Shaphan

(We should be) Congratulating North Korea

It's sometimes remarked that North Korea resembles a cult.  There's the charismatic leader, the strict hierarchy, the high degree of control, and so on.  If there's something to that, then the UN Security Council's response to the North Korean nuclear test is likely to make things worse, not better.

The solution to the North Korea problem lies ultimately with the North Koreans.  Currently, though, they are choosing to follow their Dear Leader.  Members of cults are more likely to leave their cult if they are exposed to alternative belief-systems and sources of information.   The North Korean people are more likely to overthrow their cultic system if the walls between themselves and the outside world are gradually dismantled.

Although it may seem counterintuitive or even crazy, the way to respond to North Korea's achievement of going nuclear would have been to play along with it.  The Security Council could have simultaneously congratulated Kim Jong Il on the DPRK's success, as well as expressing its disapproval.  The Dear Leader could have been invited on state visits to Seoul, Beijing and Moscow.  Economic aid should have been offered, scientific exchanges organized, and trade delegations sent.  Dismantle the walls and let the people free themselves.  Crazy situations sometimes call for seemingly crazy responses, as RD Laing once demonstrated.

Instead, the 'international community' has responded by building the walls higher by applying new sanctions.  Even though the sanctions are not directly targeted at the North Korean people, their effect will be to add to the populace's starvation of contact with the outside world.  If North Korea is like a cult, the UNSC's response to the DPRK going nuclear is itself crazy and will only make things worse.  'Deviance amplification', as some sociologists might call it.

"Next UN Chief is Member of Pacifist Christian Group"

[Via Bartholomew's Notes on Religion]

Under the heading, 'Next UN Chief is Member of Pacifist Christian Group', Bartholomew has seemingly solved the riddle of what AsiaNews.it meant by,

A Christian, [Ban Ki-moon] is member of a "group without Church", a serious organisation that emerged in Japan at the beginning of last century.  Its members, mostly intellectuals, make the Gospel a source of inspiration for their private and public life.

Bart writes:

Asia News, however, is almost certainly referring to the Mukyokai (“Non-church”) Movement.  An article by Carlo Caldarola gives some background:

The Mukyokai, or non-Church Christians, constitute one of the best known Christian movements in Japan...  Founded by Uchimura Kanzo (1861-1930) in reaction to Western denominationalism, this small (about 35,000 adherents) movement is considered to be the most genuine form of Japanese Christianity.  The Mukyokai reject all formal Christian institutions, having no sacraments, liturgy, professional clergy, church buildings, national headquarters, or membership rolls.  Instead, this non-churchism is based on independent Bible study groups centered on the traditional teacher-disciple (sensei-deshi) relationship.  The teachers have no formal training in the Bible, setting up group when inspired to do so; the group thus disintegrates when its teacher dies or retires.  Most of these teachers are regularly employed in outside occupations, often as high school teachers or university professors.  The Mukyokai movement has attracted members from all social strata in Japan, but it is particularly appealing to the Japanese intelligentsia - scholars, university professors, graduate students, and professionals.  (..)

So all my previous posts on the subject are hereby cancelled.  Respect to Bart for working it out.  And, on the whole, I'm reassured. 

Ban, the Bomb

I don't think it's a coincidence that the North Koreans tested their bomb on the same day as Mr Ban Ki Moon's name was forwarded to the UN General Assembly for ratification.  Just when politicians are calling for calm in response to the test, the UN is about to elect a US-trained South Korean as its new secretary-general.   It's highly provocative and probably unwise.   

On Mr Ban's relationship to the Americans, Ian Williams, writing in The Nation, has an anecdote that may, or may not, be true. 

The Council agreed that the official vote would be taken October 9.  A separate vote by the General Assembly - strictly a formality - is expected to follow shortly.

US Ambassador John Bolton was wearing an uncharacteristic smile when he came to the microphone outside the Council chamber to give his spin on the almost certain confirmation of Ban.  Some observers saw joy at the election of Bolton's favored candidate, others the smile of an assassin wiping his blade and contemplating his handiwork, scuppering other candidates with a discreet and anonymous veto.

If Mr Ban was John Bolton's favoured candidate, then that would mean he's Dick Cheney's, and Bush's, too.  I don't think it's just the North Koreans who should be opposing Ban Ki Moon's accession.  The general assembly shouldn't be treating this vital matter as "strictly a formality" - they should do their job, find out more about Mr Ban, consider how provocative it might be to the North Koreans, interview him about how his religious beliefs would or would not influence his approach to the Middle East, think about how his appointment might affect morale among UN staff, and reconsider the virtues of the other candidates.  And so on.  But it seems that it's a done deal.  I feel that the world may be sleepwalking into an important decision that we all might come to regret.  In that regard, the press coverage on Ban Ki Moon's elevation has been pitiful, which is why I've tried to write these few posts.

Ban Ki Moon's Mission

A report today on AsiaNews.it, a Catholic evangelical news service, provides new information about Ban Ki-Moon's religious affiliation.  Trouble is, I'm not a lot the wiser.

Ban Ki-moon was born in 1944 to a rural family in South Korea.  He is married with three children.  A Christian, he is member of a "group without Church", a serious organisation that emerged in Japan at the beginning of last century.  Its members, mostly intellectuals, make the Gospel a source of inspiration for their private and public life.  [AsiaNews.it]

A "group without Church" is probably a translation of 'non-denominational sect'.  As for the rest, I don't know what to make of it.  Despite the quite specific description of its origins, I haven't been able to identify it.  What does it mean, a 'serious' organization, and why is its membership 'intellectual'?   

[Deleted idle speculation that was wrong.]

A Korea diplomat?

Apparently, UN staff are underwhelmed at the choice of Ban Ki Moon as the next secretary-general. 

"The mood among staff is glum," one of the officials said.  "We are not very excited about the outcome."  With morale low at the UN after five years dominated by divisions, deadlock and corruption, they are sceptical about Mr Ban's ability to turn the organisation round or provide the strong, inspirational leadership they had been hoping for.

A Korean foreign ministry spokesman responded:

"In the Oriental culture, leadership is assessed in a different way.  One can look very affable, very gentle, but inside his mind he has a strong conviction ...  Appearance is one thing, his firm beliefs and readiness to make tough decisions is another."

So far, Mr Ban's strong convictions and firm beliefs remain obscured.  He's a career diplomat, so his practice has been to be self-effacing.  I've got four areas of concern about him: his relationship with America; the North Korean problem; his religious beliefs; and how Sun Myung Moon will respond.

1.  America.  The Americans support his candidacy.  Mr Ban chose his career path when,

As a high school student in 1962, Ban won an English speaking contest, winning a trip to Washington to meet then President John F. Kennedy.  He says it was at that time he decided to become a diplomat.

In the '70s and '80s he spent much time in the US, serving at the South Korean embassy and at the UN.  Meanwhile, he studied for and achieved a master's at the JF Kennedy School of Government, Harvard.  Watching a Sky TV video interview with him [here], I was struck by how influenced he seemed by American political mores.  So, how will his instinctive pro-Americanism play in keeping world peace?

2.  North Korea.  It may be that Ban Ki Moon's elevation will greatly help deal with the North Korean problem - if so, great.  But it may also further destabilize the peninsula.  How will the North Koreans react?

3.  Ban's religion.   I wrote about this below.  Korean Christianity is a weird and wonderful thing.  Mr Ban is a 'non-denominational Christian', according to the ROK foreign ministry.  What does that mean?  What theology does he adhere to?  How does he view, say, Islam, or Baha'ism, or Unificationism?  Are they as equally valid as his own faith?  Does he believe in the imminence of the endtimes?  Etc.

4.  The Unification Church.  This is my main concern.  Wayne Madsen has been mentioning this for several days, although his conclusions are questionable.  I agree with John Gorenfeld, who left a comment on my last entry, that Mr Ban is surely not a Unificationist.  But the links between the ROK government and the UC are murky but there.  Madsen writes today that he's received many emails from Moonies, denying the substance of Madsen's posts but nevertheless all being supportive of Mr Ban's candidacy.  That would fit with my hunch that Sun Myung Moon probably welcomes this development.  But will he expect favours from Mr Ban?  What if Mr Ban doesn't react as Mr Moon wants?  Such a conflict mightn't be good for the UN.