Cons of South Korea’s Approach to Fighting Covid-19  proviene da InsideOver.

South Korea and the United States both recorded their first Covid-19 cases on the same day, but the trajectory of both states in terms of their response has been markedly different. While the former has witnessed its number of new cases seemingly plateau, the US continues to struggle with a rising infection rate. On Friday, South Korea added 98 new instances, the eleventh day in a row that the number did not soar out of control. 

The Asian state reported a total of 8,897 cases as of Friday, compared to 15,219 in the US, according to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC). While the population of America is six-and-a-half times larger than South Korea, it is also 100 times larger by land area. Even populated metropolitan areas such as the coastal regions are considerably less dense. Logically, the US should have had either the same rate of virus transmission or less. 

However that is not the case as America recently surpassed Italy to claim the number-two spot for most Covid-19 cases. To be clear, the US is not alone in struggling against the coronavirus. In Italy, the United Kingdom, and Spain, for example, the number of cases have been doubling every 2 to 3 days. While the US is faring better in this regard, when laid out on a chart by the New York Times, South Korea is clearly an exemplary case among all other nations; Seoul reports its number of cases doubling roughly every week by comparison.

A Rush to Test Sets South Korea Apart

How did Seoul become a standout when other nations seem overwhelmed? The short answer is relatively simple: quick testing. After a Jan. 27 meeting, the South Korean Centers for Disease Control and Prevention rapidly approved the first test, then another, and rolled them out by the end of the month. Since then, it has tested 307,000 people, the most per capita of any nation.

“We acted like an army,” said Lee Sang-won, an infections diseases expert with the CDC. The government feared it could quickly turn into a pandemic even from the onset of having recorded only four initial cases.

The differences between Washington’s and Seoul’s handling of the virus started with developing the test, as Reuters reported. While South Korea rushed to get kits approved and manufactured, the US Food and Drug Administration moved slower for the sake of accuracy, a decision that partially paid off as the first batch of tests was found to be corrupted. 

‘There Are Always Opportunities to Learn From Situations Like This’

“There are always opportunities to learn from situations like this one,” said FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn. “But one thing I will stand firm on: We cannot compromise on the quality of the tests because what would be worse than no tests at all is wildly inaccurate test results.”

Still, South Korea managed to accomplish it. Somehow it was able to pull off what the US couldn’t: get a test kit out the door, in bulk no less, and setup test sites — 633 by the latest count. Manufacturers were given an “emergency use authorization” to speed up development, which helped expedite the process.

“The government acted quickly,” said Myoah Baek, executive director at Kogene Biotech Co Ltd. The CDC “disclosed information on test methods so test kit makers were able to speed up development.”

In the beginning of the crisis, tests were cross-checked with partner labs verifying the results to determine an accuracy level.

Leveraging Technology to Track the Coronavirus

South Korea is also heavily relying on technology to track the virus. The infection is mapped on a smartphone app so residents can see where it has already spread.

“Koreans are super good at making things convenient for people — we don’t have any patience,” said Kee Park, global health lecturer at Harvard Medical School. “South Korea is one of the most wired countries in the world, where everybody uses cell phones for just about everything, and [the government] was able to use our cell phones to not only track but send warnings, like ‘watch out, there’s a Covid-19 patient in your vicinity.’”

Some of the technological methods are a result of Seoul’s encounter with Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS) in 2015. The virus took the lives of 36 Koreans, infecting 186 total. As a response, the government passed laws to allow it to react faster and in a sweeping fashion this time around. It now legally collects a wide-range of data from infected persons including credit card history, cellular records, and GPS information.

This data is then published, anonymously, on social media platforms to allow other people to determine if they came into contact with the infected patient. While data shows the tactic is likely helping South Korea win its battle with Covid-19, replicating it inside other states would be troublesome due to privacy concerns. Americans, for example, are generally less-willing to share information with the government and a law like South Korea’s would have difficulty passing Congress.

South Korea Fits Unique Profile But Still Valuable Lessons to Learn

Therefore, South Korea’s methods are not a one-size-fit-all. Testing, however, has proven to be a vital component to its early response success. Although that should seem obvious, in the US, a lack of testing has frustrated doctors, patients, and lawmakers.

“It makes me feel like I’m living in a farce,” said Dr. Ritu Thamman, a cardiologist and clinical assistant professor at the University of Pittsburgh School of Medicine. “We are a rich country but we don’t have [tests for medical personnel]?”

The collapse of the American healthcare system is another reality that Covid-19 is forcing Americans to square with. Compared to South Korea’s free, government-run system, America’s private insurance framework has even caused confusion with whether coronavirus tests will be covered, thanks to President Donald Trump mistakenly promoting a deal with insurance companies to make tests free.

“I don’t know how we messed this up so badly,” said Ruth Blodgett, 65, whose husband could not obtain a test despite the doctor ordering one. “We got caught flat-footed. For America, that’s unacceptable.”

L'articolo How South Korea Became a Model State for Virus Control proviene da InsideOver.

South Korea has rejected a demand by US President Donald Trump to pay $4.7 billion in return for hosting American troops. The staggering amount would be a five-fold increase from the previous amount of $925 million, which was negotiated in February. Traditionally, the agreement between the two allies has been renewed every 5 years, but last year both parties agreed to a 1-year extension in order to work out a longer pact. 

Historic Alliance Trademarked By Hosting Troops

Washington and Seoul have maintained an official military alliance since the end of the Korean War in 1953. Presently 28,500 American troops are stationed in South Korea. Aside from preventing North Korea from overtaking the peninsula, the accord was also designed to help contain the Soviet Union and to keep South Korea under US influence. Along with Japan, South Korea acts as an intelligence-sharing partner for Washington, making it an integral military ally.

Although Seoul likely values the military alliance as much as Washington, it did not take kindly to the proposition of forking over nearly $5 billion for the privilege of hosting US troops. Forces there have been intertwined for decades and the annual joint military exercises have become such a show of force that North Korean leader Kim Jong-Un has railed against them on numerous occasions. Certainly, the US has bases all over the globe and much older alliances, but there are few places where such camaraderie and shared national interests can be so clearly seen.

Cracking Down On Bad Deals

However, Trump has a pet-peeve for other states not paying what he considers their fair share, especially when it comes to the US military and economy. Look to any number of the trade disputes he started, with allies such as Canada and Japan to more adversarial nations like China. For the armed forces, the American president never felt his nation was getting a fair shake in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, floated the idea of pulling the US from it, and repeatedly demanded other member states such as Germany pay more or lose their access to US troops. So it comes as no surprise that Trump is also demanding more from South Korea. 

The Perspective From Seoul

“The two sides have expanded their understanding of each other through many discussions despite differences in their positions on various issues, and decided to continue close consultations,” said the South Korean Foreign Ministry in as statement.

It is also not the first time that Trump’s insistence for more financial support has pushed talks past their year end deadline. Last year, the parties held out until February before finalizing an agreement that saw a 25-percent increase in spending from Seoul. However, by looking at the bottom line figure in the agreement, Trump risks losing sight of the larger picture. A South Korean official told the SBS news network that Seoul spent $6.3 billion on American weapons over the past decade. Furthermore, it funded the expense of moving US troops to Pyeongtaek⁠—a $6.9 billion operation. 

Considering that South Korea’s total defense spending in 2018 was $43.1 billion, those numbers show a different perspective. Clearly Seoul is not hesitant to drop money into its partnership with the US. The general public in South Korea is overwhelmingly against the idea of paying America more. A poll of 1,000 adults by Hankook Research found only 4-percent of respondents in favor of agreeing to Trump’s funding demand. As an alternative, 25-percent approved of refusing to pay instead of continuing negotiations. 

At the same time, South Koreans value the partnership with America⁠—94 percent believe it is critical for maintaining their national security. Trump’s focus on pressuring allies to pay more for US troops presents problems not just for South Korea, but for the entire philosophy of America’s global military presence.

Turning The US Military Into Mercenaries

As Victor Cha, former director for Asian Affairs in George W. Bush’s National Security Council, argued, whereas American forces are presently viewed as security allies, they may begin to be looked at as mercenaries. 

“There is this whole question of whether Trump actually wants to make a profit off of US forces abroad, which would essentially turn us into mercenaries,” Cha said, adding “That’s not what the US military is,” Cha said. 

Not only do moves like what is currently happening with South Korea signal the US military can be bought for the right price, they also send a signal to adversaries that if our allies refuse to pay up, we will leave them. As a recent example, Trump decided to pull troops from Syria, completely abandoning Kurdish allies, to appease Turkish President Recep Erdogan. Perhaps if the Kurds or Syrian resistance fighters had offered a few billion dollars, American forces might have stayed, because that is what appears to matter to Trump at the end of the day.

Nothing Changes Thanks To NDAA

Without Seoul’s agreement to pay the $4.7 billion demanded by Trump, it is logical to question whether he will actually pull troops from the region. While he could certainly threaten to do so, the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act signed by Trump on Dec. 20 prohibits him from doing so. A provision within it dictates that the only case in which it would be permitted is if Defense Secretary Mark Esper agrees that it “is in the national security interest of the United States and will not significantly undermine the security of United States allies in the region.”

US State Department negotiator James DeHart denied the $5 billion figure as part of the US demands. 

“The figure will be different from our initial proposal and probably different from what we’ve heard from the Korean side so far,” said US State Department negotiator James DeHart. “So we will find that point of agreement.”

Even if that is true and the number is not a current focal point, it is undeniable that Trump would like to see Seoul spend more. The goal has always been to right the perceived wrongs, whether it be economic or military deals. For Trump, America has lived through decades of one-sided deals against it and that cannot continue. South Korea just happens to be next on the list of states that Trump has deemed as taking advantage of the US. 

Ultimately, even if the two sides cannot come to an agreement, little will change in terms of a US presence on the peninsula. As seen in February, they are capable of negotiating a new agreement, even if South Korea has to pay a little more to satisfy Trump’s “America first” ideology.

L'articolo South Korea Refuses US Demand for Troop Cost Sharing Increase   proviene da InsideOver.

In this age of globalization, big and small organizations are forming strategic alliances and following the policy of mergers and acquisitions to strengthen their position in the business world. Globalization has proved to be a boon for not only organizations that seek to expand their business but also for small organizations that could not withstand the challenges of big organizations or lack finance for their expansion activities. Due to governments’ restriction and protection to domestic industries, multinational organizations are restricted from direct entry in a foreign land. Therefore, they enter into strategic alliances with small organizations and expand their reach, and small organizations enter such alliances to benefit in terms of technology transfer and finance. Thus, globalization is a win-win situation for both small and large companies.

Similarly, the global community and superpowers have to ponder over the issue– should globalization be merely confined to the corporate world or extended to the political arena and countries for global peace and harmony? Shouldn’t unstable nations consider mergers with their parent nations, such as North Korea with South Korea, Pakistan with India, and so on? Just as the alliance of North Germany and West Germany proved a boon for people of both the nations, the merger of North Korea with South Korea and Pakistan with India could ensure development, peace, and tranquillity in the respective countries The global community and superpowers cannot sit idle and be a meek spectator to nuclear threats and blackmails of Pakistan and North Korea.

It may be recalled that Pakistan was created by the British as a theological state based on the two-nation theory—that Hindus and Muslims must comprise two separate nations. But the past 70 years proved that a modern society could not be based on religion, and only secularism can work in the India sub-continent. The result of a theocratic state (Pakistan) in which chaos and religious extremism are prevailing is clear for all to see. The question is how long the world can watch religious violence in Quetta, Karachi, Kashmir, etc.? How long must our people pay to buy billions of dollars of foreign arms to fight each other?

Pakistan is the only Muslim-majority state to have successfully developed nuclear weapons. It is the epicentre of global jihadism and home to jihadist group Harakat-ul-Mujahideen and Muslim fundamentalist groups — al‑Qaeda, the Haqqani network, and Lashkar-e-Taiba. Jihadist organizations have support from the government. In addition to having hosted bin Laden, Pakistan has been the foremost supplier of nuclear technology to rogue states, like North Korea and Iran.

For North Korea’s totalitarian regime, the nuclear arms policy has twin objectives of developing nuclear weapons and improving the nation’s economy. North Korea has proliferated its nuclear and missile capabilities as a bargaining tool to secure political and economic incentives from the rest of the world because nobody can risk its misadventures against South Korea, Japan, and notably the United States.

Pakistan and North Korea– the two close allies are the main actors in destabilizing the global peace in the two regions of Asia— Kashmir in South Asia and on the other end of the Asian continent — the Korean peninsula. Both the nations are authoritarian countries, firmly controlled by their respective militaries. They not only possess nuclear weapons, but also their heads of the governments have emphatically declared to use them against South Korea, Japan, USA, and India, showing utter disdain to the concept of responsibility.

Larry Pressler, former chairman of the US Senate’s Arms Control Subcommittee termed both Pakistan and North Korea as rogue states. He said, “Pakistan is more dangerous than North Korea as it does not have a centralized command on its nuclear weapons, making them vulnerable to theft and sale.” Pressler feared that a takeover of nuclear weapons by a militant group during a period of instability or splintering of the state might prove catastrophic for the world.

Both Pakistan and North Korea appear to be blackmailing the world to listen to them and finance them, lest they use their weapons of mass destruction.

According to political observers and diplomats, India and North Korea reunification is an idea to save the world from nuclear holocaust. This idea must be spread by all patriotic people in the subcontinent, and elsewhere.

Political leaders of India such as the late Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee talked of undivided India. Additionally, Ram Madhav, BJP general secretary said, “The RSS still believes that one day India, Pakistan, Bangladesh through widespread goodwill, will again come together and Akhand (undivided) Bharat will be created.” Recently, RSS leader Indresh Kumar echoed the same sentiment. Indresh Kumar said that Pakistan would be a part of India after 2025. An undivided India on the lines of the European Union might take shape.

Home Minister Rajnath Singh during an election rally at Haridwar, on February 5, 2017, spoke of a referendum in Pakistan to check whether its citizens desire to merge with India.

Many people across India and Pakistan say that India was divided in 1947, and much has changed since then. But it is also a fact that Germany was united in 1990 after being divided for 45 years. Vietnam was united in 1975 after being separated for 30 years. Italy was united in 1861.

The main problems of India, Pakistan, and North Korea are the same — poverty, unemployment, and lack of healthcare and good education, among others. If reunited, resources can be pooled. These problems can be overcome in 15-20 years. Billions of dollars spent annually on purchasing arms can be used for people’s welfare.

Failures of nuclear-powered nations mean a threat to the entire humanity. It’s high time that the global community and the superpowers understand the essence of globalization and take the initiative in the direction of the merger to prevent the world from potential nuclear catastrophe.

L'articolo Is Globalization The Future For A Safer Humanity And World Peace? proviene da InsideOver.

A mutual enemy ought to bring old adversaries together. When the joint foe is a nuclear-armed autocrat, that’s especially true. But Kim Jong-un’s atomic appetite has done little to unite the two regional powers most immediately threatened – South Korea and Japan. Short of pooling efforts to contain Pyongyang, Seoul and Tokyo are embroiled in an increasingly bitter dispute over trade, security, and chronic historical grievances.

Months of mounting tensions came to a head in July, when Japan imposed stringent export restrictions on materials destined for South Korea. Outraged, Seoul put together a list of countries that do not abide by internationally accepted commercial standards, placing Japan at the very top. Seeking to escalate the tit-for-tat trade war, Tokyo then removed South Korea from its index of commerce partners, implying that exported components may reach the totalitarian North, posing a military threat. As if to confirm the trade spat’s mutation into a security showdown, Seoul then upped the ante even further, terminating an intelligence-sharing agreement and conducting military exercises near two disputed islands.

The flare-up can be traced back to a court ruling late last year, when South Korean judges ordered Japanese companies to compensate victims of wartime forced labour. The move caused consternation in Tokyo, where many deem the two nations’ ugly history settled. Annexed in the early 1900s, Korea was a Japanese colony until the Empire’s defeat in 1945. The peninsula’s population fared particularly poorly during WWII, with much of today’s scrutiny on the issue of ‘comfort women’ – tens-of-thousands of Korean females forced into sexual slavery at Japan’s behest. 

A 1965 treaty looked to settle scores with diplomatic and financial concessions, and a second accord in 2015 formalised Tokyo’s apology for its wartime conduct. “We should not drag this problem into the next generation,” said Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, whose grandfather was indicted (though never tried) for war crimes. But South Korean activists have long dismissed the settlement, arguing that they were not consulted in its formulation. Recognising this discontent, President Moon Jae-in has, since his election in 2017, pushed for its revision.

Both the South Korean leader and his Tokyo counterpart are guilty of whipping up fervour around the grievances. Abe’s unapologetic stance has engendered a mood of exasperation in Japan, with many perceiving Seoul as intransigent on the past. Old tropes of ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘faithless’ Koreans abound in right-wing circles, observers say. Discontent is perhaps more obvious in South Korea, however. A full two-thirds of citizens say they support an ongoing boycott of Tokyo’s products, which has seen the recent collapse of Japanese beer, clothing and car sales on the peninsula. 

Those fanning the flames are, as is often the case, more interested in domestic agendas than foreign relations. Prime Minister Abe is keen to please his ultranationalist base, and seems willing to borrow from the Donald Trump playbook in doing so. Raising tariffs and imposing trade restrictions make dubious economic sense, but they resonate with the nationalist thread running through Japanese society. For his part, Moon Jae-in is borrowing heavily from a time-honoured South Korean political strategy – when times are hard, act tough on Tokyo. 

And times are certainly hard. The president came into office on a promise of tackling high youth unemployment and stagnant salaries. But an increase to the minimum wage backfired, forcing many smaller businesses to shed staff or close entirely. Worse still, Moon Jae-in’s much heralded policy of rapprochement with his menacing northern neighbour has stalled. He basked in the glory of bringing President Trump and Chairman Kim to the negotiating table, but as hopes of agreement have faded, so too has the South Korean leader’s popularity.

Stoking tensions with Tokyo may offer him political cover, but it’s a risky strategy. South Korea’s goliath tech industry is dependent on Japanese suppliers for critical components. Some 90% of ‘fluorinated polyimide’ – a key ingredient in the manufacture of television screens – originates in Japan, for instance. With the likes of Samsung and LG warning that tariffs could have a material effect on their bottom-lines, South Korea’s fragile economy is likely to slow further.  

Perhaps worse than the financial hit, the spat could mark an enduring erosion of faith between the two nations, experts say.  “It will be difficult for either country to recover from the trust they lost due to their recent actions,” said Jung H. Pak, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution’s Center for East Asia Policy Studies. “Even if Moon and Abe temporarily reconcile, grievances and underlying tensions undoubtedly will resurface. But to mitigate the impact of these all-too-frequent flare-ups, so easily manipulated by opportunistic politicians, both countries must focus on their shared interests”.

With the immediacy of the North Korean threat, security is high on the list of these shared interests. Thankfully, despite Seoul’s rejection of its intelligence-sharing pact with Tokyo, a trilateral agreement with the US should ensure cooperation continues. But it’s a worrying direction of travel, and one President Trump, preoccupied with Iran, China and re-election, has brazenly refused to remedy. He above all other world leaders can bring Japan and South Korea back together. If he doesn’t, there’s only one winner – Mr Kim atop his atomic arsenal. 

L'articolo Regional Security At Risk As Japan And South Korea Spat Worsens proviene da InsideOver.

Since formally establishing a diplomatic and economic relationship in the 1960s, Japan and South Korea, respectively the third and eleventh biggest economies of the world, have always had a tumultuous love-hate relationship. Both enjoyed cooperation in many areas such as politics, economy and even sports (2002 Japan-South Korea World Cup).

Despite these positive developments, both countries are continuing to witness the horrors of the past. These historic political disagreements have always blocked these two “Bigs” of Eastern Asia to have a zero-problem relationship. Among ongoing disputes, those coming from the era of Japanese rule on the Korean Peninsula between 1910 and 1945 emerged as a burden in liaison of the two countries.

The same topics appeared once again, after South Korea’s Supreme Court ordered some Japanese companies to pay compensation for using Koreans as forced labourers during the Second World War. This decision quickly awoke dormant problems and started an escalating economic and political tension between Tokyo and Seoul. Tokyo denied the court ruling, claiming that the dispute was settled with the normalisation treaty in 1965 and asked Seoul to intervene in the matter.

However, South Korean officials ruled out such an interference with the judiciary. After accusing the South Korean government of not stopping the rekindling of such an issue, Japanese officials quickly countered the decision by imposing export restrictions in July 2019. The restrictions were on chemicals which were essential for the production of memory chips, putting South Korea’s key industry into crisis.

Nevertheless, Japanese officials constantly denied that economic measures had anything to do with the court ruling, and reiterated that the decision was motivated by national security concerns. Representatives of both countries later took the issue to WTO and bilateral diplomatic meetings were held but failed to obtain a possible outcome. The issue complicated further after Japan decided to remove South Korea from its “White List,” causing Seoul to lose its status as Japan’s most favoured trade partner. This decision was strongly criticised by South Korean authorities. President Moon Jae-in said that his country won’t be defeated again by Japan, just days before removing Tokyo from its “White List”. The tension was also felt by citizens as nationals from both countries continued to protest one another, boycotting products and reducing travels between the two countries.

The economic sector wasn’t the only area under stress. Repercussions could also be seen in other areas. For example, another key moment of the ongoing dispute emerged when South Korea decided not to renew the General Security of Military Information Agreement, which was seen as a key tool to monitor threats from Kim Jong-Un’s North Korea. The unexpected decision had a snowball effect with the attachment of other remaining non-economic disputes. Among these, the visit of South Korean lawmakers to disputed islets, known as Takeshima in Japan and Dokdo in Korean, was denounced as a provocation by Japan. The move increased fears that even other territorial disputes may re-emerge such as Tsushima/Daemado Island controversy or East Sea dispute (Sea of Japan by Tokyo, Korean Eastern Sea by Seoul).

Another disputed action came from Tokyo, when a group of Japanese officials, excluding Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and members of his cabinet, paid a visit to Yasukuni Shrine. The visits to the shrine were termed controversial by South Korean authorities as the structure houses some Japanese war criminals. The move was seen as a provocation not only by Seoul but also by Beijing as the move is considered an apology for wartime period. The “Comfort Women Dispute” was also another historic dispute that resurfaced among all the other topics. The debate closed in 2015, with the signing of a compensation agreement by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Park Geun-Hye. Four years later, President Moon Jae-In has reopened the issue as a dispute, seriously damaging previous accords.

As we can see, the ongoing trade wars are just a small part of the much bigger iceberg. We can assume that wartime controversies will most probably be ignited every time another dispute arises between the two countries. Most of the analysts see the current situation as one of the worst points in their history after the 1965 treaty. A situation like this may require an international mediator to intervene to bring back normalization in the region. The most suitable candidate seems to be the United States, due to its historically good diplomatic ties with both nations. However, Washington’s baby steps in resolving the crisis may cause others to be involved in the case; either China or Russia.

There may be several ways to end this crisis but resolving contemporary disagreements, such as trade frictions and the end of the General Security of Military Information Agreement will only serve as temporary fillers due to historical backgrounds. The real path to resolve all conflicts lie in terminating once and for all the disputes before 1965. Recent examples clearly show that whenever a dispute occurs, it will be supported by long-time problems. Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe and South Korean President Moon Jae-In, need to renew their normalization accord, leaving aside all previous enmities. Such a move will help both countries to expand their foreign policies and will also help the region conclude longstanding problems.

L'articolo Tokyo Vs. Seoul: More Than A Trade War proviene da InsideOver.

Last week, South Korea ran military exercises on Ulleung, part of a group of islets known as Dokdo in Seoul. Japan has another name for them – Takeshima – because Tokyo too claims the islets. The military drills have been held biannually since the 1990s and South Korea has maintained a small armed forces presence on the islets since the 1950s. 

A group of six lawmakers from Seoul also visited them both as a sign of sovereignty over the islands and as a response to Tokyo blocking shipments of smartphone components which South Korean companies rely on. Japan had recently removed its Asian neighbour from a white list of nations with “fast-track export status” to which South Korea responded by cancelling a military intelligence-sharing agreement. 

Bad Blood

Relations between South Korea and Japan have been rocky for the past century beginning with Japan annexing its neighbour in 1910. Under Japanese occupation, Koreans were subjected to slave labour both in factories and as sex workers. Korean women were infamously exploited as “comfort women” for Japanese soldiers during World War II. 

After the war and the liberation of South Korea, its people did not forget the atrocities they endured while subjected to foreign rule and for decades, they feared Tokyo more than adversaries in Pyongyang according to former South Korean President Syngman Rhee. 

Then, in 1965, President Park Chung-hee helped thaw relations in the interest of an improved economy, or such was her stated intention. She managed to forge a peace treaty with Tokyo which guaranteed compensation, but that money did not go to South Koreans. Instead, it went into public works projects and, critically, Park’s coffers. Following a period of protests and martial law, economic cooperation between the two Asian states began to foster largely without incident. 

Final Apology

In 2015, Park negotiated a final agreement with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe on comfort women which carried with it an apology and payment in the amount of $8.3 million for providing healthcare for victims. Both sides agreed it would be a “final and irreversible resolution” for the matter. 

“I hope that the two countries will cooperate closely to build trust based on this agreement and open a new relationship,” Park reportedly told Abe before agreeing to meet with him.

Of the 238 women who originally stepped forward as victims of the abuse, only a fraction – 46 – were still living when the agreement was reached. Historians estimate that tens of thousands of South Korean women were subjected to serve for the pleasure of Japanese soldiers. For some of those who came forward, the deal was not enough.

“The agreement does not reflect the views of former comfort women,” said one victim, Lee Yong-soo. “I will ignore it completely.” 

Intelligence Partners

A 2016 intelligence-sharing agreement also negotiated between Abe and Park promised a new day for relations between the two nations. Park was impeached, however, when it was revealed that she attempted to interfere with a court case in which former Korean slaves were suing Japanese companies. Park felt the case could cause relations to sour once again. In a self-fulfilling prophecy kind of way, Park’s successor began to do just that by publicly rebuking the 2015 deal. 

President Moon Jae-in went a step further and shuttered a foundation designed to distribute reparations to survivors. A 2013 court decision against Japanese companies, the same one which Park had tried to alter, was upheld last year and when Japan refused to pay, Seoul moved to seize Japanese business assets in South Korea. This led to Japan retaliating last month by removing the export status for South Korea. Its economy, dominated by smartphones and other electronics, is threatened if manufactures cannot readily acquire computer chips and their components. 

So Moon withdrew his nation from the intelligence-sharing agreement which the United States helped broker amid increased tensions in Asia, primarily from the like of China. 

A century of bad blood and a recent setback in relations led Japan to put pressure on South Korea to abandon its claim to Dokdo. The Japanese government issued a statement condemning both the military exercise and the visit of South Korean lawmakers. 

The recent trouble has implications for US security in the region according to former Pentagon official Patrick Cronin. At a seminar, he claimed it would be “a clear and present danger to U.S. national security.” The alliance between Washington, Tokyo, and Seoul is critical to keeping China and Russia at bay, the former of which continues to escalate tensions in the South China Sea. 

L'articolo Tensions Rise Between Seoul and Tokyo as South Korea Holds Military Exercise on Dispute Islands proviene da InsideOver.