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

]]> http://cfekorea.com/2012/04/02/the-loss-of-unearned-privilege/feed/ 0 idiotscollective http://cfekorea.com/2012/04/02/common-sense-on-north-korea-korea-times-april-2-2012-by-casey-lartigue-jr/ http://cfekorea.com/2012/04/02/common-sense-on-north-korea-korea-times-april-2-2012-by-casey-lartigue-jr/#comments Sun, 01 Apr 2012 16:42:03 +0000 CJL http://cfekorea.com/?p=801 ]]> 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.

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,

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

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.

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

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

There may be no more vivid or tragic example of politics taking an unwanted interest in people than that of North Korean refugees in China. These are folks whose lives have been defined by the worst sort of politics imaginable in their homeland but whose courageous escape into China simply makes them pawns in a different political fight. That their struggle, hardly a new issue, is now being publicly acknowledged by South Korean lawmakers in this election year is evidence of this.

 Depending on the source, there are either 11,000 (USCRI, 2009), 30,000-50,000 (CRS 2007), or 100,000-400,000 (Lankov, 2004) North Korean refugees residing in China at any one time. If they are caught by Chinese authorities, they are sent back to North Korea where they face severe punishment, torture, and often death. The fact that the estimates of their numbers vary so widely is a testament to the life of fear and uncertainty that these refugees lead.

The South Korean Constitution proclaims Seoul the only legitimate government on the Korean peninsula, and thus, all North Koreans are technically citizens of South Korea. And until the 1980s, when conditions in South Korea were not vastly better than those in the North, Seoul actively sought to entice North Koreans to defect, both as propaganda tools and because the most common defectors were high-ranking bureaucrats or North Korean Air Force officers like No Kum-Sok, who in 1953 flew his MiG-15 to South Korea and collected $100,000 for his troubles.

Since the 1990s, however, when the collapse of the Soviet Union and a series of famines left North Korea broke and hungry, the average refugee has become a former manual laborer who left North Korea for reasons more material than political and who has great difficulty adjusting to life in South Korea. The successive administrations of South Korean Presidents Kim Dae-Jung and Roh Moo-hyun, and the implementation of a “Sunshine Policy” which stressed cooperation with North Korea, further inhibited the South’s inclination to discuss, much less accept, refugees from the North lest the South be perceived as angling for the collapse of North Korea. Indeed, following a 2004 airlift of 468 North Korean refugees from Vietnam, then-Unification Minister Chung Dong-Young advised NGOs not to help or encourage defectors, as it “could harm inter-Korean relations.” The Lee Myung-bak administration, which came to office in early 2008, has been more willing to accept North Korean refugees, but the latest kerfuffle with China is a surprisingly public recognition of this longstanding issue.

China, of course, is a signatory to the 1951 UN Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (and its 1967 protocol), which has long been considered the first and final word on the classification of refugees. In essence, a person is entitled to refugee status if she faces persecution upon returning to her country, regardless of why she left in the first place. China, however, treats North Koreans as “economic migrants,” claiming that most North Koreans in China are transients who hop back and forth between the countries in search of food, medicine, or work – all of which is true but, again, the key to the 1951 Convention is that it is “forward-looking,” asking what will happen if that refugee is shipped back to North Korea. Not surprisingly, though, China is hardly eager to have disruptive packs of refugees streaming through their country, adding to the latent “Korean-ness” of the Yanbian Prefecture (presently about 40% ethnic Korean) and potentially aiding in the collapse of North Korea. As Beijing sees it, any official recognition of North Korean refugees as such could exacerbate all of these problems.

As mentioned, most individuals who escape North Korea nowadays do so not from any political motivation, but simply for the sake of sheer survival. They want to feed themselves and their families, create a better life for their loved ones, or simply watch an hour of TV without having to hear about Great Successor’s latest trip to a turnip farm. In short, they want the luxury of focusing their minds on something other than politics – you know, the things that actually matter in life. Unfortunately, even if they manage to survive and escape North Korea, politics still has plans for them, plans that could cost them their lives.

]]> http://cfekorea.com/2012/03/02/a-deadly-surfeit-of-politics-north-korean-refugees-in-china/feed/ 0 idiotscollective http://cfekorea.com/2012/02/20/missionaries-for-cannibals/ http://cfekorea.com/2012/02/20/missionaries-for-cannibals/#comments Mon, 20 Feb 2012 09:15:29 +0000 Aaron http://cfekorea.com/?p=698 ]]> The American journalist H.L. Mencken once quipped that if a politician found he had cannibals among his constituents, he would promise them missionaries for dinner. As Korea gears up for April’s parliamentary elections, the recently rebranded Saenuri Party is apparently doing all it can to illustrate Mencken’s point. Nominally conservative, the Saenuri Party is at present doing its best to outflank the progressive Democratic Unity Party by promising an expanded menu of welfare programs and market restrictions which, while they might make Roh Moo-hyun grin in his grave, are nevertheless a reminder that politics is a principles-free sport.

Rumor has it that conservatives stand for free markets, a reliance on oneself and one’s family, and a supposed distrust of government. Like most politicians, however, this Saenuri bunch (dating back to their days as the Grand National Party) has been neither coherent nor consistent in their defense of such principles, attracting well-deserved criticism from the left for pardoning criminal businessmen and from the classical liberal crowd for restricting market competition and trying to pick winners. Yet, while Saenuri politicians may be slippery, they are no fools: they know which way the political winds are blowing and have realized that their inability to articulate their core principles (assuming they have them) has landed them in hot electoral water. Which brings to mind another American humorist, Groucho Marx, who once remarked that “those are my principles, and if you don’t like them…well, I have others.” Just let the Saenuri politicos know what they need to say in order to get elected and they’ll parrot it right back to you.

As Stephan Haggard and Jaesung Ryu pointed out in a Peterson Institute blog post from last week, however, conservatism in Korea, as compared to its American cousin, is different sort of brew. Consider that Park Chung-hee, the dictator who ruled Korea through most of the 1960s and 1970s, is labeled a conservative in these parts despite overseeing an industrial and trade policy that would make left-wing American progressives (and “national greatness conservatives”) sigh in statist envy. Moreover, Korea’s constitution, in stark contrast to that of the United States, hardly bespeaks skepticism about unchecked state authority.

…the [Saenuri Party's] new platform, called “promise to the people,” embraces a welfare-state and the idea of “democratizing the economy.” Progressives in South Korea have long sought to reform the country’s monopolistic chaebol structure; it may seem strange that a conservative party is advancing greater state involvement in the economy. But recall that the party’s standard-bearer is the daughter of Park Chung Hee, a firm believer in industrial policy. The country’s constitution has a surprisingly expansive role for the state, stipulating that “[t]he State may regulate and coordinate economic affairs in order to maintain the balanced growth and stability of the national economy, to ensure proper distribution of income, to prevent the domination of the market and the abuses of economic power and to democratize the economy through harmony among the economic agents” (Article 119, Section 2).

As Gavin Stevens, a character in William Faulkner’s novel, Requiem for a Nun, put it, “the past is never dead. It isn’t even past.” Conservative politicians in Korea – like politicians as a general breed – have always had an affinity for government power, so why should we be surprised by their current contortions as they desperately seek to retain their positions?

]]> http://cfekorea.com/2012/02/20/missionaries-for-cannibals/feed/ 0 idiotscollective http://cfekorea.com/2012/02/20/dr-ken-schoolland-and-friends-cool-new-philosophy-of-liberty-video-jg-newsletter/ http://cfekorea.com/2012/02/20/dr-ken-schoolland-and-friends-cool-new-philosophy-of-liberty-video-jg-newsletter/#comments Mon, 20 Feb 2012 00:54:33 +0000 politikoala http://cfekorea.com/?p=693 ]]> We were featured on Libertarian International Organization’s SMILE blog! According to their website, LIO’s aim is to:

Network, highlight, build Libertarian-interested leaders and self-leadership in home, work, civic life.

In order to achieve these goals, the organization advocates S.M.I.L.E, which is an acronym summarizing the diverse means to spread the Libertarian message.

S- Space/Sea/Eco-Earth Community

M- Machine/Thought servants

I- Individual improvement

L- Life extension

E- Empowering LIO/Libertarian based community project

CFE was recognized on the SMILE blog for our recent video, the Philosophy of Liberty. Originally created by Ken Schoolland and his associates, our remake of the video was intended to make the message of Liberty clearer for a Korean audience.

Thanks again, Ken, ISIL, and LIO!

via Dr. Ken Schoolland and Friends: Cool New Philosophy Of Liberty Video, JG Newsletter.