The visit of President Park Geun-hye of South Korea to the White House on May 7 underscores remarkable success and influence of her nation. Her election last December added one more name to the world’s expanding roster of women leaders of nations.

 

            The alternation of political parties in the presidential office underscores that democracy is firmly established in her country. Finally, focus on South Korea provides a healthy contrast to the ravings emanating from North Korea.

 

            As recently as the early 1960s, South Korea was one of the poorest economies in the world. Still a peasant society, the entire Korean peninsula was terribly devastated by the Korean War of 1950-53. Yet today, the Republic of Korea ranks among the top twenty economies in the world, holding leadership roles in the automobile, advanced electronics, shipbuilding and other industries.

 

            Rapid industrialization and economic modernization has been complemented by striking transition from dictatorship to democracy. President-elect Park’s father, Gen. Park Chung-hee, stifled incipient democracy and imposed extremely harsh military authoritarianism for nearly two decades. He was assassinated in 1979 by the head of the KCIA, the national intelligence agency. In Korean memory, he remains a respected symbol of strength and effectiveness for many, doubtless a factor in his daughter’s notable national electoral success.

 

            While this family history has understandably been the focus of considerable media commentary on the present Park political victory, the background of now-stable representative government in South Korea is a much more important story. Gen. Park was succeeded as chief executive by two more generals, Chun Doo Hwan and Roe Tae Woo, but growing pressure for true democratic representation proved insurmountable.

 

            The capstone of transition to democracy was the election of Kim Dae-jung as president in 1998. He completed his five-year term without interruption, and in 2000 received the Nobel Peace Prize. A principal symbol of opposition to Park dictatorship, he was imprisoned for several years. On another occasion, KCIA agents kidnapped him and planned to kill him. Only the intervention of senior U.S. CIA official Don Gregg saved his life.

 

            South Korea’s remarkable domestic accomplishments have unfolded while the country becomes increasingly influential in global arenas. In March 2012, the Obama administration shrewdly nominated President Jim Yong Kim of Dartmouth College, who was born in Seoul Korea, as President of the World Bank.

 

            Ban Ki-moon, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, is a career South Korean diplomat. Despite challenges, the UN has expanded international cooperation since the end of the Cold War era.

 

            The original vision of the United Nations combined competing goals of favoring the most powerful nations and inclusive global representation. Ban and Kim personify South Korea’s significant expanding role as a bridge between developed and developing nations.

 

            Market economies and reasonably representative governments now characterize a steadily increasing share of the world’s developing nations. In short, South Korea is ideally positioned to lead populations in poverty toward prosperity.

 

            The United Nations today is relatively strong. The vision of a UN, adopted by Allied leaders early in World War II, is confirmed. The UN and U.S. decisions in 1950 to defend South Korea have been vital to this outcome.

 

            Park Geun-hye personifies family continuity but also extraordinary national political economic and political progress. She has the opportunity to develop a starring global leadership role, with noisy North Korea shunted off to stage left.

 

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Korean ed. Oruem Publishing; Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

 

 

 

           

 

 

‘The first challenge is corruption,’ Ambassador Bernard Bajolet, representative of France to Afghanistan, stated as he completes this assignment and prepares to return to Paris for another post. Diplomats are generally paid to be discreet, polished and smooth – in short, diplomatic.

 

            Bajolet by contrast is blunt, stating that most of those governing Afghanistan do not believe in their own country’s future. As if on cue, Afghanistan President Hamid Karzai at the end of April confirmed reports that cash has been received directly from the CIA.

 

            Karzai’s office elaborated vaguely funds have underwritten ‘operations, assisting wounded Afghan soldiers and paying rent.’ There is no evidence that any of the funds went for the leader’s personal use. U.S. officials will not confirm or deny the reports.

 

            Meanwhile, violence continues in the beleaguered country. On April 29, seven Americans were killed in a plane crash, and the next day three British soldiers on patrol were killed by a roadside bomb. On May 1, Afghan government peace council member Malim Shawali was murdered by insurgents.

 

            The Taliban also carries out spectacular raids. In early April, gunmen attacked a court house in western Farah province, and killed or wounded nearly one hundred fifty people. In September 2012, a sophisticated, coordinated ground attack against Camp Bastion in Helmand Province killed two U.S. Marines and destroyed aircraft valued at approximately $200 million. Highly effective attackers in three teams wore U.S. Army uniforms. A second attack two days later in southern Afghanistan killed four NATO soldiers.

 

            Insurgent attacks, however, are not continuous and have not yet resulted in detectable cumulative gains. The Taliban and associated factions remain unable to mount an offensive which recaptures and holds territory.

 

            By definition, this struggle reaches beyond military operations. Afghanistan strategic efforts, sponsored and supported by both the UN and NATO, involve vital political and economic as well as military dimensions. In a visit to Kabul in July 2012, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton announced Afghanistan and the United States are now formal allies.

 

            The new partnership facilitates closer cooperation, including more rapid delivery of military equipment, supplies and weapons. This becomes more important as American forces leave that country. After the announcement, Secretary Clinton and Karzai attended a conference in Tokyo, where donor nations pledged $16 billion in new assistance to Afghanistan.

 

            This formal alliance and substantial economic assistance occurs while the United States is disengaging from direct military combat. President Barack Obama remains firmly committed to the policy of withdrawal in 2014. The lengthy and often frustrating nature of the war can also mask positive political changes. Recent elections have been reasonably honest. Women steadily become more active in various fields.

 

            Bajolet’s blast should be evaluated with his professional background in mind. His recent career has publicly involved intelligence work, not conventional diplomacy. Before going to Afghanistan, he was security adviser to President Nicolas Sarkozy. His next job will be head of France’s Direction Génerale de la Sécurité Extérieure, the national intelligence service.

 

            From an historical perspective, British expeditions to Afghanistan were frustrated through the 19^th century. London eventually achieved a cooperative regime in Kabul by combining economic incentives with diplomatic and military tools.

 

            British officials employed shrewd calculation and patience. The Americans, French and others must do the same in Afghanistan today.

 

            As for Bajolet, if his ploy helps reduce corruption, he deserves special commendation, probably best awarded in private.

 

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (NYU Press and Macmillan/Palgrave). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

 

 

 

 

 

 

‘Hitting a bullet with a bullet’ aptly describes the challenge of missile defense. North Korea threats underscore the importance of this technology.

 

            Other news overshadows but does not remove this threat. On April 26, Seoul announced 175 workers at the idle Kaesong industrial park in North Korea will be withdrawn. Pyongyang terminated cooperation early this month.

 

            The Pentagon is expanding anti-ballistic missile (ABM) defenses on the U.S. West Coast, and the Lockheed Martin THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Air Defense) anti-missile system has arrived on Guam, a publicized potential target. In 2009, THAAD was sent to Hawaii during an earlier crisis with North Korea.

 

            A somewhat comparable missile confrontation occurred during the final months in office of President George W. Bush. Plans were announced to deploy anti-ballistic missiles in Poland, with associated radar installations in the Czech Republic. In immediate response to this provocation, Russia’s President Dmitry Medvedev announced impending deployment of Iskander missiles to Kaliningrad, a forward area close to Western Europe.

 

            In the fall of 2009, the new Obama administration announced the U.S. would rely instead on a mobile sea-based system, with land-based mobile radars. Conservative critics instantly charged this was appeasement. In fact, President Obama made a good call.

 

            There has been sustained pressure on Washington to develop missile defense for a half century, dating back to the Eisenhower administration. At that time, defense spending absorbed more than half the entire federal budget, and a larger percentage of gross national product than today.

 

            Ike maintained control over the military primarily, though not exclusively, by putting a ceiling on the overall Pentagon budget, effectively setting the Air Force, Army and Navy against one another for available resources. One byproduct was considerable duplication of effort. Each service developed a separate strategic missile program, jealously guarding research and development information from the others.

 

            New Kennedy administration Defense Secretary Robert McNamara was instantly offended by the absence of administrative logic in this approach, and immediately imposed organization-chart order. The Air Force was given land-based strategic missiles, the Navy sea-based submarine systems, and the Army was removed from the game.

 

            The secretary and his academic analysts also rejected arguments for anti-ballistic missiles because any conceivable defensive systems could be overwhelmed at relatively low cost by simply increasing the number of attack vehicles. Under then prevalent U.S. strategic concepts, hardening missile sites was stabilizing but protecting populations was not. If a nuclear Pearl Harbor was being planned, there was no point in protecting missile launchers that would be empty.

 

            McNamara quickly unified the services against him. Ultimately the defense secretary suffered an emotional breakdown.

 

            Meanwhile, the Army pressed successfully for an ABM role. President Lyndon Johnson generously named McNamara President of the World Bank but demanded he publicly support the ABM systems.

 

            In the 1980s, President Ronald Reagan gave priority to exotic space-based missile interceptors termed the Strategic Defense Initiative or ‘Star Wars.' The Air Force became the leading service but the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff endorsed the effort, with Reagan and Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger prime exponents.

 

            The Bush Czech-Poland deployment was justified in terms of threats from Iran or other extremist states. Nuclear strategist Herman Kahn used exactly that argument in trying to bolster desolated Robert McNamara when the earlier ABM system was announced.

 

            The radical rogue regime of North Korea, still committed to Cold War totalitarianism, is precisely the sort of threat Kahn had in mind.

 

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of 'After the Cold War'(NYU Press and Macmillan/Palgrave). E-mail him at acyr@carthage.edu

 

 

 

 

In pursuing current events as in playing cards, evaluating the wider atmosphere is as important as studying the specific hand one has been dealt. Our current concerned focus on North Korea’s alarming rhetoric, and China’s caution in efforts to rein in their problem child, is understandable. However, this must be complemented by considering developments in wider Asia.

 

            That broader perspective must include Taiwan, where extremely encouraging positive events are unfolding vis-à-vis mainland China. On April 11, Taiwan’s government advanced to parliament a bill to allow Beijing to open an official representative office on the island.

 

            On April 15, Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou discussed progress via video with a Stanford University audience. Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice moderated the session, which was widely viewed around the United States.

 

            The governing Kuomintang (KMT) Party controls the Taiwan legislature, and the proposal should become law quickly. This will facilitate China reciprocating relatively quickly. Neither side is using formal terms of diplomacy such as consulate or embassy, but that in fact is how the facilities would function.

 

            The reality is that stable relations and de fact recognition, without fussy formalities, are moving steadily forward. The two sides were once harsh ideological rivals sharing a bitter legacy of battle and blood.

 

            Yet beyond this legacy, a firm foundation of cooperation between Taiwan and mainland China steadily expands. In November 2008, historic negotiations concluded with comprehensive trade agreements, including direct shipping, expansion of weekly passenger flights from 36 to 108, and introduction of up to 60 cargo flights per month.

 

            In 2010, the bilateral Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) was concluded. This has been a major triumph for Taiwan President Ma Ying-jeou, leader of the KMT and former Mayor of Taipei. His election and reelection to the presidency in 2008 and 2012 has led to reduce tensions and increased cooperation with Beijing.

 

            In a 2006 New York visit, Ma emphasized the 1992 agreement with Beijing to accept the concept of ‘one China’ while differing on specifics. That accord is fundamental to the fitful but forward collaboration. Ma’s dramatic reaffirmation of this understanding while in America’s financial capital was shrewd politics.

 

            Pragmatism characterizes Taiwan’s approach to mainland China. Following Washington’s formal diplomatic recognition of Beijing in 1978, a process begun by President Richard Nixon’s 1972 visit, Taipei immediately launched a comprehensive essentially non-confrontational strategic response.

 

            Consular offices around the U.S. were expanded. State government officials, along with members of Congress, were assiduously courted. Arkansas Gov. Bill Clinton was among those who visited Taiwan. Positive Congressional ties became an especially important priority, which clearly paid dividends over the years. Continued U.S. arms aid is one result.

 

            Taiwan has become essential investor for the enormous industrial revolution taking place on the mainland. Commercially successful, generally well-educated overseas Chinese in turn are a vital source of capital for the mainland. Expatriate Chinese also vote in Taiwan elections.

 

            The 2008 and 2010 agreements are not only inherently important but a useful barometer of relations between China and Taiwan. From time to time, U.S. arms aid to Taiwan has threatened to derail cooperation – but the process survives. Ending economic cooperation now would bring enormous costs.

 

            The Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement now stands as an historic milestone in China’s peaceful integration. Beijing from time to time has delayed but not destroyed this now definitive dialogue.

 

            So far, trade and investment have trumped ideology.

 

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Macmillan/Palgrave and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu

 

 

 

 

North Korea’s propaganda reference to the ‘venomous swish’ of the skirt of South Korea President Park Geun-hye is loaded with symbolism, mostly unintended. She is the first woman to be elected chief executive of the Republic of Korea. This achievement has inspired even the predictable propagandists of Pyongyang to add some color, albeit inappropriate, to their otherwise monotonous nonstop abuse.

 

            President Park’s election last December is the latest step forward in one of the world’s most remarkable national success stories. As recently as the early 1960s, South Korea was one of the poorest economies in the world, still a peasant society, terribly devastated by the Korean War. Today, South Korea ranks among the top twenty economies in the world, holding leadership roles in the automobile, advanced electronics, shipbuilding and other industries.

 

            Rapid industrialization and economic modernization has been complemented by striking transition from dictatorship to democracy. Park Geun-hye’s father, Gen. Park Chung-hee, stifled incipient democracy and imposed harsh military rule for nearly two decades. He was assassinated in 1979 by the head of the KCIA, the national intelligence agency. In Korean memory, he remains a respected symbol of strength and effectiveness for many.

 

            While this family history has understandably been the focus of considerable current media commentary, the background of now-stable representative government in South Korea is a much more important story. Gen. Park was succeeded as chief executive by two more generals, Chun Doo Hwan and Roe Tae Woo, but growing pressure for true democratic representation proved unstoppable.

 

            The capstone of transition to democracy was the election of Kim Dae-jung as president in 1998. He completed his five-year term without interruption, and in 2000 received the Nobel Peace Prize. A principal symbol of opposition to Park dictatorship, he was imprisoned for several years. On another occasion, KCIA agents kidnapped him and planned to kill him. Only the intervention of senior U.S. CIA official Don Gregg saved his life.

 

            South Korea’s domestic accomplishments have unfolded while the country becomes increasingly influential in global arenas. In March 2012, the Obama administration shrewdly nominated President Jim Yong Kim of Dartmouth College, who was born in Seoul Korea, as President of the World Bank.

 

            Ban Ki-moon, current Secretary-General of the United Nations, is a career South Korean diplomat. Despite challenges, the UN has expanded international cooperation since the end of the Cold War era.

 

            The original vision of the United Nations combined competing goals of favoring the most powerful nations and inclusive global representation. Ban and Kim personify South Korea’s significant expanding role as a bridge between developed and developing nations.

 

            Market economies and reasonably representative governments now characterize a steadily increasing share of the world’s developing nations. In short, South Korea is ideally positioned to lead populations in poverty toward prosperity.

 

            The UN has become stronger since the end of the Cold War. The remarkable vision of Winston Churchill and Franklin D. Roosevelt during World War II has been confirmed.

 

            As democracy becomes ever more widely rooted around the world, women emerge as leaders of more and more nations. Britain’s former Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who died on April 8 at the age of 87, is remembered for her strength as leader during the final decade of the Cold War.

 

            She often referred to Churchill’s example. President Park needs comparable strength in trying to coexist with North Korea.

 

Arthur I. Cyr is Clausen Distinguished Professor at Carthage College in Wisconsin and author of ‘After the Cold War’ (Korean ed. Oruem Publishing; Macmillan and NYU Press). He can be reached at acyr@carthage.edu