The Godfather Offer for Korean Reunification

On February 12, North Korea conducted its third nuclear test in six years. Although the Korean previously yawned at North Korea's nuclear tests, there are reasons to think that this time is different from the last two, and we should start to worry. This is not to say that you should cancel your vacation plan of visiting Korea: the Korean can confidently say that today's Seoul, or any other part of South Korea, is exactly as safe as it was on February 11, and will remain so until something far more threatening than a nuclear test happens. Here, the Korean is talking about geopolitical concern--as in, how the situation will develop in the years ahead.

The most worrisome part is this round of nuclear testing is that, this time, North Korea seems to be successful in developing a real nuclear weapon, or at least very close to it. One of the reasons why the previous two tests were not as worrisome was because there was no real confirmation that those tests were successful. The first test did not even produce a kiloton of explosive power, and was derided as a "fizzle". The second test created a bigger bang, but the tremor it caused was still barely detectable. 

Not so this time: the test from yesterday registered 4.9 on the Richter scale, indicating that this is a real deal, or at least pretty close to it. It is estimated that the nuke from yesterday was approximately one-third of the power of the Hiroshima bomb, and four times greater than North Korea's second test. There is also a possibility that this bomb is a uranium-based bomb rather than a plutonium-based one, which means North Korea would be able to mass produce nuclear weapons. Further, it must be remembered that, only six weeks ago, North Korea successfully launched a rocket (which can easily be turned into an ICBM) that is able to strike the West Coast of the United States. The cash-hungry North Korea can attempt to sell some or all of its technology to just about anyone in the world.

I am not trying to be alarmist. I certainly do not think there is any danger of Seoul in a mushroom cloud, or a nuclear missile flying to Seattle, any time soon. (Really, I don't.) But I do worry about what will happen in 10 years or so. While there is no confirmation that North Korea has developed a miniaturized nuclear warhead that may be equipped onto an ICBM, the trend of development is unmistakable at this point: North Korea is forging its way to that point, and it will get there sooner rather than later.

Equally predictable is the likely reaction from South Korea and to a lesser degree, Japan. At this point, these two American allies are bereft of any more meaningful options to assure themselves that a nuclear weapon is not headed their way. Sooner or later, South Korea and/or Japan will want to arm themselves with nuclear weapons as well, or, at least equip themselves with the missile capacity to intercept any incoming nuclear weapon. Already, in response to the test, South Korean policymakers are starting to discuss the need to develop the capacity for "mutually assured destruction." (In fact, South Korea attempted to develop its own nuclear weapons in the 1970s, until the Americans put a stop to it.) A possibility that could be achieved even more easily is for the U.S. to re-deploy tactical nukes in South Korea--recall that, from 1958 to 1991, U.S. stored tactical nuclear weapon in South Korea until the first Bush Administration withdrew them.

This is not an appealing picture for the world's number 2 superpower, China. If there were nuclear weaponry available in South Korea and Japan, China would--not unjustifiably--consider the situation be a severe threat. It is not difficult to imagine that even a small spark, just one itchy trigger finger over, say, the dispute between China and Japan with respect to the Diaoyou/Senkaku Islands, could cause a nuclear war.

In sum, we could be headed toward a kind of four-way prisoner's dilemma: a situation in which the decision to pursue the short term interest, without knowing other parties' intentions, leading to the detriment of the long term interest for every player involved. (Here, infuriatingly, North Korea is the warden that holds the key.) Nobody--not U.S., not South Korea, not Japan, and not even China--wants to live in a nuclear tinderbox, yet we could be moving that way.

Is there a way out? If the Korean can propose a cockamamie scheme to fix America's immigration problem and put away the historical issue between Korea and Japan once and for all, why wouldn't he be able to come up with a cockamamie scheme to get out of this mess? Sure, the plan would require a level of boldness on the part of every party, such that it will almost certainly never happen. Which is why it belongs on a blog.

(More after the jump.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

*               *               *

Here is the central consideration that drives this plan: what North Korea wants to achieve through a nuclear weapon is regime survival. Truly, this is the only thing North Korea wants. And North Korea will hang onto its nuclear weapon only as long as its regime--that is, Kim Jong-un and his cronies--continues to survive. This has been obvious from the very beginning of North Korea's nuclear development.

Ignoring this obvious motivation leads to disastrous results. The prime example of this was South Korean president Lee Myeong-bak's North Korean policy, which was particularly foolish. As he took the office, President Lee proposed a bargain with North Korea: if North Korea gave up its nukes and opened up its economy, South Korea would provide enough aid and investment to push North Korean per capita GDP to $3,000. How did North Korea react to that proposal? Two nuclear tests, bombing of a South Korean naval vessel and shelling of a South Korean island near the maritime border during Lee's tenure. Why? Simple: the North Korean regime doesn't give a shit about its country's per capita GDP.

This central consideration comes with a depressing corollary: it is likely that North Korea will never give up its nuclear weapon, because there is practically no way to truly guarantee North Korea's regime survival. For now, let us set aside the moral repugnance of bribing the North Korean totalitarianism that let 330,000 of its people starve to death and runs death camps that are properly comparable to Auschwitz. Practically speaking, North Korea is so decrepit, and its people so benighted, that there is no real way to achieve true stability with North Korea that guarantees the regime survival. Forget liberal democracy; North Korea would not even survive if South Korea surrendered today and agreed to reunify under North Korea's terms. If that were to happen, South Korea's wealth and quality of living--incomparably greater than those of North Korea--would destroy North Korea from inside out. The result is the same if North Korea were to develop economically. If North Koreans achieved a quality of living comparable to, say, Vietnam, the Kim Jong-Un regime would not survive.

Fundamentally, North Korean regime survives like the way any other totalitarian regime has survived in history--by constantly manufacturing a series of external, existential threats, which are used to justify the oppression of its own people. In short, North Korea needs crises to survive. And North Korea needs the nukes to continue manufacturing the crises. So why would North Korea ever give up its nukes?

*               *               *

So we are back to the four-way prisoners' dilemma: the U.S. will have its West Coast targeted with nuclear ICBMs, and will not be able to stop nuclear proliferation out of North Korea, while Northeast Asia rushes to another nuclear arms race. Nobody wants this to happen, but we are headed down that road anyway. But is there a way out?

Here is one way out: induce a rapid collapse of North Korean society, depose the Kim Jong-Un regime, and reunify the Korean peninsula. I know that this sounds implausible, radical and dangerous. But as long as the North Korean regime links the possession of nuclear weapon with its life, the only way to dispossess the nuclear weapon is to end that life. The timing has to be now, before North Korea does manage to actually put a nuclear warhead on an ICBM. Further, there are good reasons to think that this plan could work, and the risks of this plan is not as high as one might think.

This is how the plan could look like. The most important key word in this plan is "rapid." The collapse must be rapid--as in, within less than a month--in order to minimize the risk involved by taking away the time for the Kim regime to react. Because North Korea is so decrepit, this can be easily achieved as long as there is concentrated effort. The most efficient way is, obviously, through China. For example, North Korea imports nearly all of its petroleum from China. All of the petroleum passed through a single point in the China-North Korea border--through the city of Dandong. Shut down the spigot, and the North Korean economy (such as it is) grinds to halt within weeks. (In fact, China did shut down the spigot for three days after North Korea's second nuclear test, to express its displeasure.)

But there are a number of ways that South Korea alone can induce a collapse without the Chinese help. President Park Geun-hye, for example, could issue a statement reaffirming South Korea's constitutional provision that North Koreans are also the citizens of the Republic of Korea, and announce that any North Korean outside of North Korea will receive South Korea's diplomatic protection. South Korea could also establish a safe passage through the DMZ, and invite any North Korean to defect. These measures are designed to cause a massive stream of defection to the point that the regime could no longer control its people's movement. The U.S. can join in the party as well. Joshua Stanton's suggestion to hit the pocketbooks of North Korean regime's "palace economy" is a good one, and could also seriously destabilize the North Korean regime.

Next is the hard part: at some point along the way, China must join this plan. Ideally, China would join the plan from the very beginning and participate in the North Korean embargo. This possibility is admittedly remote, but not as outlandish as one might think. There is simply no love left for North Korea among China's populace, and there are signs that even the Chinese leadership is exasperated with North Korea. Although China taking an active role in North Korea's demise is unlikely, it is not unthinkable.

The more likely path is for South Korea and U.S. to force China into a choice. U.S. and South Korea can earnestly move toward collapsing the North Korean regime, and make China confront the question: do you really want to go to war against your first- and third-largest trading partners, over Kim Jong-Un? With the right kinds of inducement--the Godfather offer that China cannot refuse--U.S. and South Korea can get China on board.

What would such inducement look like? Given the importance of China in this plan, the inducement must cater to China's policy preferences to a degree that may seem excessive. Ultimately, China is keeping the North Korean regime on life support because of two benefits: (1) stability, and (2) buffer against the potential overland American invasion (however unlikely that may be.) With North Korea openly defying Beijing's orders to stand down on the nuke test, the stability rationale is already on weak grounds. China must be made to understand that, if North Korea can be pushed to the point of teetering, South Korea's absorption of North Korea--i.e. reunification--is the only realistic way for lasting stability, because South Korea is the only country in the world that has the ability and willingness to take on that task. With that in mind, this could be the package that South Korean and the U.S. can offer to China:

• Right to occupy up to 3 North Korean cities for 100 years:  Like Hong Kong and Macau, China could occupy certain cities--say, Rajin/Seonbong and Shinuiju--and govern them for a century, however they would like.  Alternatively and/or in addition, China could be given special economic rights over North Korean resources, such as mining rights.
• Shoot-to-kill border control:  This is harsh, but necessary to cater to China's interest. China simply cannot afford to have a million North Korean refugees streaming out of the country and into China. South Korea could also offer compensation for China's cost of arresting and deporting (former) North Koreans back across the border.
• U.S. withdrawal of ground troops from Korea:  The rationale for this is obvious. If U.S. balks at this, South Korea and U.S. can offer to China that USFK will not be deployed to any other place in the Korean peninsula that it is not currently deployed in.

Under normal circumstances, China would likely say no to these offers. But if China is pushed into a decision in the face of impending North Korean collapse, these terms may be enough. In exchange, China could participate in the plan to collapse North Korea, or at least stand aside as South Korea and U.S. continue to shake the tree. For old time's sake, China could also offer a safe haven for Kim Jong-Un and his cronies to exile, accelerating the process of peaceful transition.

*               *               *

Unfortunately, this plan suffers from two large risk factors. First, China may not be amenable to the Godfather offer after all. Instead--perhaps because of clumsiness on the part of South Korean and American diplomatic corps, which is certainly not beyond their ken--China may perceive a South Korean/American attempt to collapse North Korea as a threat to itself. The result may be that North Korea survives, and remains even more hostile. But with skillful negotiation, which would include a firm reminder to China that shielding North Korea is not compatible with China's interest in the long run, this risk factor can be managed.

More significant is the second risk factor: the uncertainty as to exactly what would happen as North Korea collapses. Ideally, collapse will lead to a brief period of total anarchy, at which point the South Korean military could swoop in to take control. But many things can go wrong in this process. The collapse, for example, can take the form of a rival group (that is not much better than the current regime) taking over the country. Once the rival group takes control, it may aim North Korea's nuclear weapon to anyone who dares to take over.

This risk is real, and I do not intend to minimize it. But I also believe that this risk is less than one might think. North Korea's conventional war-making capabilities are practically nonexistent at this point. Its weapons are antiquated and rusty, and North Korea lacks the petroleum to operate them for any meaningful stretch of time. What North Korea can do is to attack Seoul with artillery and short-range missiles exactly once, before American and South Korean air force reduce the artillery and missile bases to rubble. Indeed, this capability, along with China's backing, is the only measure of deterrence that North Korea possesses. But a proper emphasis should be placed on the word "deterrence." Once the deterrent force is used, it is no longer a deterrent force. Again, North Korea has little capability to wage a conventional warfare. If the South Korean military begins to push across the DMZ, what would be the point of shelling Seoul? Sure, hundreds of thousands of Seoul citizens could die. But that would not stop the South Korean advance.

Which leaves us with North Korea's nuke. We know that it is real. We also know that it is not yet at the point that can be effectively weaponized and delivered to the target. (This is, again, a big reason why North Korea should be disarmed sooner rather than later.) Also, even if North Korea has weaponized nuclear bombs, we know that it cannot possibly have more than a handful of them. In that case, North Korea's nuclear weapons are ultimately just another form of deterrence writ large. Once used, they no longer deter.

The gamble--indeed, probably the most central gamble in this entire plan--is that the North Korean regime (whether headed by Kim Jong-Un or some other dictator) would not have the capacity, or willingness, use its nuclear weapon as it stares down its inevitable demise. There is a good chance that they do not have the capacity. Even if they do, it would not be rational for them to use the nuclear weapon. And regardless of the external image to the contrary, the North Korean leadership has always been a rational actor--ruthless, murderous and terrible, but still rational.

But desperation is known to cause irrationality. Does anyone in the world have the stomach to gamble with a potential nuclear weapon hitting your soil? Likely not, so there goes this crazy idea.

Got a question or comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Looking for a few good e-Book publishers/app developers

The Korean has been working on a little project, and he could use some help at this point. If you are an experienced e-Book publisher, or an app developer with experience in interactive texts and multimedia, please inquire within by shooting in email to the Korean. Hopefully you will find this project interesting. (If you must know, yes, it will be for money.)

Please, no paper book publishers, no self-publication "helpers," etc. Many thanks in advance.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

I am not Watching Super Bowl This Year

The Korean is boycotting the Super Bowl this year. In fact, the Korean will never watch the NFL again, unless the league finds a way to dramatically reduce the level of brain damage that the players suffer. If this means American football no longer exists in the current form--instead evolving into something like touch football or rugby--I'm fine with it. If this means the death of football in America, I am ok with it.

Here is why.

*               *               *

One of my fondest memories from law school involves 1987 Chicago Bears. Not that I watched the Chicago Bears in 1987--more accurately, the memory involves a virtual simulation of the '87 Bears. 

In law school, my closest friends--let's call them JA, RT, and SW--and I wasted a lot of time together. RT had bought a hacked Xbox from eBay, which came pre-loaded with many classic NES games. One of the games was Tecmo Bowl, a video game from 1988 that primitively simulated the NFL at the time. RT and JA would play Tecmo Bowl together, while SW and I would watch the game, drink beer and crack jokes. 

RT favored San Francisco 49ers, which featured a fearsome aerial attack with Joe Montana. JA would always play Chicago Bears, relying on Walter Payton's running game. But--because we were idiots--the absolute highlight of the game featured neither of the Hall of Famers. For us, the moment we always waited for was when Chicago's safety made an interception of Montana's pass. Then the cheesy, 1980s NES graphics would flash this across the top of the screen: "INTERCEPTION!!!!!" This would be followed by these following letters: "DAVE DUERSON!!!!!!!" 

None of us has ever heard of Dave Duerson, who was a safety for the Chicago Bears in Tecmo Bowl. But that did not stop us from cracking jokes--mostly juvenile puns involving the last name "Duerson." The longest running joke was that each time Duerson made an interception, he would "Duer" RT's mom. The joke kept running because the virtual Dave Duerson would make plays like clockwork. Duerson in our Tecmo Bowl games would make about 10 interceptions a game, largely because of RT's overconfidence in the Niners' West Coast Offense. With SW, a masterfully funny guy, this joke expanded into the ones featuring various places and manners in which Dave Duerson would have sex with RT's mother.

For one Super Bowl, we decided that the four of us should kill 100 cans of Coors Light that day, and play more Tecmo Bowl before the game came on. With about five beers in, I foolishly declared that I would shotgun a can of beer each time Duerson made an interception. I don't remember how many cans of Coors Light I drank in what could not have been more than a 20 minute span, but they were enough to make me black out for the entire Super Bowl game, muttering: "Dave Duerson, you did this to me, you're awesome."

(More after the jump.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

-------------------------------

Dave Duerson, S, Chicago Bears
(source)

After our Tecmo Bowl days were over, I forgot all about Dave Duerson. It was several years after I graduated from law school that I came across an article on ESPN.com that mentioned his name. The article was a profile of Bears' legendary nose tackle, William "Refrigerator" Perry. After retiring from football, the "Fridge" was living a broken life marred by alcoholism, obesity and poor financial decisions. The article briefly mentioned Duerson's name--as it turns out, Dave Duerson was one of the few former teammates of Perry who worried for him, and ensured that Perry was cared for.

After reading the article, I googled Dave Duerson a bit, because until then, Duerson to me was not much more than a set of a few crude pixels named after him. I found that Duerson really was a good football player. He was a two-time All-American at Notre Dame. He won two Super Bowls--once with the 1985 Chicago Bears. Twice, he made second team All-Pro, and played in four Pro Bowls. Even better, he was one of those athletes who managed to make something out of himself after his playing career was over. Duerson was a multimillionaire; he owned a number of businesses after he retired, and was quite successful running them. And most importantly, Duerson was a decent man who took care of his teammates years after they stopped playing together. His story warmed my heart.

Just a few days later, I would hear about Duerson again. JA emailed me: "TRAGEDY". The attached link said Dave Duerson died at age 51. Cause of death was unknown. We noted the tragedy, real (Duerson was only 51) and comical (who will now make me shotgun 10 beers in 10 minutes?) We decided to have a Dave Duerson Memorial Beer Summit, time and place TBD.

-------------------------------

A few weeks later, I read a column by Bill Simmons, in which he railed against NFL team owners. In the column, Simmons pretended that he was a heartless NFL team owner. One of the last lines of the column read:

Heck, I don't even care that one of my former employees was so destroyed mentally by [concussions] that, instead of just killing himself, he made arrangements ahead of time for his brain to be studied by [doctors], then shot himself in the heart. It was the creepiest, most haunting story in recent memory, the kind of incident that makes you sigh and say, "Wait, what are we doing to these people?" I don't care. I don't care. I don't care.

It was the first time I heard this--that a former NFL player shot himself in the heart, just so he could make sure that doctors could take a look at his brain. Curious, I googled: "NFL player suicide brain injury." The first result was this article from Wired.com:

Dave Duerson, a two-time Super Bowl champion with the Chicago Bears and New York Giants, tragically chose to take his own life last week.

But when the 50-year-old former NFL safety and successful entrepreneur shot himself in the chest, there was another purpose: so that his brain could be donated to Boston University researchers and studied to assess the life-long neurological effects of playing in the National Football League.

For sure, it has been an incredibly enlightening year in the NFL with regards to the present-day and long-term consequences of concussions and similar traumatic brain injuries caused on the gridiron. Duerson, cognizant of and confident that he was suffering from the effects of chronic traumatic encephalopathy—a debilitating brain injury that has stricken many current and former football players, from college to the pros—texted family members only hours before taking his own life, imploring them to have his brain donated to those who can study it for evidence of the condition.

In fact, when police arrived at Duerson’s apartment, they found a hand-written note: “PLEASE, SEE THAT MY BRAIN IS GIVEN TO THE NFL’S BRAIN BANK.”

My heart sank.

 -------------------------------

I am actually a big fan of toughness. In this blog, I yelled at people who wouldn't engage in rote memorization of foreign language vocabulary to "suck it up, you soft sack of shit!" My preference is the same when it comes to my sports watching habit--I love athletes who play through the pain. 

As a Lakers fan, my biggest sports hero is Kobe Bryant. One of the qualities that I admire the most about Kobe is that he is an absolute warrior when it comes to playing through pain. Kobe keeps playing with three broken fingers, two of them on his shooting hand. Kobe keeps playing after getting fluid drained from his knee. I have a bad knee--a ski injury from I was young. The MCL in my left knee is arthritic, like a slowly unraveling piece of thread. I can't even finish a round of golf without downing four pills of Advil. If I ski two days in a row, I can hardly walk the next day. Kobe runs and jumps on his bad knees every day. That gives him a heroic quality.

Besides, injuries happen in sports. Heck, death can happen in sports. No aspiring pro athlete would be ignorant of the fact that bodily injury comes with the territory when one is playing sports for money. Sometimes basketball careers end tragically, like the way Shaun Livingston's promising young career was destroyed by catastrophic knee injury. But those things happen. To his credit, Livingston returned to NBA and is actually a decent backup PG. But even if he could not play basketball again, Livingston must have known that injury could happen to him. Knee injuries happen all the time in basketball, and there is no mystery as to the consequence of a severe knee injury. 

Plus, Livingston was paid well for taking this risk. Even just with his rookie salary he already earned more money than most people will ever earn in their entire lives. As long as Livingston makes sound financial decisions, there is no reason why he could not live a comfortable, normal life with his wife and children.

But--can we say the same things about a former football player with a brain injury? Ever since the news of former NFL players suffering brain damage after retirement began trickling out in the last couple of years, I became increasingly unable to watch the game, because I cannot say yes to that question.

Brain injury is not like knee injury, or any other physical injury. My knee injury did not change who I am. Brain injury would have. If there is any body part that determines who you are, it is your brain. Your personality, your intelligence, your emotions come from your brain. Your speech, your vision, your balance come from your brain. Everything about you starts from the brain. And we still have no idea exactly what part of the brain controls what part of our body and our mind.

I can say in good conscience that people should be able to risk a lifetime of arthritis in exchange for playing sports. But can I say in good conscience that people should be able to lose their sense of self in exchange for playing sports? I know that tough guys like Ed Reed (who was one of my favorite guys to watch in football) say that they signed up for the risk. But I am not sure if any NFL player is aware of the full ramification of the risk that they signed up for, when nobody in the world really knows how the brain works.

The last days of Dave Duerson give a glimpse of how his brain damage might have destroyed the successful life that he constructed after he retired from football. Duerson was good at business. He graduated with honors as an Economics major. After he finished playing football, Duerson purchased an industrial farm and pushed its annual revenue from $24 million to $63.5 million in six years. But only a few months before he committed suicide, Duerson was bankrupt, with less than $20,000 in assets. It is hardly a stretch to think that chronic traumatic encephalopathy--or CTE, which causes early onset dementia, depression, and God-knows-what-else-because-we-have-no-idea-how-brain-works-exactly--interfered with Duerson's business judgment. As Miami New Times put it: "Dave Duerson was once a millionaire and a CEO. When he took his own life in the throes of dementia, his most valuable asset was a nine-year-old car."

Dave Duerson was 51 when he killed himself. Would Ed Reed be thinking about what his life will look like in 15, 20 years? Would an aspiring young NFL player be thinking about his life when he is 50? How could you possibly plan for your life in the future when you are no longer yourself, and you have no idea how you will change? Can you imagine how your life would be if you were dumber and more forgetful? How about if you were more impulsive and violent? Would you trust yourself to have a job, or run a business? Would you trust yourself around your wife and children?

As my mind was processing Duerson's death, I had a flashback of many awful head injuries I have seen while watching live football on television. I remember Jahvid Best falling on his head while scoring a touchdown. When I saw his body stiffening up, I thought he died or at least would never walk again. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QzKKUJ5eRxo). I remember when Cal's Tom DeCoud clocked a UCLA player during a DeSean Jackson punt return--the UCLA player got up, took a few steps, and collapsed again like his legs suddenly turned into paper. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo9e2Jf7R0o) (At 1:40 mark.) I remember seeing Pat White--one of my favorite college QBs ever--not falling, but dropping like a brick after getting hit in the head. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-9asg-by8Yc&feature=fvst) In my life, I must have watched more than twice as many hours of basketball than football, and three times as many hours of baseball than football. But only in football I thought--more than a few times--someone just died on the field.

Can I stop watching football? Even with all these things swirling in my head, I actually had a hard time answering no, because I love football. I love the under-appreciated cerebral nature of the game. Shoot, I love the hard hits too. I love the way football puts me through the emotional highs and lows like no other sport. I love the fact that football connects me to a larger community of like-minded people. I love the fun tailgates, the time spent with my friends and fellow fans. I love the visual memories that football gave me. The view of the sun setting into the San Francisco Bay, seen from the Tightwad Hill overlooking the Memorial Stadium, will forever be one of the most beautiful things I have ever seen in my life. I couldn't quit cold turkey, so I hung on. I kept watching football through the 2011-2012 season, although less frequently and less joyfully.

Junior Seau
(source)

Then came the last straw. On May 2, 2012, Junior Seau killed himself. Like Dave Duerson, Seau shot himself in the heart. By following the news, I belatedly learned that Ray Easterling, the lead plaintiff in the class action lawsuit against the NFL, also committed suicide on April 19, 2012. (Autopsy showed that both Seau and Easterling had CTE.) I also learned that the number of plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit was greater than a thousand. More than a thousand brain-damaged plaintiffs, all former NFL players. The list of players include Super Bowl MVPs, Hall of Famers, multiple Pro Bowlers. And I knew that, in my lifetime, many of my favorite NFL players will end up on the same list, as long as we cheer them on to ram their heads against each other over and over and over.

I could not take it any more. In the last season, I did not watch any NFL game, did not play fantasy football, and did not read any NFL-related sports news. I declined all invitations I received for a Super Bowl party. This Sunday, I plan to cook a nice dinner for my wife instead. The television will be off.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Where is Korean Rock?

Dear Korean,

I know that you've touched a little bit on Korean rock music-- particularly in your "most influential" series-- but I was curious as to what the rock scene is really like in Korea today. Why is there so little Korean rock music? How are rockers treated today in Korea, considering the dominance of the K-pop idols?

Curious K-Rock fan

Let's address the first question first -- why is there so little Korean rock music?

Answer:  the premise of the question is wrong, because there are tons of Korean rock music. Tons. Let's put it this way: if we played a game where the Korean names two rock songs for every one idol group song, the Korean guarantees that he will win every time. In fact, this is one of the most frustrating things about discussion Korean pop music -- the idea that manufactured pretty boys and pretty girls comprise the entire universe of K-pop. Nothing can be farther from the truth.

Nor is this guy the entirety of K-pop.
You had your fun, people. It's time to move on.
(source)

It is true that Korean rock is less visible to the international audience because Korean rock, unlike Korean idol groups, is not systematically pushed abroad by well-capitalized management companies. It is also true that Korean rock is less "mainstream," in a sense that Korean rock sells less number of albums, appear less on television and less frequently heard (if at all) in shopping malls in Korea.

But so what? Isn't being independent, underground and non-commercial more properly within the spirit of rock and roll? Do you know how many number one singles that the legendary rock band Radiohead has? Zero. How about other legends like Led Zeppelin or Depeche Mode? Also zero. Celine Dion has not one, but two, albums that outsold Nirvana's Nevermind, widely considered the greatest alternative rock album ever. Speaking of Nevermind, you would never hear Smells like Teen Spirit in your neighborhood mall. But does any of these factoids diminish the importance or influence of rock music? Of course not.

The lesson here is simple: people like mainstream pop more than rock music. That's why mainstream pop is mainstream. Korean pop music scene is not an exception -- that's why mainstream Korean pop established a beachhead in the international stage first. But that should not lead to the conclusion that rock music does not exist in Korea, or Korean people don't like rock music. In fact, rock music is one of the two pillars that hold up the foundation of Korean pop music, and it has a storied history in Korea. (The other pillar is -- don't laugh -- trot [트로트]. This will be explained in a future post.)

(More after the jump.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

The history of Korean rock music is not much shorter than the history of rock and roll itself because, fortuitously, Korea came to be under heavy American influence almost as soon as American musicians invented rock and roll in the early 1950s. But why was Korea so susceptible to American influence at that time?

Because of Korean War. By the time Elvis Presley recorded That's All Right Mama in July 1954, nearly 100,000 American soldiers were stationed in South Korea. In the wake of South Korea's total destruction, those American soldiers basically represented the only consumers of pop music in Korea -- and those soldiers liked rock and roll. This meant Korean musicians had to learn rock and roll, and quickly, in order to make a living.

Shin Joong-hyeon in 1970s
(source)

Once drawn into rock and roll, Korean musicians appreciated the beauty of the music, and began creating their own rock music. Most legends of early Korean rock cut their teeth playing for the U.S. troops in USO shows and clubs near USFK bases. (For example, the incomparable Shin Joong-hyeon -- dubbed the "Godfather of Rock" in Korea -- began his musical career playing for American soldiers at clubs.) Since then, rock has been a constant presence in Korean pop music, even as its overall influence waxed and waned. Korean rock enjoyed its golden age in the late 1980s, with the top rock bands of the time drawing as much popularity as any celebrity. 

Korean rock experienced a brutally lean period in the 10-year stretch between late 1990s to early 2000s, as East Asian Financial Crisis dramatically reduced the size of the economic pie allotted to pop musicians, while the manufactured idol groups began to dominate the scene. For a time, it seemed like idol groups were crowding the field to the extent that they were about to choke Korean rock out of existence. As it turns out, however, Korean rock had already taken a firm root. Rock music retreated to Korea's indie scene, survived, and continued to thrive in its own way.

What is the state of rock music in Korea now? Obviously, Korean rock is not as huge as Korea's idol-driven mainstream pop, which now forms a major strand in worldwide pop culture. However, overall health of Korea's rock scene is quite sound, especially compared to a decade ago. In fact, Korean rock could be entering into a renaissance of sorts since last year. Koreans in their 50s and 60s -- i.e. those who spent their youths in 1970s and 80s -- are reminiscing fondly about classic Korean rock. New indie rock bands like Busker Busker and Guckkasten enjoy a lot of TV time and album sales. And of course, the club rock scenes -- headlined by the legendary Club Drug in Hongdae area, which is considered the birthplace of Korean indie music -- are as lively as ever, featuring ever greater number of bands featuring sophisticated and diverse sounds. Obviously, not every one of them is a celebrity, or even makes a decent living. But that, too, is the rock and roll spirit.

How can an international aficionado of Korean pop music be introduced to Korean rock? This list of nominees for Korean Music Awards 2013 is a good start. KMA is the most authoritative pop music award in Korea, presented by a committee of more than 70 critics and journalists. (In other words, none of the vote-rigging shenanigans committed by the deluded members of idol fan clubs.) You might notice that the list of nominees hardly contains any boy/girl bands. Out of the nearly 50 musicians nominated, only four represents the "idol" field -- G-Dragon, whose One of a Kind is nominated for Song of the Year; f(x) and Sistar for the Best Dance & Electronic Song and; Ga-in is nominated for Best Pop Song.

Other nominees represent jazz, R&B, hip hop and, yes, rock, including modern rock, alternative rock and heavy metal. The Korean would highly recommend clicking through each artist's nomination page, as each page (for the most part) contains a sample video of the artist's music. Once you find the band you like, search the band's name on Youtube, and off you go. (Personally, out of the list, the Korean recommends Third Line Butterfly [3호선 버터플라이], Busker Busker [버스커 버스커] and Jeong Cha-shik [정차식].)

What about television? If you are somehow able to regularly watch Korean television shows over the Internet or local cable television, look for either Yoo Hee-yeol's Sketchbook [유희열의 스케치북], or EBS Space Gonggam [EBS Space 공감]. Both programs place an emphasis on featuring a diverse group of pop musicians (including leading indie groups,) and insist upon good live performances. Here is a sample -- Guckkasten's Mirror [거울], on EBS Space Gonggam:

For interviews and reviews in English language, www.koreanindie.com is an excellent resource. Korean rock bands with decent international following make periodic international tours as well. (Crying Nut, Galaxy Express and Third Line Butterfly toured the U.S. last March/April, although the results were hilariously sad. Read the report of their tour if you can read Korean.)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Can You Get by in Korea Without Speaking Korean?

There are some questions that the Korean receives that he is fundamentally unequipped to answer. This is one of them -- can one get by in Korea without speaking Korean? The Korean is unable to answer this question for a simple reason: there has never been a point in his life where he was unable to speak Korean in Korea. Any attempt by the Korean to answer this question would only be a guesswork.

 

Fortunately, there are others on the Internet who are able to provide thoughtful answers to this question. So here is a good one from the always-entertaining Eat Your Kimchi:

The point is, we think the whole reason why someone should learn the language in a country is for communication.  . . .  In our case, we have basic communication down. We can order anything we need at restaurants, ask for everything we need at supermarkets and shops, tell taxis where to go, ask for directions, all that. But we can’t have deeeeep discussions. We can’t talk politics or religion. We can’t tell you what Spudgy did to that teddy bear in the park (you don’t want to know what he did to that teddy bear in the park). We’re not fluent or 100% conversational, but we’re perfectly functional to the point that our local shops think that we ARE fluent speakers. It also helps that we can understand Korean, so even though our responses are basic, we’re still communicating.

So, the question we often face is why don’t we learn MORE Korean. We live in Korea, we plan on living here more, so why not become super fluent? Well, there are a few factors for us to consider. From a very honest personal standpoint, we don’t need to.  . . .  we’re already married and we don’t go out that much, because we spend so much time editing and filming. We’re with each other all the time, talking to each other all the time. More importantly, our Korean friends speak English as well, and want us to speak English with them all the time, because this is their chance to practice it when they otherwise don’t have many opportunities to do so. So from our personal perspective, learning Korean won’t really do that much for us.

Not Speaking Korean in Korea [Eat Your Kimchi]

Admittedly, the Korean's perspective is somewhat different. As the readers know, I immigrated to U.S. and learned English at a relatively late age, and learned English to the level of having above-average language skills, even compared to native speakers. (Sorry to boast, but it was necessary for the context.) 

There is, of course, difference in purposes held the Korean on one hand, and held by Simon and Martina on the other, and the difference probably drives the different life choices we made under similar circumstances. The Korean had a clear goal in making a life in the United States like any other American. I cannot know what the future plan of Simon and Martina are, but I would imagine it would differ a bit from the one I had for myself when I moved to the U.S. In other words, one could say that the bar for "adequate" level of foreign language was simply higher for the Korean.

But, in my opinion, the bigger difference between our approaches is the purposes of our language learning. EYK thinks communication is the point of language learning -- a position from which it follows that the adequate level of language learning is at the point where one can make adequate level of communication. This is a perfectly valid position, and makes a great deal of sense.

Yet the Korean has a different purpose for language learning. For me, the purpose of language learning is not communication; it is for understanding the world around me. For me, it is not enough that I have enough language skills to order food at restaurants, make small talks or do my job. I need to have enough language skills to understand the major events and issues of the society to which I belong, and understand how those events might affect me. I need to have enough language skills to speak with people who are more knowledgeable than I am in a given issue, and read what those people wrote about such an issue. Simply put, I need enough language skills to know what is going on around me.

EYK did allude to this "language bubble," as they termed the state of being unable to understand most of what is going on around them. But the Korean simply does not feel the "calm and peace" that EYK feels in the language bubble. This is likely because of fundamental difference in temperament -- after all, whenever I enter any physical space (be it someone's room, a subway car, a busy street, etc.,) the first thing I always do is to read every single printed word there is to read. This does not mean that the Korean gets annoyed or frustrated when he travels abroad to a country whose language he does not speak. But it does mean that, if I don't understand the language around me, my surroundings lose a little bit of reality for me, as if they are images from a television or artificial structures in a theme park. The Korean can tolerate that for a week or two, but not for a month or a year. 

Lest there is any misunderstanding -- this post is not to suggest this or that about Simon and Martina. The Korean already made it clear that the difference in our perspectives is likely due to our life circumstances and our temperaments. It is, simply, something to consider.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

How do Koreans feel about the Chinese?

Dear Korean,

How do Koreans feel about Chinese people?

barbbui

(source)

Wow, a question about how 50 million people feel about 1.5 billion people? Can it get any easier than this? Writing this blog is such a walk in the park.

All kidding aside, experience has taught the Korean that he should first go over the basics of what this post is, and what this post is not. What this post will do is to provide a general overview of various attitudes that toward the Chinese that can be found in various pockets of Korea. What this post will not do is to give a prediction on how you, a Chinese person, will fare in your trip to Korea, in applying to a Korean college, in a job interview with a Korean company, or in finding a Korean guy who will like you.

(Seriously, can people just STOP with that last question? Please. The Korean begs of you. He is on his knees and rubbing his hands and everything.) 

Having said that, let's jump into this ridiculously broad question, which can only be answered in a very broad manner. Suppose we have a spectrum of attitudes, going from "extremely favorable" to "extremely negative." If one surveys all the attitudes about China and the Chinese people that exist in Korea and put them on a spectrum, the attitudes would be spread from "somewhat favorable" to "pretty negative."

(More after the jump)

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Having said that, let us walk along the spectrum, starting with the "somewhat favorable" end. A lot of Koreans see many qualities to admire in the Chinese. Having spent its entire existence next to China, it is not lost upon Koreans that China has been the world's greatest civilization for several thousand years until the recent detour of a couple of centuries. Koreans are generally familiar with and favorable toward the Chinese classics (such as the Analects or the Romance of Three Kingdoms,) and share many of the traditional Chinese values such as Confucianism. (In fact, because the communist China has done much to distance itself from its traditions, one can make a solid case that traditional Chinese values are best preserved in Korea.) 

Along the same lines, many Koreans refer to China as "the Chinese continent," recognizing its vastness and the power derived from the vastness. Koreans who admire China and the Chinese people speak of their large-scale thinking that leads to bold, daring decisions, and the patience to implement very long term national projects, which led to China's being the leading civilization of the world for several millennia. For those Koreans, China's current success is no more than the manifestation of the world-beating potential that China has always had. 

Going down the spectrum, however, there also exists among Koreans a gut-level, mild annoyance with the Chinese. In fact, if this type of attitude is likely to be the most prevalent among rank-and-file Koreans. Despite its recent success, individual Chinese are still poorer relative to individual Koreans, and Koreans often have the vague condescension of the kind that the rich feels over the poor toward the Chinese. Even the richer Chinese people -- many of whom visit Korea for business, study and tourism -- often come across to Koreans as nouveau riche louts, loud and ill-mannered. Of course, many Koreans also sensibly remind their society that Koreans had the exact same image just 20 years ago or so. But aesthetics is not something that reason can easily persuade. So at a gut-level, many Koreans harbor a sense of mild disapproval toward the Chinese.

Then there are those who passionately dislike the Chinese. This attitude mostly stems from many Chinese actions that tend grate on Koreans' nationalistic sensibilities. One constant source of tension is the persistent scuffles involving the Chinese fishermen on the Yellow Sea. In the sea between China and Korea, Chinese fishing boats -- persistently and illegally -- cross the maritime border to fish in Korean waters. When Korean police attempts to arrest the fishing boats, the Chinese fishermen often resist wielding shovels and pickaxes to the police. Since 2007, the Chinese fishermen collectively killed two Korean police and injured more than sixty. (But it must be noted that, in October 2012, Korean police killed a Chinese fishing boat captain, who was shot at the heart by a rubber bullet.)

Another source of tension is the immigration from China. As is the case with most immigrants, immigrants from China tend to be the less sophisticated lot who works in menial jobs. Accordingly, Koreans direct all the typical complaints against immigrants toward the immigrants from China -- that they are strange, dirty, crime-prone group that threatens Korea's social order. The occasional, sensational crimes that do involve immigrants from China do not help the case. For example, last year, a Korean-Chinese immigrant Wu Yuanchun was arrested in Incheon on murder charges. Investigation revealed that Wu kidnapped a 28-year-old woman, murdered her and dismembered her body into hundreds of pieces. Koreans widely believed that Wu committed the murder for the purpose of cannibalism, in accordance with the negative stereotypes regarding the Chinese. (Korean court did not find any evidence of attempted cannibalism, and eventually sentenced Wu to life in prison.) Certainly, this does not help the image of the Chinese in the eyes of Korean people.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.

Ask an Espanol

Belated happy new year to everyone! The Korean traveled to Spain in the first two weeks of the new year. More serious blogging will resume in the coming days. In the meantime, based on his trip, here are some questions that the Korean would have liked to pose to a hypothetical "Ask an Espanol" blog.

1.  Dear Espanol,

During his trip to Spain, the Korean greatly enjoyed bacalao, which is semi-dried cod. But the Korean had thought that Atlantic Cod is on the verge of extinction due to overfishing. Is bacalao in Spain made of Atlantic Cod? Is there any awareness in Spain about the sustainability of cod?

2.  Dear Espanol,

What do espanoles think about Francisco Franco generally? Is there any part of Spain or Spaniards who think positively of Franco? On a similar note, what do Spaniards think about the current king? In particular, what do people make of Juan Carlos's previous association with the Franco dictatorship? How strong is the "republican" movement (i.e. desire to do away with monarchy)?

3.  Dear Espanol,

One theory explaining the sorry state of Korean beer -- which is mostly watery and tasteless -- is that it is pointless to develop beer with strong flavor as beer usually accompanies food. The Korean had thought this theory was crock, until he had a fairly broad overview of Spanish beers, which were also mostly watery and tasteless. Do you think the Spanish habit of having tapas with drinks contributed to Spain's watery beer? Or is there any other reason?

4.  Dear Espanol,

The Korean had a wonderful time in Granada, a city renowned for its tapas culture. Remarkably, when one orders a drink in Granada, a free tapa comes along. But drinks in Granada were no more expensive than the rest of Spain, or rest of the developed world for that matter. And the tapas in Granada were just as tasty as any tapa in Spain. How does this work economically in Granada? Conversely, if this works so well in Granada, why is this wonderful custom not more widespread in Spain?

5.  Dear Espanol,

How are Spaniards dealing with the current economic crisis? Korea came out of its own wrenching economic crisis in 1997 as a completely changed society -- it became more individualist, materialist and survivalist. Do you feel any change in the national character of Spain as it is undergoing the economic crisis?

6.  Dear Espanol,

Why is Japanese food so popular in Madrid? Although the Korean's view is quite limited as he was only in the tourist-friendly area, he must have seen more Japanese restaurants per unit area in Madrid than any other country except Japan itself. But this trend appears to be limited to Madrid -- the Korean did not notice the same frequency of Japanese restaurants in other large Spanish cities, such as Barcelona or Seville. 

7.  Dear Espanol,

Do Spaniards feel any particular kinship with the Spanish-speaking South America?

-EDIT- One more that the Korean forgot to add...

8.  Dear Espanol,

The Korean heard that there is an increased number of Chinese immigrants to Spain, who are getting into small businesses that are more mainstream, such as a tapas restaurant. The Korean did in fact see quite a few Asians running small businesses in Madrid and Barcelona. Compared to the general attitude toward immigrants, how are Spaniards feeling about the immigrants from Asia, if there is any feeling developed yet?

*                  *                   *

If you think you have the answer to any of the questions above, feel free to chime in.

Got a question or a comment for the Korean? Email away at askakorean@gmail.com.