NATO Counter-Summit

Much of downtown Chicago was shutdown last weekend due to the NATO summit. Media coverage focused largely on the summit's main agenda: ending the war in Afghanistan. Surprisingly, there wasn't a whole lot of coverage on the protests, even though a few brief moments of violence erupted. I suspect protestors did not make a huge issue out of "police brutality" since this would have undermined the credibility and distracted attention from the message of peace activists. Most activists were not looking for confrontation.

There's already been a lot of coverage about the summit. Steve Walt, who called the summit a "useless waste of time, money, and fuel" had by far the funniest comments (I don't think he intended to be funny). Anyway, what some may not have been aware about was the NATO "counter-summit" which took place at the same time in Chicago. Since the "Battle of Seattle" in 1999, parallel counter-summits have often accompanied global summits (i.e. G-8 Forum, IMF/World Bank Annual Meeting, etc...). Counter-summits are organized by peace and global justice activists who use this media platform to voice their concerns and views about peace, global capitalism, the environment, human rights etc... This particular NATO counter-summit focused on ending the Afghan war; moving U.S. tax dollars from the Pentagon to meet human needs at home, and dissolving NATO. A longer list of reasons to oppose NATO (although many of the points are only marginally related to NATO if at all) and the counter-summit conference agenda and daily schedule can be found in the provided links. And here is information about the Network for a NATO-Free Future.

I'm trying to understand how and why activists and government officials come to such radically different conclusions about peace and security, and what international relations theory might tell us about these divergent worldviews. For most of the world (or at least the West), NATO is an organization which provides security, protection, peace and stability. Yet, peace activists see NATO largely as an organization that bombs, maims, and destroys. So is NATO good or bad? Or is this nothing but a contest about the meaning and interpretation of NATO? World leaders met in Chicago to work on an exit strategy so in some ways it was ironic to see protests against the Chicago summit.

Evangelicals and Politics

Evangelicals get a bad rap for their intolerance and their association with right-wing conservatism. Some of this criticism is deserved. But I've also felt that the media and broader American public lump all "religious" Christians (those actively practicing their faith) into the category of "evangelical" and "conservative."

My own research (and advocacy) on North Korean human rights and humanitarian aid suggests this is wrong. I've encountered several evangelicals working with faith-based NGOs who think outside of the conservative box, supporting a more liberal political agenda. I've also read a couple of blogs by self-proclaimed liberal evangelicals. The death of evangelical theologian heavyweight John Stott last year also prompted Nicholas Kristof to write about compassionate evangelicals fighting for social justice.

Anyway, I just read Chris Seiple's critical response to Robert Putnam's Foreign Affairs piece "God and Caesar in America" which confirmed my observations. I think the problem in identifying "liberal" evangelicals has to do with the fact that they operate relatively silently and without recognizable leaders. Sieple offers a nice description:

They want to be defined by what they are for -- an orthodox reading of scripture, the interpretation and application of which they must faithfully grapple with -- instead of what they are against... They largely hold the same values as Evangelicals, they just aren't angry about it...

They might find aspects of the Democratic Party appealing, especially its heart for the disenfranchised, and be "turned off" by the Republican religious narrative Putnam and Campbell describe. At the same time, they do not feel comfortable with a party that seemingly resists any public discussion of what it means to be pro-life and to believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

Adding to Seiple's response, I'd add that whether this group votes Republican or Democrat will depend on how they balance their position on social issues (poverty, education, health) versus social values (gay marriage, abortion).

So what's this have to do with social movements? Well, my impression is that you're more likely to see right-wing evangelicals take it to the street (i.e. the Tea Party, North Korean human rights) than their more progressive brethren. Which is why the media and mainstream America will continue to lump all evangelicals into the conservative, right-wing camp.

Social Movement Outcomes

I just saw this blogpost discussing social movement outcomes and the impact of the Occupy Movements. I'm largely in agreement with the author that the impact will be more indirect, having some influence on culture, than direct.




Anyway, it's made me think about my chapter on Jeju anti-base protests I'm supposed to write for an edited volume. I'm not sure if protestors will actually prevent the construction of the ROK naval base. One potential huge political opportunity for activists is if the progressive Democratic United Party (DUP) win the National Assembly elections in April. The DUP has claimed it will review (if not halt) current base construction plans. Aside from the immediate effect of halting base construction, anti-base activists are forcing at least some segments of political society to rethink the purpose of the base and what it actually means for South Korean security.

Social Movements and North Korea

Not possible. End of post.

Well, yes...but that doesn't mean we can't think about possibilities. Occasionally when I mention to other North Korean watchers that I do research on social movements, I get asked about the (lack of) prospects for a social movement in NK.

Here was an email I sent in response to a comment about social capital and civil society in North Korea

As for social movements, yes, most people discount an Arab Spring for NK b/c it lacks civil society. But in the study of revolutions (not that i'm advocating a revolution in NK) there is something known as preference falsification where people convey their preference for social conformity in public while holding different thoughts privately. So N.Koreans praise the regime in public while holding genuine thoughts to themselves. A side effect of preference falsification is the dampening of knowledge and information and an inability to gauge true level of discontent. So no one complains despite hardship. Under certain conditions though, private thoughts may emerge in public which may embolden others to convey their true preferences and demand for change. One of those conditions is probably the existence of information networks (or social capital if you want to call it that) so underground churches could play that role. In places like E. Germany where this theory was applied (by an economist, Timur Kuran), a network of both underground activists and some associational life (workers unions) brought safety in numbers once grievances were expressed out into the open forced regimes to make concessions.

One research I'd be curious to explore is whether development projects or something like the Kaesong Industrial Complex foster trust networks and social capital among North Koreans. Likewise, I wonder if there are there trust networks built among migrants who cross borders between NK and China as the come into contact with one another.

Perhaps we need a network

Scaling Down U.S. Military Presence in Okinawa

The Washington Post reported that the U.S. military is likely to "scale back plans to build key bases in Japan and Guam because of political obstacles and budget pressures." An earlier Stars and Stripes report (citing Bloomberg) stated that the 8,000 U.S. marines slated for relocation from Okinawa to Guam would instead be rotated through Australia and the Philippines. Additionally, the relocation of the 8,000 Marines wouldn't be contingent on the relocation of Futenma Air Station to northern Okinawa. The Pentagon hasn't released any details when the marines would leave or to what extent it would scale back its base ambitions in Okinawa or Guam.

Given U.S. defense spending cuts, I'm not entirely surprised about the U.S. and Japan backing away from the 2006 Guam Accord. Delinking the Futenma issue from the Guam relocation plan takes a lot of pressure off Tokyo from both Washington and Okinawan anti-base protestors. It's unclear whether Tokyo can now give the green light on base expansion in northern Okinawa (assuming that the U.S. still want a heliport in Okinawa) due to ongoing anti-base opposition in Okinawa. My hunch is if the U.S. really wants a heliport and have the budget for it, they'll push Japan harder for Futenma's relocation and Tokyo will probably comply.

The scenario Okinawans hope for are deeper budget cuts which lead to the closure of Futenma. Such a scenario would represent a big victory for anti-base movements. But can we claim that social movements were effective? Is the real explanation U.S. budget cuts? If one examines movements from a long time horizon one could argue that movements helped stave off immediate base expansion/relocation/opening maintaining at least the status quo until the rise of some fortunate turn of events (i.e. budget cuts, changed strategic environment etc...) leading to base closure. In this case, Futenma's relocation would count as a partial victory with anti-base pressure leading to delays and some concessions in reducing Okinawa's base burden.

But in the grand scheme of things, Okinawans would be hard-pressed to challenge the U.S.-Japan security alliance. As I argue in my book, Tokyo is constantly playing a balancing act between pressure from Washington and Okinawan demands but more often falls on the side of its security patron.

How Korean-Pop Conquered Japan....and Then the World

My TA informed me about the article on John Mearsheimer published in this month's Atlantic since my students recently read his take on realism and liberalism. However, my eyes wandered over to a photo and an article about K-pop breaking into the U.S. market. Apparently the group Girl's Generation (SNSD) is getting a gig on Letterman tomorrow night



From that article, I spotted another link to a related headline in the Atlantic: How Korean-Pop Conquered Japan. The headline is catchy because it a) it speaks of all sorts of ironies about Japan's colonial (or Korea's colonized) past; b) it takes the idea of Japan and "network power" - particularly in the domain of pop culture - and turns it on its head; c) it means the indignation I've felt about all the media hype in Korea about K-pop spreading globally (France and UK most recently) has been misplaced.

What's really interesting is how K-pop has "innovated" much faster than J-pop, and in doing so, has built its own latitude of soft power in Asia. Korea may actually be beating out Japan in its own game. Is the future with Samsung, Hyundai, LG rather than Sony, Toyota, and Panasonic? And will the transmission of Asian pop-culture outside its own region diffuse out of Seoul rather than Tokyo, Beijing, Hong Kong, or Shanghai?

The Brits and Transnational Activism on North Korean Human Rights

One of my activist friends posted a set of articles this morning (as he does every morning) on North Korean human rights (NKHR). I've been focusing primarily on U.S. or South Korean activism and NKHR but it's good to be reminded that the push for NKHR is a transnational phenomena. Raising awareness in the UK, British Parliamentarians have spoken out against human rights abuses in North Korea. Interestingly, it appears that conservative members take the lead in NKHR like their counterparts in the US Congress.

To what extent is human rights and humanitarian aid politicized under the backdrop of ongoing security problems. This is a question a former student and I are currently investigating in North Korea and Iran. Leaders are driven by principled beliefs - but how do they interact with strategic beliefs and how does this lead to politicization?