A New Suggestion: A New Pivot

   Historians say that Silla unified the Korean peninsula when it made both Goguryeo and Baekjae surrender in front of its army. Isn't it that Silla merely conquered its neighbors? Regarding what historians say, do you think Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekjae were originally a family? Which is correct—unify or conquer?

  

  “Dreams Come True” along with a gigantic white star was the slogan for the Korean Football team during the 2002 World Cup. However, after the ardor of the World Cup cooled down a little, remarks about this surprising phenomenon—how people suddenly gathered at the Seoul City Hall square for days—subsequently indulged, some along with critical remarks about Minjok. For example, that the government promoted ethnic nationalism to hide social problems (The U.S. Jeep incident which killed two Korean high school girls) or people’s extreme obsession with it alienated those who were not a part of that bond, thus impeding real social harmony. At the incipient stage, such ideas were only accepted among the ‘NewLight’ community (an extremely progressive group) but are now embraced by the general Korean society also. Nevertheless, that a bond of some kind must not completely perish for the sake of contemporary Korea in the era of globalization should be acknowledged.

   Attempts to clarify the history of the concept during the past few decades were successful, and revealed the somewhat inconvenient truth of how the term Minjok was introduced. It was coined during the Japanese rule of the Korean peninsula by several intellects, including Shin-Chae-Ho—who was interested in the history of the Han-Minjok as seen from his academic works.  Shin introduced this term as he felt a strong necessity to integrate the Chosun people against the Japanese colonial regime. By expanding his academic field to the origins of the Han-Minjok—as exposed from ‘Chosun SangGoSa’(History of Chosun)— he managed to codify the Dan-Gun myth, which basically asserts how holy Han-Minjok is. Along with Shin, Yi-Kwong Su also contributed to the construction of the concept. He stated that Han-Minjok is an extremely pure ethnic group in terms of bloodline, culture, and personality. Due to Shin, Yi, and other outstanding figures like Kim-Gu, numerous patriotic individuals (or groups) sacrificed their convenience or lives to protect the sacred minjok which they were a part of. Indeed, Shin’s attempt—differentiating the Han-Minjok from other ethnic groups by incorporating the Tangun myth and other materials—was successful. It must be acknowledged at this point that Shin’s concept of Minjok included a large sense of exclusiveness against other groups.

                                                     Blood as an ultimate discriminator


   In fact, some tools are very attractive. Look at the book below. It is easy to guess what that book is about, isn't? I read that when I was 13 years old. I was literally facinated in the whole Minjok thing.

    
   Oh, those funny Chinese characters mean 'Tae Baek San-Maek', a mountain which is believed to represent the soul of the Han-Minjok.

   To help your understanding about how this book makes you hyper, let me quote a few sentences from it.

"It was midnight. Kim then turned his head, looking at the mountains. They were plain black. Suddenly, he could see the peaks of them burning. There were people on the peaks, waving their torches! He was not seeing an illusion. The people were Kim's fallen friends and families during the war. There was even Park, his beloved wife. They were not dead! They were alive, right in the heart of Kim. He could feel them burning his heart. Kim was alive."


   The book is recognized as one of the best books in modern Korean literature. Interestingly, although it is all about Minjok-Minjok-Minjok, it was banned during President Park-Jung-Hee's regime. The novel does suggest that we should embrace North Korea (which tried to assasinate Park at 1968), but it really makes the hearts of readers 'boil'. Why? Aren't North Koreans also supposed to be a part of Minjok, according to Shin-Chae-Ho?

   Unarguably, leaders distorted the concept whenever they wanted to. Silla's King did, Shin-Chae-Ho did, and Park did. It was meant to be like this from the beginning. Indeed, the concept of Minjok is an illusion.

   This type of ethnic nationalism existed in other regions of the world also, although it slightly differs from place to place. France and Germany were fond of using it, and they call it 'Romantic nationalism'.

'La Marseillaise'.

Sacred love of the Fatherland,
Conduis, soutiens nos bras vengeurs	Lead, support our avenging arms
Liberté, Liberté chérie,	Liberty, cherished Liberty,
Combats avec tes défenseurs ! (bis)	Fight with thy defenders! (repeat)
Sous nos drapeaux que la victoire	Under our flags, shall victory
Accoure à tes mâles accents,	Hurry to thy manly accents,
Que tes ennemis expirants	That thy expiring enemies,
Voient ton triomphe et notre gloire !	See thy triumph and our glory!

   Then, have you ever thought that 'Cinderella' actually advocates the German ethnic group? In fact, it does. 'A Good Bargain' is another piece written by Brothers Grimm which was meant to affect the way children think about people outside their community. Doesn't this immediately strike you? Yes, it is me reading 'Tae-Baek San-Maek'!



   Obviously, the history of ethnic nationalism is quite long. So is it in Korea. It was Shin-Chae-Ho who introduced the term Minjok, but that "all Koreans are originally one" is also mentioned in Sam-Guk-Sa-Gi, which discusses the history of Silla, Goguryeo, and Baekjae. (History around the 9th century)

 

 

    Of course, it is scientifically proven that the concept of pure blood does not exist. According to 'Korea Genetics Society', the DNA of the Han-Minjok is drawn from various places. The northern ethnic DNA composes about 60~70% of it, and the southern ethnic DNA forms the rest. The same logic would apply to the Germans, sorry for Brothers Grimm.

  

   Due to repetitive modifications by modern Korea’s leaders, the idea of Minjok has become an awkward mixture of political propagandas and exclusiveness. By emphasizing the sacredness of the Han-Minjok, political leaders managed to inject totalitarian idea of ‘one for all’ into Koreans. Incorporating this into, say, commercial movies, was carried out by the government to spread this idea to the public. Chomsky’s ‘Necessary Illusions’ and Niccolo Machiavelli’s ‘II Principe’ can be referred for theoretical reasons why the administration did so. Feeling a sense of responsibility for his or her Minjok, people sacrificed their personal interests for national interests—which brought Korea immense economic development. Representatively, President Park-Chung-Hee, being famous for his contribution to Korea’s economy, was in favor of using this illusion. The goals of his administration were clear: economic development and national security. He used the concept of Minjok to emphasize that an individual has to sacrifice him or herself for the sake of Minjok, for their brothers and sisters. People who did not cooperate were punished for treason of nation, and President Park’s propaganda justified these unjust actions. Hence, the modern concept of Minjok inherited the totalitarian ideas and exclusiveness from that of the Japanese colonial era.

                                                                  War & Battlefield.
These are entirely different concepts. A war is somewhat cool and awesome. A battlefield is horrible and wretched. Who declares war? The leaders of a nation do. Who fights in the battlefields of the war? Poor, innocent soliders do. Then, who made the concept of Minjok? Who were sacrificed under the name of it? Does the end justify the means? That truly is a big, difficult question which I will have to figure out the answer from now on.

   Then what should be its stance in contemporary Korea? Above all, this demands a neutral view on Minjok. Indeed, the concept was coined by Shin for a political purpose, and should be discarded. Shin and many Minjok-fighters from other countries crammed political propagandas in the concept of Minjok, which stipulated it as a sacrosanct idea full of problematic exclusiveness. Of course, there were previous attempts which indirectly spoke of it. Starting from the Silla dynasty, who called its victory over Goguryeo and Baekjae a brilliant reunification in accordance with Dangun's wishes in order to gain control of the people of the fallen nations, the concept of Minjok was distorted from the very beginning. Nowadays, over-emphasizing Minjok has led to controversy, especially considering the U.N.CERD (International Convention on Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination) suggestion. "Highlighting ethnic homogeneity of Korea may hinder foreigners from joining the community."

   But some people just go too far. Several critics urge that any kind of bond in Korea  should be completely terminated, and Koreans should go for cosmopolitanism. However, effacing community spirit will not lead to globalization and multiculturalism. A catalyst that can fuse individuals is necessary, especially in this era of globalization. As a counterexample, France regrets indiscriminately embracing other ethnic groups, who are left out of society and effacing French cultures—according to the media and president Nicolas Sarkozy. Reserving the heritage of ancestors is a prerequisite of globalization, and if this is not satisfied, individuals will no longer feel obliged nor a sense of belonging. As a result, they may feel more alienated from the social contract—then what would happen if foreign people poured in? A pivot that is not offensive to others but protects the ethnic identity at the same time is what Korea needs. That would prevent the vague idea of 'global community’ invade substantive communities and hinder social order.

   What should be reconsidered is the specific type of community created in the idea of Minjok. What should be retained is an alternative pivot that recognizes the Korean community and embraces others at the same time. That clarification would be expedient in figuring out the role of the concept of Minjok in contemporary Korea. The nation is currently in the middle of globalization. As Professor Shin-Gi-Wook suggests in his essay ‘The Contradiction of Korean Globalization’, many Koreans do not think their identity would perish even if Korea becomes more globalized. That they wish Korean identity and global culture to coexist is definitely desirable. Surely, globalization without national identity would do no good—if so, it would be nothing more than a strawberry smoothie full of frozen strawberry pieces. A new pivot in accordance with urgent demands as a firm axis may accelerate concord between different ethnic groups. Remember, it is much easier to make a smoothie when all you have to do is grind a few strawberries into a smoothie that already exists.

   Actually, Minjok has provided several benefits, too. Do you know how fast Koreans donated their golden rings during the IMF crisis? That was possible due to the strong bond among Koreans. A community spirit itself is desirable. What we have to do is control that bond so that it does not step over the line.

   The concept of Minjok shall be discarded or thoroughly revised, considering its problematic origin and controversial usage. Korea needs a new pivot that is not exclusive to other ethnic groups. Considering this, Koreans should be open to other ethnic groups, meaning that anachronistic ideas like pure blood should not be an obstacle for foreigners to get along. Nonetheless, its heritage and spirit must not be damaged, and this is what the new pivot is supposed to guarantee to Koreans. To avoid the unfortunate cases of France and the natives of the Pacific islands, the ideal is that new axis embracing different ethnic groups in Korea but allowing Koreans to be the center of it, since it is their land after all. The resulting harmony would be a model to other nations suffering from ethnic problems. The Korea dynasty (918-1392) can be the model of Korea here. The Korea dynasty was open to different ethnic groups and cultures, for example, Buddhism, and even the Islam, while relatively autonomous at the same time. What enabled them was not the concept of Minjok. Korea dynasty's advanced culture, as proved in the Tripitaka Koreana (a complete collection of Buddhist Sutras) enabled Koreans to have a sense of belonging. It served as a pivot in the midst of foreign cultures while not hindering integration.

  What Korea needs is not an abstract idea of ‘global citizens’ gathering in the Korean peninsula. Order must exist. However, the concept of Minjok will not contribute to the order, as it was not meant to be from its origins. It needs a lot of revision. Nonetheless, mercilessly criticizing and even terminating any kind of bond among Koreans is not an advisable option. Korea does need a pivot that embraces others and unites Koreans at the same time. Harmony has been the all-time dream of Koreans, despite the sporadic controversy over its identity.

 

Read More

- 2013 Yonsei East Asian College English Debate Contest on East Asian Policy

Session 2: The influence of the Korean Wave in East Asia

Vol.3

 

Approach

 

--> The Korean government currently defines the Korean wave into three different waves. The first, being based on famous melodramas spread in the 1990’s through Japan and China. Then, in the 2000s, the trend changed to K-pop and this time it spread much farther into the southeast of Asia. Now, since 2013, the Korean government defines it as the third Korean wave based on a broader aspect including the Korean culture itself. Truth to be told, the Korean wave has indeed proved its power especially in the case of psy, but it is also the reality that the influence of the Korean wave is decreasing in China and Japan. With the increasing disputes on borderland history issues with China and Dokdo issues with Japan, the anti-Korean wave within each country is gathering strength.

--> Hence, our policy takes the form of a bilateral approach.

We aim to regain the influence of Korean culture within China and Japan.

We aim to further the spread of Korean wave through the world.

 

Part A Recovery of the Korean wave in Japan and China

    

--> Compared to the beginning of the 21st century, the Korean wave within East Asia is dying down as the decade passes. The growth in the Korean drama market in Japan showed a growth rate of 72% at its peak in 2006. Ever since, the growth rate started to decline to a point where it is barely 1.6% in 2013. There are many reasons that took a part in this decline of popularity, but some of the major ones are 1) one-way transfer of culture and 2) loss of competitiveness of Korean media contents.

--> China: The Chineses are especially sensitive about the flow of Korean culture into their land. In 2005 and 2006 when the Korean wave was at its peak, some celebrities called the Korean wave a “cultural invasion”. Furthermore, CCTV limited the time Korean contents could be broadcasted. Though censorship is nothing to be surprised of in the current political state of China, such regulations clearly shows the anti-Korean feelings of the Chineses.

--> Japan: In the case of Japan, the situation is a bit more complicated. In 2012, when the countries collided on the Dokdo issue, the NHK banned Korean celebrities from their shows. Like in the case of China, many of the Japanese celebrities made anti-Korean wave comments like “we want a Japanese traditional program”.

 

a) Cooperation in creating movies and songs with celebrities from both countries.

--> The history of coproduction of movies began in 2006 with the movie “착신아리 파이널” which was a cooperation between Korea and Japan. The movie itself was a moderate success, but many of the actors who stared in the movie are now among the top celebrities in each country.

--> In the status quo, many companies do not find the incentive to go through a complicated process to make a movie

in cooperation with a Japanese or Chinese company. It doesn’t show any clear benefits compared to working alone and aiming for the domestic market. Rather, it has a risk that the movie might fail due to cultural differences in each country. Therefore, the government has to step in and incentivize the process. Decreasing the tax rate for those companies that work together with foreign companies, or perhaps direct financial support could be effective.

--> To succeed in both markets, the companies will strive to create new contents for dramas and songs. In the process, the Korean and Japanese and/or Chinese media contents will improve and regain competitiveness. Once companies in each country build up a close relationship and learns the strategy to create profitable media contents that can work in both countries, the cycle will continue even without governmental support.

--> Media contents with celebrities from both countries will create the road for both countries. This could be a way to respond to one of the reasons that causes the anti-Korean wave response. Not only will Korean celebrities gain popularity in Japanese or Chinese market, but the Japanese and Chinese celebrities will also gain popularity among Koreans. Thus we can truly have a mutual relationship.

b)\\\\\\\\\\

 

Part B Spreading the Korean wave worldwide

 

Exposition after or during the winter olympics in 2018

--> In 2012, there was an international exposition held in Yeosu, Korea. However, the exposition was not able to gather a lot of attention due to the economical crisis. The results were just over the goal of the government. However, there is still a problem, whenever such expositions and world cups are held, the infrastructure remains afterwards. For cities like Seoul, these infrastructures are used frequently and thus the city does not have to be burdened by maintenance fees. But yoesu is on the southern corner of our peninsula. Hence, without further plans, it is likely that the infrastructure built for the exposition will be left unused.

--> Our plan is to take advantage of this infrastructure. In 2018, the winter Olympics is to be held in Pyeongchang. The number of tourist will boom around the period and the global community will focus on the event. Thus, if we are able to prepare another exposition, this time focused on the Korean culture, we will be able to exploit our chances in 2018.

--> The Korean centre that was held in London during the 2012 London Olympics proved to be very effective. The effect of a similar project in a much larger scale actually within Korea will be incomparable.

 

--> Also considering that Pyeongchang is located in Gangwon province and Yoesu is located in jeonnam province, we will be able to build up the infrastructure in the two most underdeveloped states in Korea.

 

b) Step by step process to build up the infrastructure until then.

 

--> Overall increase

Read More

Obama Administration's Policy on North Korea> - 2013 Yonsei East Asian College English Debate Contest on East Asian Policy

Introduction:

           The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea(DPRK) is known to the world as a strange and dangerous country. Regularly depicted as a symbol of totalitarianism, terrorism, and international uncooperativeness by governments and media around the world, the so-called “Hermit Kingdom”has gained a reputation as a distraught, anachronistic, isolated country living in the wrong century.

           While it would be easy, and perhaps even comforting, to blame the oddities of the DPRK exhibits on the Kim regime’scruelty, lack of sensibility, or excessive violent tendencies, the reality is not that simple. We believe that foreign nations, including the United States of America (USA),also shoulder heavy amounts of responsibility.

           The DPRK shoots down American planes, captures American ships, and threatens the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the USA. But it does so because as much as the DPRK seems to be provoking the USA, the USA provoked the DPRK as well. The USA sent reconnaissance missions in DPRK territory, regularly holds joint military exercises in the East Asian region, and overall maintains a strong military presencein the ROK, practically breathing down the DPRK’s neck.

           Relations between the USA and the DPRK have always been tense, but in the 21^st century, things intensified drastically. The previous president of the USA decided to call the DPRK partof the “Axis of Evil,” alluding to a group of nations that the USA pulverized with planes and atomic bombs during WWII. As if this wasn’t threatening enough, the USA subsequentlyinvaded Iraq, a fellow “member” of the Axis, as if to say “You’re next” to the DPRK. The DPRK, like any nation comprised of human beings, feels threatened, frightened, and desperate.It should now come as nosurprise why the DPRK resiliently refuses to give up its nuclear program when the USA, which happens to control the largest nuclear arsenal on the planet, constantly pressures it to.

           We have seen that the antagonistic approach of the past has failed to yield significant results. We believe that now is the time for change our attitude. Our policy will show how.

 

 

Approach:

The USA should direct an approach of peaceful reconciliation and normalization towards the DPRK through a direct, bilateral, and amiable stance.

 

Goal:

The gradual normalization and development of relations between the USA and the DPRKin diplomatic, military, economic, and cultural aspects.

 

Policy:

Step 1:Diplomatic Normalization

The USA and the DPRK have no formal diplomatic relations as of now.The USA should actively seek to engage the DPRK in direct, bilateral talks in order to swiftly normalize relations between the two nations. In contrast with the somewhat disconnected, hands-off approach of previous years, the USA’s new attitude should be one of cooperationand amiability. The talks could encompass a variety of issues but should generally aim to forge a lasting relationship between the USA and the DPRK through regular meetings.

We believe such talks would be feasible and effective because:

a) Previous talks, including the Six-party talksof 2003 to 2009which involved manynations were largely abortive. Such talks attempted to reflect the interests of multiple nations and thus often lost application and became unsuccessful. The establishment of direct communication between two countries would provide opportunities for more focused, efficient resolutions. UN resolutions and sanctions have also proven to be largely ineffective.

b) Recent hostilities between the DPRK, the Republic of Korea (ROK), and the USA can be attributed to situational factors within the DPRK rather than actually substantialdangers. It is quite possible that aggressivepropaganda and threats recently put forth by the DPRK were merely to disprove notions that the country’s new young leader was “soft” or incompetent, rather than to actually attack either the USA or the ROK.

c) Since April 2013, the DPRK has demonstrated a less aggressive, more communicable stance. The DPRK’s leader Jong-un Kim, incumbent since December 2011, has been shown to be willing to talk and compromise early in his rule. The DPRK also has set forth conditions for compromise, including the lifting of UN sanctions, the discontinuation of propaganda leaflets from the ROK, and reduced jointmilitary exercisesbetween the USA and the ROK. While the USA may not have to fully acquiesce to all of such demands, such declarations by the DPRK demonstrates the possibility for reengagement of discussion.

Talks should primarily aim to stabilize relations between the USA and the DPRK to form a basis of further communication in the future. The USA should also encourage the ROK to actively seek reconciliation with the DPRK in a similar fashion.

 

Step 2: Restoration and Development

The normalization of relations between the USA and the DPRK should provide the basis for further cooperative developments in various aspects.Possible categories and agendas for each category could be as follows:

a) Humanitarian

           i) The facilitation and expansion of economic aid from the USA to the DPRK.

           ii) The release of American prisoners detained in DPRK territory.

           iii) The improvement of human rights or living conditions of DPRK citizens.

b) Military

i) Transitioning the current armistice between the ROK and the DPRK in to a full peace treaty, thus bringing about the end to the Korean War

ii) The reductionof joint military exercises between the USA and the ROK and the withdrawal of overall American military presence in the Korean peninsula.

iv)The gradual denuclearization and possible reunification of the Korean peninsula.

v) The return of the USS Pueblo, as proposed in 2005 by the DPRK.

           c) Economic

i) A renewal/rework of the Agreed Framework between the United States ofAmerica and the Democratic People's Republic of Korea of 1994 or the creation of a separate, similar agreement

                      ii) The revival and expansion of the Mount Kumgang Tourist Region.

           iii) The establishment of a Special Economic Zone (SEZ) within DPRK territory, that would allow investment by American corporations based on free tradewith exemption from certain communist policies, located along the Pacific coast of the DPRK in the North Hamgyeong or South Hamgyeong province

           d) Cultural

i) Cultural exchanges like the New York Philharmonic Orchestra’s visit to the DPRK in 2008.

Read More

- TOEFL Essay #2

<In Human We Trust>

 

   Recently, “Instagram”—an application that enables sharing photos with others—was sold to Facebook for $1 billion. “With Instagram, users will be able to share and treasure their precious memories with their friends and families,” says Mark Zuckerberg. As this deal suggests, this century would be an era of ‘human’ and ‘emotion’. The society is tired of the industrial lifestyle, and the 21^st century will look forward to substantial amount of focus on human. This shift of paradigm will bring immense changes especially in the trends of business and economic justice.

 

   Deep inquires in human and related fields of studies will serve as a new growth engine in this century, not a merely interesting subject. As conveyed in Charlie Chaplin’s <Modern Times>, human alienation was a major issue in the 20^th century. Then what makes this era mutually exclusive from before? That is, fusing the interest in human with technology will become crucial for companies to survive. People, who were burdened greatly in the previous industrial era, seek to fulfill emotional dissatisfaction. Those who apply this to business will benefit. Steve Jobs did a fabulous job. “It’s in Apple’s DNA that technology is married with the humanities, and that’s what makes the iPhone so ‘special.’” But there’s more. The emotional values of these ‘marriages’ are now protected by the law—look at the situation of Apple and Samsung. Who expected a ‘round corner’ to be worth millions of dollars? Technological creativity in accordance with the new paradigm will ‘hit the jackpot’, and this is a major change.

 

 

   Humans do not exist to be outliers nor watch the few acquire wealth and power. Changes will not limit on business trends—it will also bring a general change in social justice in terms of economy. ‘Humans’ refer to ordinary citizens, not the exceptionally rich. Obviously, the value of ‘human’ will be prioritized over, for instance, capital. People, who have suffered enough from the polarization and low employment rates since long before, will call for change, for justice—in fact, already are. The 21^st century will strive for both growth and distribution, too. Recent attempts to unveil Swiss banks and redistribute wealth are harbingers of this turnover. In this era of ‘human’, societies willing to flourish would attempt to harmonize individuals and create a synergy effect, thus bringing economic justice. Undoubtedly, this is another big change that this century will bring.

   People began to take care of themselves, in terms of emotions and how they are treated in society. This shift of paradigm will bring new trends of business and economic justice. “You dream…We make.” This was used to advertise the 24” iMAC series. We have always dreamed of emotional satisfaction and justice. This century would realize this—it will bring changes.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Below is a video of Jobs, presenting the first iMac in 1998.

 

Read More

   I'm not sure whether if the members of the EDS or the past members(alumni) could see this post, but I definitely think that EDS is a club full of opportunities. (especially regarding the recent uploads)

 

   What do I mean by this? In this week so far (today is Thursday) EDS called for presence three times in a row (2 hours each-self study period). Whereas my roommates called me "poor guy", I do not regret entering the club. I feel that my English proficiency has really improved(especially speaking and logic).
 
   Yes, the English Debate Society definitely requires some devotion for it. It takes away at least three self study periods per week (sum of six hours) and recently, the captain assigned some homework for the 18th wavers just before the vision trip - which implicitly told them to do the work at the hotel in U.S. or Europe. It was demanding indeed - you'll see when you take a look at the recent posts I uploaded. I wrote all of them when I arrived at the hotel (holiday Inn) at night, about three to four posts per day. But undoubtedly, "no pain, no gain".

   Surely, EDS offers a lot of opportunities for the members by enabling them to participate in tournaments and world-class competitions. The May invitational tournament held by the Korea National Forensics League was the first contest that the 1st graders applied to, and it was successful - including the champion prize that one of us recieved. However, this is not the point. I believe that EDS grants you enough presents within the club - for instance, handing in homework with great quality & keeping due dates. It is really difficult to devote you time and effort into every activity, but if you do so, you get what you deserve - which isn't a chance that everyone has.

   I love this club.

Read More

This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.

<EDS Case Sharing> - Jason Rhee

 

This house believes that the West should keep out of the Arab world's revolutions.

 

 

Prop.

 

Definition

TH – World

West – countries like US or NATO

Keep out – not intervening

Revolutions – protests (both peaceful and violent) for democracy or pulling down the government

 

u  Serves for Western desires only

è   Western governments, or "the West", never intervene in the Middle East without pursing the tiniest bit of self-interest

ü   Western armies, since the days of Napoleon, descend on the region uninvited, promising reforms and change that are never consistent with people's aspirations and desires.

ü   And the promises never happen

è   Historic evidences

ü   Not even clear that the Libyan tyrant killed more of his people than Hosni Mubarak or Zine El Abidine Ben Ali

ü   But Western governments exhibit more concern for civilians in countries rich with oil or gas, as it happens)

²    Iraq and Bush

²     

 

u  Triggers even more civilian casualties

è   Lessons from history

ü   Hundreds of demonstrators have been killed in Tunisia, Yemen and Egypt, yes.

ü   But Western intervention only grew the civilian casualties by undergoing ridiculous missions

ü   more than 400 civilians were killed by NATO forces in Afghanistan in the past year alone—and NATO commanders were bragging that the figure represented a decline from previous years

ü    

è   No purpose left

ü   The West says that such losses were inevitable for “democracy”

ü   But whose democracy are we talking about here?

²    Without life, whatever kind of ideology is meaningless

²    Besides, Arab did not even ask for intervention

è   Wrongdoings of Western armies

ü   As reported in various medias, the inhumane actions done by (for ex, US army in Iraq : A helicopter firing at a crowd of civilians) is likely to happen again

è   Some American publications even tried to give credit for the Arab waves of democracy either to a retired professor in Boston or to workshops attended by some Egyptian youths.

u  Obvious Anti-West movements

è   Why would the American or other Western governments be eager to intervene in the region when they are clearly opposed and detested by the Arab people?

ü   IT brings:

²    Ineffectiveness of intervention

²    Provokes even more Anti movements

ü   Therefore there are only harms for the West for themselves

 

.

 

Opp.

 

u  Greatly beneficial for the Arab people

è   IT would be great if the Arab people could accomplish the revolutions all by themselves

è   But in reality, they are not quite able to

è   That’s why to pursue democracy, intervention is there for them

ü   create a vacuum which others less well disposed to our interests would be eager to fill

ü   Democratic government, freedom of assembly and expression, and respect for the rule

è   Fulfills the desires of the Arab people in a long perspective

è   If no intervention, the people will end up being harassed and tortured and eventually slaughtered by dictators, like what happened in Libya before NATO intervened

 

u  Exaggeration of civilian casualties

è   Civilian casualties occur, yes

è   But it is necessary for a greater good

ü   Purses democracy for exchange

è   And if there is no intervention, people will only suffer more and die more from the powerful army of the government

ü   @Long term perspective!!

è   And actually, it isn’t that harmful

ü   Compared to the expected amount of people who will continue to die, military intervention is rather a bargain

u  Beneficial for the West as also

è   Exhibit their participation into the world

ü   Creates a sound atmosphere within the country(the Western ones)

ü   And the world, too

è   Able to receive benefits in return that the West does not have

ü   France receiving right to develop oil fields from Libya

ü   And this is legitimate(Give and Take)

Read More