The Loss of Unearned Privilege

2 Apr

Here’s a letter to the JoongAng Daily:

As a protest against the government’s decision to allow zero-tariff pork imports, the Korea Swine Association (KSA) has announced that its members will stop all distribution of domestic pork starting 2 April. Farmers claim that the imports will cripple the local pork industry and are demanding that the government reinstate barriers to such competition. (“Angry Farmers Threaten Spring Pork Shortage,” 30 March, 2012)

The KSA is but the latest in a long line of special interests who believe that they deserve compensation for the loss of an unearned privilege. For years, the KSA has colluded with local politicians to prevent or penalize pork imports and has thus been able to charge Korean consumers inflated prices for an item which makes up a substantial part of the local diet. Such an arrangement was always ethically indefensible, and considerable gall is required on the part of farmers who insist that it should continue in perpetuity.

If the Korean market were as open to international markets as it should be, any threat by local swine farmers to withhold their product would garner little more than a collective shrug. After all, if Korean producers wish to harm their bank accounts by not selling pork to willing consumers, plenty of overseas farmers stand ready to supply this country with all the pork it can handle. In the current instance, the only cause for concern is that that government could seek to assuage this coddled interest group by reinstituting tariffs on pork imports.

If the government is smart, however, it will heed the advice of the 19th century French economist Frederic Bastiat, who argued that we must “treat all economic questions from the viewpoint of the consumer, for the interests of the consumer are the interests of the human race.”

Aaron McKenzie
Research Fellow, Center for Free Enterprise
Seoul

Tags: , , , , ,

Common Sense on North Korea (Korea Times, April 2, 2012) by Casey Lartigue, Jr.

2 Apr

As interesting as Kookmin University professor Andrei Lankov’s writings are, there is nothing quite like attending one of his lectures. He can barely restrain himself behind the podium, often pointing and waving his arms. I also enjoy his unscripted speeches, but his answers in Q&A sessions are like the difference between watching Michael Jordan shoot baskets in warm-ups and an actual game.

I have finally discovered the secret behind Lankov’s consistently solid analysis about North Korea: Use common sense.

At an Asan Institute conference last summer, he argued that North Korea watchers should try to understand North Korea from its perspective. Don’t most people know that you must understand the mindset of others you are dealing with? Yet, common sense in theory gets ignored politically. From the North Korean perspective, nuclear weapons are the best thing they’ve got going. They will NOT give them up easily, even if President Obama asks nicely.

Lankov also argues strongly for increasing exchanges with North Koreans. At a roundtable discussion I hosted at the Center for Free Enterprise last Sept. 28, Prof. Lankov went into detail about the development of markets in North Korea. North Korean leaders recognize the danger of allowing North Korean citizens to become more independent by engaging in trade. A common sense approach would encourage more of that.

One of my favorite quotes is from philosopher Eric Hoffer: “It is not actual suffering but a taste of better things which excites people to revolt.” You don’t hurt a hermit by locking him in his room or threatening to starve a man who has lived with starvation for years or decades. It is the taste of the good life or knowledge about alternatives that motivates people.

At the March 20 opening conference of the E.U.-Korea Human Rights and Democratic Transition Dialogue Program, Prof. Lankov insisted that a key strategy in dealing with North Korea: “Introduce information about the outside world!!!”

But policymakers “fight fire with fire.” Stephen Linton of the Eugene Bell Foundation pointed out at a Cato Institute event in 2010 that countries tend to adopt North Korea’s tactics. “South Korea tries to approach North Korea the way North Korea approaches South Korea, by funneling everything through government ministries, by strangling in a sense or denying its private sector full participation,” Linton said. The result is too much government, not enough private sector activity in dealing with North Korea.

So what would be common sense from countries like the United States and South Korea? For one, scrap non-military sanctions and encourage market activity in legal products. Lankov argues that North Korea’s leaders regret allowing the Gaesong Industrial Complex because it ‘infected’ North Korean workers. He encourages more exposure.

Two, not blocking private organizations or discouraging them from sending leaflets, radios, computers, music videos, movies, books, setting up businesses, and other activities that will increase the flow of information to North Korean citizens.

Three, South Korea and the United States opening their doors to North Koreans. America and South Korea should welcome the “huddled masses” from North Korea yearning to breathe free, regardless of international agreements on refugees and asylum seekers.

Politicians looking to the next election don’t always use common sense. During World War II, author H. L. Mencken called for the resettlement of Jews who were being terrorized by the Nazis. It was a sensible policy that would have saved many people, but the Franklin Delano Roosevelt administration dragged its feet (Mencken blasted FDR for that).

Today, the world is faced with another humanitarian crisis, despite promises of “never again.” It will be a tragedy if politicians continue engaging in chess matches with North Korea rather than remaining focused on common sense policies.

The writer is director for international relations at the Center for Free Enterprise. He blogs at www.cfekorea.com.

This article originally appeared in the Korea Times on April 2, 2012.

Helping North Koreans `strike the blow` (Korea Times) by Casey Lartigue Jr.

22 Mar
Have you ever engaged in action not because you were sure it would change the world, but to satisfy your own heart? That, I emailed to an American friend, is why I have joined the effort to help North Koreans who are trying to escape from their homeland.I can’t change the direction of policy in North Korea or China but I can row the boat I am sitting in rather than lamenting that I can’t steer the yachts somewhere else. So I have tried to do what I can: Attending protests in front of the Chinese embassy in Seoul (and I plan to do so when I visit America in April); donating money to the Citizens’ Alliance for North Korean Human Rights (www.nkhumanrights.or.kr); educating myself, writing articles and emailing friends; and, as a member of the board of trustees, I recently submitted a resolution to the Frederick Douglass Memorial and Historical Association (FDMHA) in Washington, D.C., to try to call attention to the plight of North Koreans.

Our organization’s mission is to preserve the legacy of Frederick Douglass (1818-1895), a runaway slave who later became an outspoken abolitionist and human rights advocate who fought government oppression during his lifetime. It was in this atmosphere that Douglass spoke at an event in Boston in 1869, arguing in favor of continued Chinese immigration to America. It certainly was not a popular opinion (in 1882, the U.S. Congress passed the Chinese Exclusion Act). Douglass spoke movingly of the “right of locomotion” of individuals seeking liberty of movement.

The key paragraph for me occurs when Douglass argued in favor of human rights, saying that the question of Chinese immigration “should be settled upon higher principles than those of a cold and selfish expediency.”

Douglass argued that “there are such things in the world as human rights” which are “external, universal, and indestructible,” which “belongs to no particular race, but belongs alike to all and to all alike.” His focus on human rights is a reason I proposed the resolution in order to connect Douglass to the plight of North Koreans seeking to escape to freedom and from oppression.

It has been exhilarating meeting people who have actually risked their lives to escape to freedom I take for granted. Escapees from North Korea must remain in hiding for fear of retribution against their families. They still cannot write the type of letter Douglass wrote on the 10th anniversary of his escape from his former slave owner, “In leaving you, I took nothing but what belonged to me, and in no way lessened your means for obtaining an honest living,” concluding his letter, “I am your fellow man, but not your slave.”

One of Douglass’ favorite quotes was from Lord Byron: “Hereditary bondmen, know ye not, Who would be free, themselves must strike the blow?” Those escapees from North Korea have struck the first blow. Many others have tried to free themselves but are victims of North Korea and China working in cahoots to engage in “man-stealing,” to borrow a phrase from American abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison.

You may not change the world immediately but you can attend protests, give money to organizations helping those trying to escape, or get organizations you participate in to be involved. It may not make a change immediately, but I doubt that Frederick Douglass thought his words in 1869 could inspire an American in South Korea in the year 2012.

The writer is director for international relations at the Center for Free Enterprise in Seoul and a member of the board of trustees of the Frederick Douglass Memorial and Historical Association in Washington, D.C. He blogs at www.cfekorea.com and http://eng.cfe.org.

This article originally appeared in the Korea Times on March 22, 2012.

Linked by NK News, Center for Free Enterprise,

Tags: , ,

Shop Not Where You Please, Lest I Be Displeased

21 Mar

Here’s a letter to The Korea Times:

You report that the “Seoul Metropolitan Government (SMG) plans to force discount stores to close two days per month on either Sundays or holidays” in a supposed attempt to boost the performance of smaller stores and traditional markets (“Discount stores face obligatory shutdowns on Sundays, holidays,” 20  March, 2012).

In reality, such measures merely punish consumers who, through their shopping habits, have expressed a preference for larger discount stores. Shoppers are attracted to these retail outlets for a variety of reasons – convenience, cleanliness, location, selection, and many others – but never once has a consumer been hogtied and forced to shop in such a store. The success of stores like E-Mart, HomePlus, and Lotte Mart is but a testament to their ability to meet the needs and desires of their customers.

Unfortunately, in expressing these desires, consumers have run afoul of local officials who distrust the market order when it does not accord with their own desires. These bureaucrats will thus forcibly block peaceful interactions between consumers and retailers by compelling certain retailers to close their doors. The message from City Hall: any business which successfully pleases consumers can expect swift punishment for its efforts.

In an attempt at courtesy, however, a Seoul official is quoted in your article as saying that the city will publicize these closures on buses and subways so that “citizens will not be inconvenienced.”

Alas, the Seoul government has long since ceased to care about the convenience of its citizens.

Aaron McKenzie
Research Fellow, Center for Free Enterprise
Seoul, South Korea

Mything the Point on Sweden (The Korea Times)

13 Mar

By Casey Lartigue, Jr.

The message was clear: “Don’t do what we’re doing” when it comes to welfare and economic policies.

That’s what (former) Senator Franco Debendetti and lawyer Alessandro De Nicola of Italy, and University of Athens professor Aristides Hatzis said in policy forums organized by the Center for Free Enterprise (CFE) in Seoul last August and October. Professor Hatzis took it one step further, in a speech that caught the attention of Korean president Lee Myung-bak: “If you see Greece doing something, then do the opposite thing.”

“But what about Sweden” was the response from those pushing for universal welfare policies in Korea. That has become the common refrain from politicians and academics around the world for several decades in the West and recently in Korea. “What about Sweden?”

With that in mind, CFE invited Johnny Munkhammar, a member of the Moderate Party in the Parliament of Sweden, to Seoul from March 5 to 7. Munkhammar surprised the audience and Korean media with his talk, “Sweden’s Welfare State: Fact and Fiction.”

Munkhammar said the lesson to learn is that free markets created success in Sweden and that the country’s turn to bigger government led to an array of problems that Sweden is trying to recover from now. He cites the 1870s as a turning point in Swedish history, when, rather than hiding behind trade protectionism and the “infant industry” argument favored by popular Korean author Chang Ha-joon, Sweden opened its economy to the world with free trade and economic freedom.

That continued for a century until the 1970s when the welfare state was greatly expanded and increased regulations and taxes were imposed on the economy. Sweden began to reverse that in the 1990s, implementing reforms that would have made Adam Smith proud: state-owned enterprises were sold; public monopolies in health and education were replaced with free competition; product and financial markets were deregulated; and the central bank was made independent.

Universal welfare advocates point to Sweden’s generous policies, but not Sweden’s history of free markets and its recent switch back. It is unlikely that South Koreans will be ready to accept such reforms during this election cycle. For example, Munkhammar shocked reporters in one-on-one interviews when he informed them that Sweden has no inheritance tax (it was abolished in 2005). In contrast, Korea’s emotional debate on “polarization” makes it unlikely that local politicians will push to repeal or lower estate taxes.

Sweden has few restrictions on trade imports. In contrast, since the late 1980s, Koreans have fiercely battled against efforts to open various markets and, even now, opposition lawmakers are trying to nullify the KORUS FTA. Sweden doesn’t have a wealth tax, but Korea’s majority party recently implemented the Buffett tax and the minor parties are threatening to impose more taxes if they win April 11’s parliamentary elections.

Cherry-picking in research and politics is the process of ignoring information that may undercut one’s argument. Welfare state advocates point to Sweden’s welfare state, but ignore Sweden’s historical model of having free markets and free trade.

If the proponents of a universal welfare state are serious about following Sweden’s model, then they might want to consider the following grand compromise based on Sweden’s history: Eliminate tariffs and barriers on imports, eliminate wealth and inheritance taxes, eliminate subsidies for business with more of a laissez-faire approach, set up a school voucher program, and sell off state enterprises. After that is done, set up a universal welfare state.

But that’s only if they are serious about following the Swedish economic and welfare model. It is more likely that they will keep perpetuating the myth about Sweden in order to keep pushing for universal welfare policies while blocking market liberalization.

The writer is director for international relations at the Center for Free Enterprise in Seoul, Korea. He blogs at cfekorea.com and can be reached at cjl(at)cfe.org.

This article was originally published in the Korea Times on March 14, 2012.

Swedish Congressman’s Visit to Korea (All Munkhammar, All The Time)

12 Mar

Last week’s visit to South Korea by Swedish parliamentarian Johnny Munkhhammar was a tremendous success! We had an overflow crowd and plenty of media.

Roundup from Mr. Munkhammar’s visit

“SWEDEN’S WELFARE STATE: FACT AND FICTION” CFE LECTURE SERIES
Click here to watch the video of Mr. Munkhammar’s presentation (click on the third screen). We should also be adding his PowerPoint presentation at this link.

NEWSPAPER CLIPPINGS (IN KOREAN)
Mr. Munkhammar participated in several media interviews and discussions while he was here, including a roundtable discussion with two national assembly members of opposing parties and some professors.
Click here to view news coverage.

TBS EFM RADIO INTERVIEW
Mr. Munkhammar was interviewed on TBS eFM on the “This Morning” Show hosted by Mike Weisbart (number 1499 on March 7). Here’s the TBS eFM Radio Interview podcast.

SPECIAL LECTURE AT THE KDI SCHOOL
Mr. Munkhammar was invited by the KDI School (photos) to give a talk to students and faculty.

WELCOMED BY SWEDEN’S AMBASSADOR TO KOREA
We had a very interesting meeting with Sweden’s Ambassador to Korea.

Casey

Freedmen from North Korea by Casey Lartigue (Korea Times)

5 Mar

One of the most memorable times I have had in South Korea was to go singing with some new friends who had escaped from North Korea–and getting them to dance along with me as I rapped to Will Smith’s 1998 hit “Gettin’ Jiggy With It.” I think of that night whenever I hear such escapees referred to as “defectors.”

Calling them “defectors” is another victory for semantic infiltration. That process–identified by American diplomat Fred Ikle and popularized by former U.S. Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan–occurs when ideological and political opponents get their adversaries to use their language. During the Cold War, Soviet propagandists concocted ¡ª and Westerners eventually adopted ¡ª terms such as “people`s democracies,” “wars of national liberation,” and “liberation movements.” There are similar semantic battles in politics today (“1 percent versus the 99 percent” and “neoliberal”) with the goal of putting opponents on the defensive by changing the terms of debate.

Politicians and international organizations may use the term “defector” for diplomatic or legal reasons or to describe high-level government officials or activists who go to another country for political reasons. That’s not relevant to most people just seeking a better life and freedom abroad.

A defector is defined as someone who gives up allegiance to one state or political entity in exchange for allegiance to another. “Defection” is the physical act of defection, usually in a manner which violates the laws of the nation or political entity from which the person is seeking to depart.

When that place is North Korea, which doesn’t recognize the right of that person to migrate and demands allegiance at the point of a gun, to borrow a phrase from the late Christopher Hitchens, North Korea is the definition of hell because you can’t live there, but you can’t leave.

North Koreans don’t have what former slave-turned-abolitionist Frederick Douglass called “the right of locomotion.” That`s why scenes of North Koreans crying over the deaths of Kim Jong-Il last year and Kim Il-Sung in 1994 should be disregarded: The people can’t live and they can’t leave.

In his 1970 book Exit, Voice, and Loyalty, economist Albert Hirschman discussed ways that people respond to failing organizations. In short, they flee, adapt or attempt to change the system from within. Clearly, North Korean citizens can’t change the system from within. They can’t live with it. So they flee. Trying to flee when they can’t live gets them labeled as defectors.

Freedom lovers–and by that, I mean people who don’t block the voluntary choices of peaceful people to migrate or engage in peaceful exchanges with others–have unwittingly also been using the term “defector.” So what’s the right term? What`s the term being used here in Seoul?

The South Korean government has changed its terminology over the past few decades, according to a paper by the International Crisis Group. In the 1970s and 1980s, the term in Korean applied to someone who “submits or surrenders.” In the 1990s, it became “a person escaping from the North.” Around 2005, it became “people in a new place.” Since 2008, the term has been “citizens who escaped from North Korea.”

My suggestion? I no longer use or acknowledge the diplomatic terms of “defector,” “refugee” or “asylum seeker” for non-political people. I now just call them “travelers” or “expatriates.” Or, “freedmen” as former American slaves were described. Like other travelers and expats, people escaping from North Korea are seeking freedom to live their lives as they wish. That can even include the freedom to dance to “Gettin’ Jiggy With It” in Seoul.

Casey Lartigue, Jr., is director of International Relations at the Center for Free Enterprise (http://eng.cfe.org) in Seoul and a member of the Board of Trustees of the Frederick Douglass Memorial and Historical Association in Washington, D.C. He blogs at cfekorea.com and caseyradio.org.

This article was originally published in the Korea Times on March 5, 2012.
CFE Website

← Older Entries

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 860 other followers