tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14433997809551338412024-03-08T10:51:25.503-08:00Professor Lim's POLSblogMost of my postings are related to concepts and issues of relevance to students of political science. I try to offer a perspective as a "political scientist," which does not mean that my entries are meant to be objective or unbiased. Rather, they are meant to highlight the ways (or at least one way) in which we can use political science to analyze the world around us.
I update my blog very, very sporadically.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.comBlogger27125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-56116488480483702082010-12-07T08:34:00.000-08:002010-12-07T08:57:06.408-08:00US Students Again Trail Other NationsIn my course on Comparative Politics, I like to use a 20/20 episode by John Stossel entitled <span style="font-style:italic;">Stupid in America</span>. Stossel presents a superficially appealing argument (criticizing the "monopolistic" character of the US educational system) based, in part, on a number of different comparisons, both cross-national and domestic. The logic of his comparisons, however, is fundamentally flawed and highly biased. This is reflected in his selective use of statistics, especially international statistics.<br /><br />In particular, Stossel draws from the PISA exam, which test students across a range of countries in math, science and reading. Of the many top-scoring countries Stossel could focus on, he chooses Belgium. Not surprisingly, Belgium has the type of educational system Stossel recommends--a voucher-based system that encourages competition among schools for students. He tells us that it is <span style="font-style:italic;">only</span> through competition that an educational system can succeed. <br /><br />I was reminded of this argument by a <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/12/07/131874081/u-s-students-again-trail-other-nations?ft=3&f=131874081">recent story in NPR, which discusses he results of the latest PISA exam (from 2009)</a>. Again, the US falls short. Stossel, I'm sure, feels the results further confirm his argument.<br /><br />Interestingly, though, among the top ten performers,<a href="http://edition.cnn.com/2010/OPINION/12/07/school.results.us.asia.desai/?hpt=C2"> eight are in the Asia-Pacific region -- led by China, Singapore, South Korea and Jap</a>an. Now, if Stossel is correct, these Asian educational systems would all be voucher-based, but this is not the case. Most, if not all, are based on the same principle as exists in the US--that is, a system in which students are assigned to particular schools based on where they live. There is competition, it must be said, but it is a competition among students. Even more, the country that historically performs the best overall is Finland. Yet, Finland, too does not have a voucher-based system. The fact that Stossel failed to examine these top-performing countries fatally undermines his argument, comparatively speaking. <br /><br />Methodologically, you cannot "pick-and-choose" your cases. A good comparativist will examine as many relevant cases as possible, regardless of whether they seem to support or disprove the argument. Indeed, a good comparativist will fully embrace those cases that, on the surface, seem contradictory. For, in showing that her theory can account for the "hard case," a good comparativist will have build an even stronger argument.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-39737040200740985522010-10-03T13:48:00.000-07:002010-10-03T13:51:34.671-07:00Freakonomics: CrimeI haven't seen the movie <i>Freakonomics</i>, but something in a review caught my eye: the claim that dropping crime rates in the US are due primarily to the Roe v. Wade decision of 1973. Here's how <a href="http://articles.latimes.com/2010/oct/01/entertainment/la-et-freakonomics-20101001/2">Kenneth Turan of the <i>Los Angeles Times </i>describes it</a>:<div><br /><i>Much more counterintuitive is Jarecki's "It's (Not Always) a Wonderful Life." The subject here is a favorite of pundits: speculating on what caused the much-written-about drop in crime rates in the 1990s.Using animation and clips from the James Stewart classic, Jarecki illustrates Dubner's theory by first bringing up and dismissing the most conventional theories about the source of the decline: innovative policing techniques, harsher prison sentences, changes in the habits of drug users. Instead, the economist advances the notion that it was the Supreme Court's 1973 Roe vs. Wade decision, which legalized abortion and thereby reduced the number of babies with two strong indicators of a criminal future — being poor and being raised by a single parent — which caused crime to drop. Now that's freakonomics in a nutshell.I talk about the issue of crime (actually gun homicide rates) in my Foundations of Comparative Politics in the context of using comparative methodology to study real-world social, political or economic issues. Since I have not seen the actual argument--and it does seem intriguing (something on my "to see" list)--my comments will be circumspect. This said, the description above seems to boil the issue of crime down to a single factor, which is exceedingly problematic, albeit not necessarily wrong.</i></div><div><br />To test the claim appropriately, the researchers would not only need to be able to control for a range of other factors (innovative and more effective policing techniques, harsher prison terms, the "three strikes" law, etc.), but also demonstrate that these factors did not contribute to the reduction of crime in any meaningful way. In this regard, we also have to understand that, even if the Roe v. Wade decision had a material effect, its effect may have been significantly amplified--perhaps critically so--by the existence of other changes that have occurred since 1973. This is referred to as complex causality. Practically speaking, however, this cannot be done since those other factors cannot be adequately controlled for. Now, if the US were to revoke Roe v. Wade, and if no other material changes occurred, we would have a perfect scenario for a "testing" the <i>Freakonomics</i> claim--in other words, we would be able to conduct a within-case comparison in which we could control for a range of relevant variables while isolating the effects of "limited abortion."</div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-18348602782645504282010-09-30T09:29:00.000-07:002010-09-30T09:43:31.532-07:00The Next Succession in North Korea<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/TKS-IbdZFDI/AAAAAAAAAHg/9_I2IUDk-yg/s1600/116_73805.jpeg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 300px; height: 190px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/TKS-IbdZFDI/AAAAAAAAAHg/9_I2IUDk-yg/s400/116_73805.jpeg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5522748095082337330" /></a><br />I'm no North Korea expert (by a very long shot), but the emerging transition from Kim Jong Il to his youngest son Kim Jong-un, portends a possible shake up in North Korea down the road. No doubt, the son has been "groomed" for a leadership role and the <a href="http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2010/10/116_73764.html">path paved</a> for his succession, but as the lineage extends from the original Kim (Kim Il Sung) to his son (Kim Jong Il) to his son (Kim Jong-un), the loyalty the family line almost has to weaken. Just as important is the debilitated condition of the North Korean economy--Kim Jong Il is reported to have told the Chinese on his recent visit there, that things aren't so bad, since "only" 20 percent of the population is suffering from famine, while 80 percent are "doing fine." It's all relative, I guess. At some point, the pressures for radical "reform" (really transformation) are simply going to be too great to resist. The incremental and limited reforms the North Korean state has implemented in the past have proven to be utterly inadequate. But, as long as loyalty to the regime was strong, the pressures could be tamped down. Soon--especially when Kim Jong Il is no longer in the picture (he seems to be in ill health)--this may no longer be the case.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-66371418874232617242010-09-27T19:23:00.000-07:002010-09-27T20:07:45.289-07:00The Domestic Factor in Foreign PolicyOne of the things that is supposed to differentiate foreign policy analysis (FPA) from international relations is the stronger focus on or inclusion of domestic-level factors in foreign policy decisions. To put it very simply, FPA assumes that foreign policy decisions do not simply reflect factors or forces that impinge upon a state from the outside-in, so to speak, but also reflect, quite strongly, internal political processes and dynamics. Now, this may seem common sense to many casual observers, but realists (or more accurately, neo-realists) have long argued that domestic political considerations are largely irrelevant to the foreign policy decision-making process. Consider, on this point, what a well-known realist, Hans Morgenthau, had so say:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">“We assume that statesmen think and act in terms of interest defined as power, and the evidence of history bears that assumption out. That assumption allows us to retrace and anticipate, as it were, the steps a statesman—past, present or future—has taken or will take on the political scene. We look over his shoulder when he writes his dispatches; we listen in on his conversation with other statesmen; we read and anticipate his very thoughts. Thinking in terms of interest defined as power, we think as he does and as disinterested observers, we understand his thoughts and actions perhaps better than he, the actor on the political scene, does himself. The concept of national interest defined as power imposes intellectual discipline upon the observer, infuses rational order into the subject matter of politics, and thus makes the theoretical understanding of politics possible. On the side of the actor, it provides for rational discipline in action and creates that astounding continuity in foreign policy which makes American, British, or Russian foreign policy appear as an intelligible, rational continuum, by and large consistent with itself, regardless of the different motives, preferences, and intellectual and moral qualities of successive statesmen.” </span><br /><br />The point is clear: outside forces make political leaders behave in rational and essentially similar ways--regardless of their own interests, motives, perceptions, etc. and regardless of what sort of domestic pressures they may face--when it comes to foreign policy. <div><br /></div><div>To get back to my main point, though, I was recently listening to news about recent peace negotiations between Palestine Authority President Mahmoud Abbas and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. As usual, the talks are off to a very rocky start as result of the end of a moratorium on Israeli settlements in the West Bank. The Palestinian negotiators are threatening to walk away from the talks unless the moratorium is extended, but the Israeli side, thus far, has shown little willingness to extend the moratorium, and, in fact, has already let it expire. Arguably, though, both sides would be better of "talking" than not talking, and both sides would be better off with an agreement. As almost everyone knows, though, "Middle East peace" generally, and Israeli-Palestinian peace has been one of the most intractable problems in the post war period. </div><div><br /></div><div>But, why should this be the case? There are, of course, many, many reasons. Almost all of which, not surprisingly, can be found at the domestic and even individual level of analysis. In the current negotiations, a major part of the problem are the domestic political pressures that both Abbas and Netanyahu face. For Netanyahu, extending the moratorium would create a powerful backlash from conservative forces in Israel. He has little choice but to adopt a hardline stance, even though he wants the talks to continue. On the other side, Abbas would be extremely hard put to continue talks with Israel if building in the West Bank continues: he would, "lose credibility in the eyes of Palestinians." As Robert Malley of the <a href="http://www.crisisgroup.org/">International Crisis Group</a>, "The irony is we have two sides that want to get the negotiations, who don't want the settlement issue to stand in the way, but because of their domestic politics, are incapable of bridging the gap, and are hoping and relying upon the US to do it for them."</div><div><br /></div><div> </div><div><br /></div><div><br /><br /></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-9677132892825436562010-09-03T20:15:00.000-07:002010-10-03T21:12:44.768-07:00Who Speaks for a Religion?<img src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/TKlTs8ObnEI/AAAAAAAAAHo/BJYNOS7-eko/s320/Westboro.jpeg" style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 212px;" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5524038449492630594" />The Westboro Baptist Church (WBC) is a small and "<a href="http://www.adl.org/learn/ext_us/WBC/default.asp?LEARN_Cat=Extremism&LEARN_SubCat=Extremism_in_America&xpicked=3&item=WBC">virulently homophobic, anti-Semitic</a>" religious group that regularly stages protests at the funerals of U.S. soliders killed in Afghanistan and Iraq. Why? Because the WBC believes that U.S. soldiers are fighting to promote tolerance of homosexuality. To make their point, members of the church may fly 1,000 miles or more to stage protests with <a href="http://www.google.com/images?hl=en&source=imghp&biw=998&bih=1062&q=westboro+baptist+church+signs&gbv=2&aq=1&aqi=g10&aql=&oq=westboro+&gs_rfai=">signs reading</a>, "Thank God for Dead Soldiers," "Planes Crash, God Laughs," "Pray for More Dead Soldiers," "God Hates Fags," and "You're Going to Hell."<div><br /><div>By and large, most people try to ignore the WBC, hoping they'll tire of their crusade and melt back to obscurity. Certainly, few people suggest that the WBC represents Christianity at large or even a sizable segment of the Christian population. But, what if it did? What if the WBC were a m</div><div>ainstream Christian organization? Would this make the word of its founder, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Phelps">Fred Phelps</a>, <i>the word</i> of Christ and of the Christian world? Certainly not. Yet, many of these same people believe that when a handful of radical Islamic clerics espouse their conception of Islam that it must, by definition, be the word of Islam. </div><div><br /></div><div><i>The point is simple:</i> any world religion is complex and multivocal. There is can be no one <i>true</i> interpretation--that is, when it is mere mortals who must do the interpreting. Yet, it is often the case that the interpretation that receives the most notice, especially among non-believers, is the one which is most virulent or the most fanatical. When we add into the mix an understanding that the interpretation of religious "texts" does not occur in a vacuum, but is instead influenced by an array of political, social, economic forces, it is easy to see that we must be very careful about ascribing universality to any view of any religion. </div></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-8419795979468326682010-05-11T13:52:00.000-07:002010-05-12T08:50:11.636-07:00Social Constructivism and ‘Jihad Cool’Last night (May 10, 2010), on the way home from class, I listened to a story on NPR’s Talk of the Nation (“Help Young Muslims Resist ‘Jihad Cool’). The story (interview) was interesting on many levels, but what I found particularly interesting—and relevant to our just-concluded discussion of social constructivism—was how some young, Western-educated, and relatively affluent and privileged Muslims, such as Faisal Shahzad, are being drawn into radicalism and “terrorism.” The speaker, Asra Nomani, argued, in essence that certain mosques and leaders in the Muslim community are constructing a reality that defines the West, and the United States in particular, as inherently dangerous and threatening to Islam. The West, as Nomani put it, “is the dark path.” She continues:<br /><br />“We're hearing it in our mosques. I can tell you that in my mosque in West Virginia, I heard it every Friday from these sermons that would be spoken by PhD graduate students, by engineering professors, folks who were getting all of the advantages of our open society and yet, on Thursday night downloading from Saudi websites sermons that basically said, don't imitate the path, the disbelievers, meaning the West. And this is exactly that slippery slope that ends up with something like this Times Square bomb attack - attempt.”<br /><br />In this socially constructed reality, it becomes easier to understand the type of “how-possible” questions that social constructivists, such as Roxanne Doty, speak of. Consider, for example, how it is possible for a privileged young man (Shadzad is the son of a vice marshal in the Pakistani Air Force) to load a car up with explosives and park it in Times Square with the intent of killing dozens of people. How is it possible, in other words, for individuals to come to an understanding that such actions are reasonable and justified? The answer should already be clear. To repeat: it is possible because, through an increasingly potent discourse, the West has become an almost demonic entity that must be destroyed, regardless of the personal costs.<br /><br />We can also see how this discourse (seemingly) limits or narrows the type of choices available to “true believers.” On this point, Nomani notes (in an earlier article she wrote for the Daily Beast) that, for talented young Muslims, there are few nonviolent avenues for protests to lure them away from the temptations of “jihad cool.” To Neal Conan (Talk of Nation’s host) this made little sense. As he succinctly put it, “there are a million ways to express protest in this country.” Conan is certainly right, but the (social constructivist) point is that, within the reality of the anti-Western discourse, nonviolence protest is not a viable option; indeed, it is hardly an option at all. <br /><br />Not surprisingly, Nomani seemed to recognize this—in responding to Conan’s remark, she emphasized the importance of constructing an alternative discourse, one that “educated” and “empowered” Muslim youth to see the world differently and to “take advantage of those non-violent ways.”<br /><br />There is also a larger point here (social constructivists tell us). For it is not only a radicalized Islamic discourse that creates certain social constructed realities: the entire social world is a product of various discourses, some mainstream and some extreme. In the United States, we have created equally powerful discourses that shape our perceptions--create our "realities"--that few of us question or even think about. <br /><br />--------------------------<br /><br />A transcript of the story, “Help Young Muslims Resist ‘Jihad Cool’” is available on the NPR website at this address: <a href="http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126672350&ft=1&f=5">http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=126672350&ft=1&f=5</a><br /><br />Asra Nomani’s original article, “The Would-Be Bomber’s Wife” is available on the Daily Beast webstie at this address: h<a href="http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-06/the-would-be-bombers-wife/">ttp://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-05-06/the-would-be-bombers-wife/</a>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com2tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-35338095598192444412010-03-26T10:59:00.000-07:002010-03-27T10:27:16.594-07:00The Sea Shepherd: A Global Policeman?Today, most of the world considers killing (and eating) whales to be morally repugnant (although this certainly not the case for centuries leading up to the mid-20th century. Indeed, until the mid-1900s, whales were considered by most countries a “free resource, a gift from nature, available to anyone who would hunt and kill them.” Over the past several decades, however, attitudes and international norms have changed considerably. Part of this is due to over-whaling and the understanding that many species of whales were being driven to the brink of extinction. Part is also due to an understanding that whales are sentient and highly intelligent beings. Whatever the motivation, the distaste for whaling led to widespread international efforts to protect the species. These efforts began in the 1970s and eventually led to international agreements to regulate whaling, including the imposition by the <a href="http://iwcoffice.org/">International Whaling Commission</a> (IWC) of a moratorium on <span style="font-style:italic;">commercial</span> whaling (in 1986).<br /><br />While most countries complied with the <span style="font-style:italic;">spirit</span> of the moratorium, one major whaling country did not: Japan. Japan exploited a loophole in the agreement, a loophole that allowed countries engage in whaling for the purposes of <span style="font-style:italic;">scientific research</span>. There remains a great deal of debate over Japan's use of this loophole--it is not entirely clear whether Japan's continued "slaughter" of whales violates the moratorium. But, even if it does, another issue immediately arises: there are no sanctions--no enforcement mechanism--that can prevent countries from engaging in commercial whaling.<br /><br />This is where the Sea Shepherd comes in. Sea Shepherd is a non-governmental organization, which has taken up the role of enforcing international law, or, as the organization puts it on its website, its "primary mandate is to assume a law enforcement role as provided by the United Nations World Charter for Nature." Over the past couple of years, a major part of this effort has been directed at the Japanese whaling fleet (an effort made famous by the cable television series, <a href="http://animal.discovery.com/tv/whale-wars/">Whale Wars</a>). <br /><br />From the standpoint of IR, the activities of the Sea Shepherd are interesting and represent a relatively new development. Traditional versions of international relations theory--i.e., realism--have assumed that only states matter. Yet, Sea Shepherd's activities demonstrate, albeit in a very limited way, that non-state actors have the potential to play a much larger, more significant role, and in ways that have not been anticipated. In this case, for example, we have a non-state actor <span style="font-style:italic;">enforcing</span> (or attempting to enforce) international law against the Japanese whaling industry and by extension, against the Japanese state. On this point, it is sufficient to note that Japan's national government is the ultimate target of the Sea Shephard, since it is the government that permits its whalers to conduct "scientific research" and it is the government that defends this practice. <br /><br />Of course, Sea Shepherds' "enforcement capacity" is insufficient to stop whaling, but this partly because of insufficient resources. If Sea Shepherd were vastly richer--and able to deploy larger and better ships and able to pay its crew members--it likely would have a much stronger impact. At the very least, it might be able force a rethinking of the Convention--it would force members of the IWC back to the bargaining table. <br /><br />The point, I should stress, is not to extoll the activities of Sea Shepherd (there are many critics, including other environmental NGOs, such as Greenpeace, which disagree with the organization's tactics) or condemn Japan; rather, my point is to highlight the potential and growing role of non-state actors in world politics.<br /><br />NOTE TO POLS 427 STUDENTS: <span style="font-style:italic;">This is a "quick-and-dirty" sample of a journal entry. It is useful noting that this entry was not based on single news story, but on a series of stories. In addition, my entry originally derives from the few episodes of <span style="font-weight:bold;">Whale Wars</span> I saw last year. In addition, to make the entry more substantive, I had to do a bit of research: I went to the IWC website, the Sea Shepherd website, and a few others. Better entries will often--but not always--require that you expand your reading beyond a single story.</span>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-86968365832188757522009-10-08T16:17:00.001-07:002009-10-08T16:18:13.917-07:00"Don't Ask, Don't Tell" and Comparative Analysis<span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Verdana; font-size: 13px; ">Normally, one wouldn't expect to find an opportunity to connect the comparative method to the US military's "Don't Tell, Don't Ask" policy, but a recent article in the military's academic journal, Joint Forces Quarterly, show us how comparative analysis can be used in the most unexpected places. <br /><br />According to this article (which is discussed in a recent LA Times column by Megan Duam--I will post the link below), the author relies at least somewhat on comparative analysis to show that having openly gay soldiers in the military does not have demonstrably negative impact on unit cohesion (which is the primary argument against allowing gays to openly serve).<br /><br />Col. Om Prakash, the author, points out that countries such as Australia, Britain, Canada and Israel, which have lifted bans on gays in the military, have seen "no impact on military performance, readiness, cohesion or ability to recruit or retain"; instead, the don't ask, don't tell policy "forces a compromise in integrity" that is ultimately "damaging to the unit cohesion its stated purpose is to preserve."<br /><br />I have not read the original article, so I cannot say how well Prakash carries out his comparative analysis, but, clearly, a good part of his argument is premised on comparisons. <br /><br />Here is a link to the article by Megan Daum: <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum8-2009oct08,0,6727164.column">http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-daum8-2009oct08,0,6727164.column</a></span>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-34400323989821678542009-10-01T07:56:00.000-07:002009-10-15T08:00:33.832-07:00The Subculture of Fundamentalism<span class="Apple-style-span" style=" ;font-family:Verdana, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><p>The conservative backlash against President Obama has, I think, many sources, but one source is clear: the subculture of religious fundamentalism. This point is made clear in a recent interview of Frank Schaeffer on the Rachel Maddow show. Schaffer is a former founder of the "religious right." As Schaeffer explains, the religious right constitutes a distinct sub-culture in American society.</p><p>There are undoubtedly very clear, very powerful values and beliefs that shape how members of this culture see the world; these values and beliefs, more importantly, have a direct impact on behavior. One might say that they dictate, to a large extent, what people say and do. How else, for instance, can one explain the fact that one in three conservatives in New Jersey believe that Obama is the anti-Christ?</p><p>As students of political science and of comparative politics, the point is not to ridicule or condemn such beliefs, but, instead, to understand where they come from, why they thrive, and how they impact the world. As a comparativist, we can start to answer some of these questions by looking around the world. For instance, we can see if there meaningful parallels between fundamentalism in the US and fundamentalism in other countries. Identifying such parallels may help us understand better why fundamentalist ideas take root and how they spread. In particular, a little comparative thinking allows us to see how fundamentalism relates to other social, political and economic processes. Looking around the world also allows us to see what happens when fundamentalists occupy positions of dominance in the political and social system--as in Iran. We are also forced to confront uncomfortable questions, such as this: Despite differences in religious beliefs, would an American fundamentalist regime be meaningfully different the Iranian theocracy?<br /><br /></p><p><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/lPwGV1h4lW8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>.</p><br /><br /><p>Here is the link to the interview: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPwGV1h4lW8</a></p><div><br /></div></span>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-26452324731422370022009-09-14T22:11:00.000-07:002009-09-14T22:16:55.458-07:00South Korea and Global Sex Trafficking<!--StartFragment--> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande', fantasy;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size: small;"> <!--StartFragment--> </span></span></p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande', fantasy;"><p class="MsoNormal"><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">The following is an excerpt from a longer article, which will be published this fall in the </span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">Korean Quarterly.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">South Korea clearly does not fit the profile of most major source countries for sex trafficking. For South Korea is the world’s 13th largest economy and a member of the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development). Its real per capita income, according to the World Bank, is just under $27,000—about the same as Greece and Italy. In mid-2009 (at the height of the global recession), moreover, the country’s employment rate was only 3.9 percent, one of the lowest in the industrialized world at the time. Significantly, too, in terms of the United Nation’s Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), South Korea ranks fairly high: 26th in the world, which is comparable to Germany, Israel and Greece and one of the best in Asia (behind only Japan, Hong Kong, and Singapore). Yet, as I just suggested, South Korea is a major source of trafficked and smuggled women in the global commercial sex trade. The major destinations, not surprisingly, include some of the wealthiest countries and regions—the United States, Japan, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. But, other significant destination countries include those with a level of development very similar to South Korea, such as Hong Kong and Taiwan, and countries that are much poorer: Vietnam, Uzbekistan, and Kazakhstan.</span><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref" title=""><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">[i]</span></a></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';"><a href="#_edn1" name="_ednref" title=""></a>Minimally, there are tens of thousands of Korean women involved in global sex trafficking at any one time, and perhaps hundreds of thousands over the past several decades. In the United States specifically, there are likely at least five to ten thousand sexually exploited Korean women in total, and as many as 20,000 (perhaps more). Unfortunately, it is impossible to provide a precise estimate. It is also important to note that, rather than decreasing as the country has become richer, sex trafficking (including smuggling for sexual exploitation) from Korea, by all accounts, is steadily growing. There are several reasons for this, which I will talk about shortly. First, though, it is also worth emphasizing that South Korea is not only an important source of global sex trafficking, but is also a significant destination. Since the 1990s, in particular, thousands of women primarily from the Philippines, Russia, China, and Central Asia, have been “imported” into South Korea to work as prostitutes near US military bases for American soldiers (since the mid-2000s, though, the US military command has attempted to stamp out this practice through an anti-human trafficking campaign). At the same time, wealthy and middle class Korean men are increasingly fueling the demand for foreign sex workers </span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">in</span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';"> South Korea,</span><a href="#_edn2" name="_ednref" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">[ii]</span></span></a><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';"> for just as American men demand easily exploited, “exotic” foreign women, so do Korean men.</span></span></p><p class="MsoNormal"><span class="MsoEndnoteReference"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';">South Korea, however, is not unique. There are a number of countries that are both major sources of and destinations for global sex trafficking (it is also important to recall that all countries have their own, internally generated source of sex trafficking). Still, it is likely that South Korea stands alone as the most prosperous “supplier” of sexually exploited women to the rest of the world in general, and to the United States more specifically.</span></span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><i><o:p><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:'lucida grande';"> ...</span></o:p></i></p> <div style="mso-element:endnote-list"><br /> <hr align="left" size="1" width="33%"> <div id="edn"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText" style="line-height:normal"><a href="#_ednref" name="_edn1" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[i]</span></a> Dong-Hoon Seol and Geon-Soo Han, “Korean Migrant Women in Entertainment Business in the United States, Japan, and Australia,” Report prepared for the Bombit Women’s Foundation (Seoul, South Korea, 2009). </p> </div> <div style="mso-element:endnote" id="edn"> <p class="MsoEndnoteText" style="line-height:normal"><a href="#_ednref" name="_edn2" title=""><span class="MsoEndnoteReference">[ii]</span></a> Dong-Hoon Seol, “International Sex Trafficking in Women in Korea: Its Causes, Consequences and Countermeasures,” <i>Asian Journal of Women’s Studies</i> 10, no. 2 (June 30, 2004).</p> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment--> </span><p></p><div style="mso-element:endnote-list"><div style="mso-element:endnote" id="edn"> </div> </div> <!--EndFragment-->Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-70048947771895065052009-08-13T21:51:00.000-07:002009-08-25T14:00:41.948-07:00Sticks, Stones, and . . . Socialism?"Sticks and stones will break your bones, but words ...?" They can derail health care reform. While the debate over health care reform rages, one particularly invidious and pervasive tactic has been to label the government's efforts "socialism," even Nazi socialism (a <a href="http://mediamatters.org/limbaughwire/2009/08/12#0044">charge</a> leveled by Rush Limbaugh). It's still an open question whether this attempt to delegitimize health care reform by labeling it socialism will work, but one thing is sure: it's had an unequivocal impact on the overall debate. I bring this up because, in the social sciences, there is a tendency to discount subjective (or more accurately, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersubjectivity">intersubjective</a>) forces--such as words and ideas--but it is clear that intersubjective forces are driving the debate today. Many of these ideas, of course, are completely baseless or are so hyperbolic they <i>should</i> be funny. But we know that, to many Americans, they are deadly serious. <div><br /></div><div>So it is with the concept of socialism. The Obama administration clearly is not advocating socialism; instead, it is advancing a form of publicly funded health care, wherein the government is not even involved in the direct delivery of medical care (as it is, say, in Britain). In this regard, it might not even be accurate to call the administration's efforts "socialized health care." But, for the sake of argument, let's say that it is socialized health care. The question becomes, why is this so wrong? Certainly, to many critics of the Obama administration, it really doesn't matter what you call it: <i>any</i> government involvement in the health care system is necessarily bad; not only that, it is un-American. The logic here seems to be that the government itself is evil--maybe a necessary evil--but evil nonetheless. The government can do no right, so it should do nothing at all.</div><div><br /></div><div>This is an odd position. After all, the same vicious opponents to socialized health care, generally speaking, have no problem at all with socialized national defense. Nor do they have a problem with socialized police and socialized courts, or socialized retirement (i.e., social security), and so on. Ironically, many don't even have a problem with socialize medicine, as a large number of the most outspoken critics are clearly taking advantage of Medicare. And, of course, legislators who are against socialized health care have no problem with their own government-provided health care plans. </div><div><br /></div><div>All these contradictions fall by the wayside, though, through the intersubjective and subjective power of a simple word: socialism.</div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-60068457597110995652009-07-26T10:56:00.000-07:002009-07-26T11:14:17.187-07:00Hard Times Ahead for CSUsThe recently approved budget is going to result is some very hard times for the CSU and for CSLA specifically. Already, dozens if not hundreds of course sections are being cut throughout the university, lecturers are being effectively laid off, fees are being increased, and thousands of students will find that they will not be able to enroll in courses they need to graduate (for example, the POLS department is cutting both of its upper division theme courses). Students who already take 5, 6 or seven years to graduate, may find that it takes even longer from now on. What is the solution? The easiest one, of course, is for California's overall economy to improve: as the economy improves funding will likely, although not necessarily, be restored to previous levels. But, here's the rub: the boom and bust cycles are almost certain to repeat, and for every "bust" the situation for the CSUs (and UCs) gets worse. <div><br /></div><div>The longer term solution must be a more stable source of funding for the system of higher education in the state. The <a href="http://www.calfac.org/">California Faculty Association</a> has proposed on solution--California AB 655, which will impose a tax on the oil extracted from California and devote the associated revenue to the state's three public higher educations systems. I do not how viable this proposal is, either politically or economically, but creative solutions are definitely needed. The consequence of doing nothing is the inevitable decline and decimation of <i>public</i> higher education in California, which in turn, will have far reaching repercussions for the state. <span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Helvetica, fantasy; font-size: 12px; "><br /></span></div><div><br /></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-45353905145387709872009-07-24T15:34:00.000-07:002009-07-24T15:42:34.383-07:00Who is Korean? Migration, Immigration, and the Challenge of Multiculturalism in Homogeneous Societies“I don’t know,” opines a 31-year old Korean woman. “I have always believed that Korea is a single-race country. And I’m proud of that. Somehow, Korea becoming a multiracial society doesn’t sound right.” This is not an unusual view. Indeed, the large majority of Koreans would likely agree that Korean society is inextricably tied to and defined by a unique Korean identity, one based on an uncompromising conflation of race and ethnicity. The strong tendency among Koreans to conflate race and ethnicity has important implications, the most salient of which is this: it has served to create an exceptionally rigid and narrow conceptualization of national identity and belongingness. To be “truly” Korean, one must not only have Korean blood, but must also embody the values, the mores, and the mind-set of Korean society. This helps explain why overseas Koreans (from China, Russia, Japan, the United States and other countries throughout the world) have not fit into Korean society as Koreans. They are different, “real” Koreans recognize, despite sharing the same blood. At the same time, those who lack a “pure blood” relationship, no matter how acculturated they may be, have also been rejected as outsiders. This rejection, more importantly, has generally led to severe forms of discrimination.<br /><br />This is arguably most apparent with “Amerasians,” who, in South Korea, are primarily children born to a Korean woman and an American man, usually a U.S. soldier. It is important to note here that it was only in 1998 that non-Korean husbands gained legal rights to naturalize, while non-Korean wives have long had this right. At the same time, up until 1994, most “international marriages” in Korea were between a foreign man and Korean woman. According to the ethno-racial and patrilineal logic of belongingness in South Korea, then, Amerasians have been viewed as decidedly non-Korean interlopers who belong, if anywhere, in the land of their fathers. The ill treatment of Amerasians was, as Mary Lee and others have argued, exacerbated by a patriarchal and hyper-masculine sense of national identity: Amerasian children were associated with the “shame” and “humiliation” of a dominant Western power conquering and abusing Korean women for sexual pleasure. Not surprisingly, then, Amerasians have been ostracized from mainstream Korean society; they were not only subject to intense and pervasive interpersonal and social abuse, but also to institutional discrimination—Amerasian males, for example, were barred from serving in the South Korean military, which is mandatory for every other Korean male and is “an institutional rite of passage which <span style="font-style:italic;">enables access to citizen rights</span>” (emphasis added) (This law was revised in 2006 so that “mixed-blood” Koreans could voluntarily enlist for military service.) In concrete terms, the discriminatory treatment of Amerasians has resulted in unusually high school drop out rates (and much lower levels of educational achievement overall), significantly higher rates of unemployment and underemployment, and much lower pay.<br /><br />This is a full-length article. The rest can be viewed online on <a href="http://www.japanfocus.org/-Timothy-Lim/3192">Japan Focus</a>.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-71909424534936332009-07-19T12:24:00.000-07:002009-07-24T15:37:50.920-07:00Why California is Not too Big to Fail<div>California is big, very big. If it were a separate country, it would be one of the largest economies in the world: somewhere between the 8th and 10th largest, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California">depending on the year and source you look </a>at. In 2007, California’s gross state product was $1.812 trillion, number one in the country. In terms of population, California is the largest state in the U.S. with about 38 million people, or about one-eighth of total U.S. population. California is also a pretty large employer: in 2009, the state had, on its direct payroll, <a href="http://www.sco.ca.gov/ppsd_empinfo_demo.html">244,061 active employees</a>. By these measures, California is certainly “bigger” than, say, AIG, which has received something like $173 billion in US taxpayer money. <a href="http://projects.nytimes.com/creditcrisis/recipients/table">Hundreds of other banks, insurers and even a few manufacturers (all much smaller than California) have received bailout funds </a>as well, ranging from a few million dollars to tens of billions of dollars. Despite California’s immense size, however, there is almost no prospect that it will receive federal “bailout” funds to help it out of its current budget mess—a deficit that exceeds $26 billion (really, pocket change in light of the amount of money AIG has received). </div><div><br /></div><div>All of this raises the obvious question, “Is California too big to fail?” This is a question many <a href="http://meganmcardle.theatlantic.com/archives/2009/05/is_california_too_big_to_fail.php">pundits</a> have also asked and answered: most answer that California, in fact, is not too big to fail. I think they are right, but they are asking the wrong question. The right question should focus more on the “power” of California as a state. And, as an economic and political actor, California has precious little power. It is important at this point, however, to take a small step back. When I speak of “power” I do not mean the power that comes from just being big. Indeed, that’s a small aspect of power, especially from the standpoint of political economy. Instead, when I speak of power, I’m borrowing from the ideas of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Susan_Strange">Susan Strange</a>, who talked about structural power and, more specifically, four dimensions of structural power: security, production, finance, and knowledge. I don’t have time to discuss all these dimensions here (to learn more, take my POLS/ECON 426 course), so let me just say that in terms of structural power, California is quite small. </div><div><br /></div><div>As an economic and political actor, for example, California doesn’t have much productive power in its own right: “California” doesn’t produce things in the way that Chrysler or GM do (two economic actors that received bailouts); rather, it’s the companies that are based in California that produce things. Similarly, while banks and large financial institutions have power because they control “credit” (the lifeblood of an economy), California’s financial power is very limited. The state does provide security, which is why police, prison system, and the courts are much more protected than other players in the state, but this isn’t enough to protect the budget as a whole. Finally, the state does have a university system, which produces “knowledge,” and this is not unimportant: but “knowledge” comes from a wide variety of sources, both inside and outside of California, so even here the state is a relatively small player. </div><div><br /></div><div>Without structural power, the state is basically at the mercy of larger forces. This is why California is not too big to fail. </div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-44538891908937122782009-05-19T12:33:00.000-07:002009-07-24T12:37:07.800-07:00America: A Culture of Violence?I came across the following <a href="http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/weblog/National%20Briefing%20-%20Los%20Angeles%20Times.pdf">story</a> in the National Briefings section of the LA Times on May 9, 2009:<br /><br /><span style="font-style:italic;">"Four off-roaders shot; couple held A couple has been accused of opening fire and wounding four people, including a 7-year-old boy and a 5-year-old girl, who they mistakenly thought were trespassing on their property near Dayton. The victims, who were off-roading near a residential area about 40 miles northeast of Houston, were struck with shotgun pellets late Thursday after stopping their vehicles near the Trinity River so the children could go to the bathroom, said Liberty County Chief Deputy Ken DeFoor. Police said Sheila Muhs, 45, fired once with a 12-gauge shotgun, then handed it to her husband, Gale, also 45. DeFoor said Sheila Muhs called 911 and told the dispatcher, 'They're out here tearing up the levee, so I shot them.'<br /><br />The Muhs are charged with aggravated assault with a deadly weapon. Donald Coffey Jr., 7, was in critical condition after being shot in the head. Patrick Cammack, a friend of the boy's father who was driving a separate vehicle, was also shot in the head and in critical condition."</span><br /><br />The story--at an admittedly anecdotal level--helps to support the view that there is something unusual about American culture. It is a culture where at least some otherwise normal people (but probably not an inconsequential number) believe that it is appropriate to shoot at a family, including two small children, because they were "tearing up a levee" (instead of, say, calling the police or simply yelling at them to stop).<br /><br />Culturalists might tell us that such actions cannot be considered rational, because they are fundamentally based on a particular process of enculturation that shapes people's views and perceptions of what is appropriate or inappropriate behavior. Does this prove the cultural perspective? Certainly not. But if we could find that such attitudes and perceptions shape the behavior of a significant part of the American population (especially in relation to other societies), we may be on to something.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-42780125479970203292009-05-18T12:37:00.000-07:002009-07-24T12:49:43.740-07:00The Double Movement and Foreign Workers<img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 257px; height: 320px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmoOfdo7COI/AAAAAAAAAEo/jYZ-b0UQWVQ/s320/karl_polanyi.gif" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362114240032999650" />In my course on International Political Economy, I discuss the ideas of <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Polanyi">Karl Polanyi</a>, who argued that one consequence of the market was the commodification of labor. This refers to the treatment of labor as if it were the same as any other <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Factors_of_production">factor of production</a>. In the U.S., western Europe and many other "advanced" industrialized nations, of course, (domestic) labor has long been "de-commodified," at least to a certain extent. But this has not necessarily been true of foreign migrant labor.<br /><br />One reason for this is obvious: foreign migrant workers are viewed as unwanted or barely tolerable interlopers; they are certainly not citizens, and therefore, most people do not believe that they are deserving of any rights whatsoever. As a result, there are few objections when foreign migrant workers are, in fact, treated as commodities--as nothing more than an undifferentiated "product" that should, rightfully, be subject to the laws of supply and demand. In the Marxist view, people become commodified when their value is determined solely "exchange-value" as defined by money (a special type of commodity).<br /><br />All of this was brought to mind after I read a article titled<a href="http://www.ipsnews.net/news.asp?idnews=46778">, "Sri Lanka: Unions Strike Landmark Deal to Protect Migrant Workers."</a> The article discussed a recent agreement between Sri Lanka on the one hand (which has sent more than 1.6 million workers to the Middle East, Asia and Europe) and Bahrain, Jordan and Kuwait on the other hand. The agreement gives Sri Lankan workers "internationally recognized labor rights," the implementation of which will be ensured by local unions in the receiving countries. The new agreement is based on a model developed under the aegis of the International Labour Organisation (ILO) and its Bureau for Workers’ Activities. It is also the first of its kind covering Asian migrant workers in Arab states<br /><br />One sentence in the article stood out: "A key clause in the agreement is that, in line with ILO conventions, labourers will not be treated as a ‘commodity.'"<br /><br />This is, I think, an important development and also one that is of relevance to American workers. For a significant aspect of the global political economy is the gap between the different segments of the global workforce. The larger that gap, the more power global corporations have in setting wage rates; the smaller the gap, the more power workers have.<br /><br />Is this a good or bad thing? I'll leave that up to you to decide. But, one critical point to remember is that we do live in a world where power matters. Students of political economy need to keep this firmly in mind.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-47414114368876682982009-04-08T12:45:00.000-07:002009-07-24T12:48:22.475-07:00Twins, Aging, and the Logic of the MSS DesignOne useful<img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 307px; height: 200px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmoPjek8TfI/AAAAAAAAAEw/XaFeGdyMBc8/s320/twins_aging_0204.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362115408515845618" /> way to get a sense of the logic upon which the MSS--"most similar system--design is based is to consider differences between identical twins. Obviously, twins share the widest range of similarities that two human beings (units of analyses; "systems") can share: in this regard, they are almost perfect examples of two "most similar systems." Yet, for the most part, twins do not develop exactly alike: over time, differences invariably crop up. These differences--such as "aging"--can be identified as dependent variables: an outcome or phenomenon that is the product of some other factor or set of factors. With this in mind, consider the picture of two "identical" twins (above), one of whom appears much older than the other. The difference tells us that something caused one twin to age faster than the other. Thus, the task of the researcher is to focus on finding out what other differences may have caused or resulted in one twin appearing older than the other. These other differences are the independent variable(s). The task, to put it in slightly different terms, is to find key differences in a sea of similarities. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/printout/0,8816,1877717,00.html">Click here to read an article in Time Magazine about a study on identical twins</a>.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-39181719420478110842009-02-26T12:50:00.000-08:002009-07-24T12:54:58.208-07:00Obama: The First Asian-American President<div>Back in July 2008, <a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2008/07/30/apop.DTL">Jeff Yang wrote a column</a> titled, "Could Obama be the first Asian American president?" Yang, of course, was building from the well worked notion of Clinton as the first Black president. <a href="http://www.newyorker.com/archive/1998/10/05/1998_10_05_031_TNY_LIBRY_000016504">As Toni Morrison put it in 1998</a>:</div><div><br /></div><div><i>White skin notwithstanding, this [Clinton] is our first black president. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children's lifetime. After all, he displays almost every trope of blackness: single-parent household, born poor, working-class, saxophone-playing, McDonald's-and-junk-food-loving boy from Arkansas.</i></div><div><br /></div><div>The jist of Morrison's argument (and of Yang's as well), is that racial or ethnic identity is not determined solely (or even mostly) by skin color or some other genetic characteristic, but instead is cultural. There is, moreover, a clear implication in this view: cultural values influence our outlook, attitudes, and behavior. From this perspective, Obama almost certainly is our first Asian-American president. This is not to say, I should emphasize, that Obama's other identities--African-</div><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 280px; height: 204px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmoQ-D1pb1I/AAAAAAAAAE4/m_HNo8ml8w4/s320/US_President_Obama_speaks_at_the_Department_of_Energy_full_large_square.jpg.jpeg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362116964706250578" /><div>American, multiracial, American, and so on--are less important or less valid, for we all have multiple identities. But it is to say that Obama, in a very meaningful and even profound way, represents Asian-Americans.</div><div><br /></div><div>From a practical political perspective, this means he recognizes that Asian-Americans are an integral part of the United States. This is reflected in his refusal to treat Asian Americans as mere tokens in his administration. Indeed, he is the first president to nominate more than a single Asian-American to a cabinet post. To date, in fact, he has nominated three: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Shinseki">Eric Shinseki</a> for Secretary of Veteran Affairs, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steven_Chu">Steven Chu</a> for Secretary of Energy, and, most recently, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Locke">Gary Locke</a> for Secretary of Commerce. In addition, the most senior members of his congressional team (when he was still serving as a senator) are Asian-American: his Senate chief of staff was Pete Rouse, whose mother is Japanese American, and his legislative director was Chris Lu, whose parents come from China (Lu is now Cabinet Secretary and Rouse is now a Senior Adviser).</div><div><br /></div><div>Most likely, Obama did not necessarily "see" these individuals as Asian-Americans; but, this too, is part of the point: until Obama, Asian Americans, no matter how qualified, were largely invisible. They no longer are.</div><div><br /></div><div><b>Addendum</b>: Obama's recent nomination of <a href="http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-justice-koh25-2009mar25,0,5808722.story">Harold Hongju Koh</a> as the State Department's top legal advisor continues the president's pattern of recognizing Asian-Americans.</div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-37308843025604667292008-04-26T13:31:00.000-07:002009-07-24T23:29:24.326-07:00States or Markets? The Problem with Binary ThinkingWhile teaching International Political Economy this quarter (after a rather long hiatus) and watching <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/2020/Stossel/story?id=4716938&page=1">John Stossel's interview of Arriana Huffington</a> last night on ABC's 20/20, it struck me how binary thinking really does make otherwise intelligent people “stupid.” Stossel, who I've written about before, is similar to many pundits: he sees the world in stark black- and-white, binary or dichotomous terms. In particular, to Stossel and others, if the government is not the solution (and to Stossel, it's clearly not the solution) it must be the problem. There's no middle ground, no room for a more nuanced understanding of the role that governments (or states) must play in the modern world. It is not surprising, then, that Stossel extols the virtues of the market: without exaggeration, he believes that only the market (or, perhaps more accurately, the logic of the market) can solve the most pressing problems of modern society. If the educational system is “broken,” it must be the government's fault and only market-based competition can fix it. If the welfare system doesn't work, again, it's the government's fault and the only solution is to subject “welfare recipients” to the efficient winds of market forces.<br /><br />What Stossel and others of his ilk fail to see, however, is that modern states and markets exist in a mutually dependent, even co-dependent relationship. State power, at the most general level, allows markets to function (consider what would happen if there was no political authority capable of enforcing <a href="http://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/PropertyRights.html">private property rights</a> and contracts). Even more, states are often necessary to create and maintain “free” markets: consider what might happen if companies had no restraint on their exercise of their power. Many, if they could, would do everything possible to eliminate-permanently-their rivals (even <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith">Adam Smith</a> believed this) to snuff out competition so they could reap <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_profit">monopolistic profits</a>. In an era of mega-corporations, which can figuratively reach around the world, only states can stand in their way. In a world populated by other states, moreover, no private actor would be able to create and sustain a framework of international or global free trade.<br /><br />Once we recognize that states are part-and-parcel of the capitalist process, it becomes harder to sustain the argument that they are, as Stossel implies, antithetical to markets and competition. And, if one cannot sustain that argument, then the related argument that state action and power is the problem begins to crumble.<br /><br />It is also important to understand that states, at least in principle, operate according to a different logic than firms, and that this difference is something we all want. Capitalist firms, by definition, are motivated by profit. The profit motive is important and it leads to tremendous economic results, of this there is no doubt. A (democratic) state, however, is ostensibly motivated by a much broader set of goals: a state must ensure the survival and security of the country (both internal and external), it must be concerned with issues of equity, justice, and, indeed, social welfare (broadly defined), and it must be concerned with creating and maintaining public goods (a livable environment, clean water, transportation systems, etc.). (An aside: Marxists are less sanguine about the motivations of states; they believe that states represent the interests of capital to begin with. This is worthwhile position to explore, as I do in my classes, but for the sake of argument, let us assume that states can also act in the interest of the population at large.)<br /><br />We know that capitalism, even or especially when it is operating smoothly, produces unemployment and poverty and all sorts of socially destructive results-at least in the short-run. Market actors have no incentive to protect workers and others since doing so undermines their profits. This is perhaps the best reason we don't want “national defense” privatized: it's really an oxymoron, since “privatization” implies exclusive (i.e., private) interests, while “national” implies collective interests. Really, does Stossel believe that we should turn over national defense to <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackwater_Worldwide">Blackwater</a>?<br /><br />Herein lies another useful point: The American state (or government) is very good, very effective at providing national defense. We hear time and time again, that the U.S. has the best military in the world. Yet, it is a monopoly (i.e. no actor, private or otherwise, can compete against the U.S. government in providing military defense). Yet, according to Stossel, state-based monopolies never work. Now, I can already hear Stossel and others saying, “Yes, but the U.S. government relies on private enterprise to provide defense, and there is competition among private firms to manufacturer weapons.” Fair enough. But this makes my point: as in many, many areas, governments and private enterprise (the logic of the state and the logic of the market) go hand-in-hand. They are not binary opposites, but mutually reinforcing. <br /><br />This is not, I should emphasize, meant to be a paean to the state (I am, in fact, skeptical of both the state and market). Rather, I simply want to make the point that binary, either-or thinking leads to simplistic, even dangerous conclusions.Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-73267735044247973942008-01-11T13:26:00.000-08:002009-07-24T13:29:34.456-07:00Cheney and the Limits of Realism<div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family: Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 12px; white-space: pre; "><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/YENbElb5-xY&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/YENbElb5-xY&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div><div><br /><br />Realism tells us that individual- and state-level factors--e.g., the interests of major economic actors, the perceptions and cognitive processes of individual political leaders--are largely irrelevant to understanding signifcant foreign policy decisions. This short interview with Dick Cheney, however, gives us an indication of the limits of realism. Cheney's analysis of the reasons against removing Saddam Hussein from power after the first Guf War are a textbook example of realist logic: the US had no compelling national interest in removing a dangerous dictator largely because the strategic costs of doing so outweighed the benefits. That is, without support from Arab allies, without a reliable method of maintaining stability in the region and political coherence within Iraq (which would lead to bigger problems), and so on, it simply made no "strategic" sense for the US to go further. Of course, in 2003 (and even before), Cheney's tune changed completely. Yet, and this is the important point, the strategic environment of decision-making remained largely the same. In 2003, there was still no support from Arab or Islamic allies, there was still no viable political alternative to the Baathist regime, and there was even less support from the international community at large, including the UN and major powers (France, Russia and China). As we know now, too, there was no imminent danger from the Hussein regime itself--that is, there were no weapons of mass destruction. (Indeed, even if Hussein had WMDs, from a strict realist perspective, this would not have mattered since Hussein could not have used the weapons against the US without fear of total obliteration--a point that <a href="http://instructional1.calstatela.edu/tclim/weblog/rice_quote.htm">Condoleezza Rice</a> made quite clearly when she, too, was still espousing realist principles.)</div><div><br /></div><div>Despite all this, the United States launched a "pre-emptive" invasion to remove Hussein from power. It is clear, to repeat, that the international strategic environment did not necessitate this action, as realism claims. Instead, the key motivating factors almost certainly had to be domestic in nature. Whether these were economic/class interests or products of individual needs, interests or perception is, of course, important. But, the larger theoretical point is simply that realism cannot adequately explain this extraordinary foreign policy decision. To put it bluntly, this is a major flaw in the realist framework, and one that students of international relations cannot afford to ignore. </div><div><br /></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-58283330009186494452007-08-15T13:21:00.000-07:002009-07-24T13:26:30.726-07:00<div><i>Imagine there's no Heaven</i></div><div><i>It's easy if you try</i></div><div><i>No hell below us</i></div><div><i>Above us only sky</i></div><div><i>Imagine all the people</i></div><div><i>Living for today</i></div><div><i><br /></i></div><div><i>Imagine there's no countries</i></div><div><i>It isn't hard to do</i></div><div><i>Nothing to kill or die for</i></div><div><i>And no religion too</i></div><div><i>Imagine all the people</i></div><div><i>Living life in peace.</i></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"><object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&"><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/okd3hLlvvLw&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object></span></div><div><br /></div><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" white-space: pre; font-family:Arial, sans-serif;font-size:12px;"></span>John Lennon's "<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imagine_(song)">Imagine</a>" (1971), while immensely popular, is considered idealistic at best; indeed, even people who embrace the message of "Imagine" may think that it is naively utopian. Certainly, when one looks at the hard "reality" of the world we live in--especially the international world--it's not hard to concur. From a different perspective, however, Lennon's "utopianism" reflects the very simple belief that "ideas" matter--that ideas can and do have a profound impact on the world in which we live. Surprisingly, perhaps, this is a belief shared by many hard-headed, no-nonsense neo-conservatives. Neo-conservatives, however, believe that only hard power can be used to reshape reality--a point I discuss in my entry on the Bush Administration's View of Reality" below.</div><div><br /></div><div>But Lennon, too, is talking about <b>power</b>: he is talking about the power of millions, tens of millions, even hundreds of millions of people imagining a more peaceful world. Imaginiing a world in which international borders and religious cleavages did not exist. Can such thing simply be wished away? Well, probably not. But one point is that international borders and religions are, in essence, little more than ideas. Yes, it is true that borders have an objective existence, yet the significance we attach to borders exists within our heads. That is, borders have meaning through the ideas of nationalism or citizenship. Certainly, this is even clearer in the case of religion: religion is simply a set of beliefs and values that exists within our collective heads. To change the world, then, requires changing our ideas about how the world should work or how it should be organized.</div><div><br /></div><div>On this point, it worth remembering that <i>democracy</i> and <i>individual freedom</i> are <b>ideas</b>. The Bush administration believes, we are told, deeply in the idea and power of democracy. The Bush administration believes that spreading democracy will bring a fundamental change to international relations, and in particular, will bring peace to the Middle East. Is Bush a utopian? Perhaps. But, if he is, he has a lot of company.</div><div><br /></div><div>The issue, needless to say, is much, much more complex than what I presented here. Suffice it to say, then, that we--as students of political science--need to consider seriously the significance of ideas in the "real world." Do ideas have power? If so, how is this power manifested and under what conditions? Can ideas--shared among whole populations--reshape the world in a fundamental way? I am not offering an answer here, only an "idea" to ponder.</div><div><br /></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-6711951401942015732007-08-03T13:19:00.000-07:002009-07-24T13:21:11.436-07:00Bush and Reality<div>A few years back an unnamed Bush official told reporter <a href="http://www.ronsuskind.com/about/">Ron Suskind</a>, "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality--judiciously, as you will--we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors...and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do." Now, I know it's a bit late to be commenting on this statement (first reported in 2005), but I was reminded of it when I heard and wrote about Ann Coulter's quote, "I'm more of a man than any liberal." Ironically, both quotes reflect a post modernist or reflectivist perspective, which understands reality as socially constructed. I say ironically because most conservatives see post modernism as mushy, leftist thinking associated with such strange foreigners (even worse, Frenchmen!) as <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michel_Foucault">Foucault</a>, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Derrida">Derrida</a>, and <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean-François_Lyotard">Lyotard</a>. </div><div><br /></div><div>Yet, from a post modern or reflectivist perspective, the idea that powerful governments--even more, hegemonic powers--create their own realities is not at all far-fetched. Indeed, in many respects, this is the starting point of analysis, a fundamental assumption. Certaiinly, as we look at the what the Bush administration has done--and what it is doing--it is not difficult to conclude that it is creating and recreating realities, some of which, to be sure, are very tenuous. (But, in a post modern world, we have to accept the "truth" that reality is not a fixed, objective fact.) Today, for example, the new reality is that we live in an inherently dangerous world populated by irrational terrorists who "hate freedom." In this reality, we have to fight the terrorists "over there" so that they cannot bring death and destruction "here." In this new reality, moreover, the United States is largely, if not entirely, an innocent target; the US--even as an empire--is certainly not responsible for creating the conditions that breed terrorists and terrorism. Of course, not everyone accepts this reality, but perhaps this is because the power of the American empire is under seige. </div><div><br /></div><div>In sum, the idea that the Bush administration has the literal capacity to reshape reality should not be dismissed out of hand. For critics of the Bush administration, too, it is a lesson to take to heart. For while the present administration is not producing a more peaceful, more socially just world, one could argue that it possesses capaciity to do so. Social constructivists (such as Alexander Wendt), in fact, would argue that powerful states--especially acting under the influence of a hegemonic power--can, through their actions and understanding, construct a peaceful world order.</div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-73601669396407090532007-07-10T13:14:00.000-07:002009-07-24T13:17:58.760-07:00Ann Coulter: A Post-Modern Feminist?<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmoW7vOWf1I/AAAAAAAAAFA/nx2Zvt_FDq8/s1600-h/ann-coulter.jpg"><img style="float:left; margin:0 10px 10px 0;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 252px; height: 250px;" src="http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmoW7vOWf1I/AAAAAAAAAFA/nx2Zvt_FDq8/s320/ann-coulter.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362123521882750802" /></a><br /><div>In an interview with Bill O'Reilly, <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ann_Coulter">Ann Coulter</a> pronounced, <a href="http://www.time.com/time/quotes/0,26174,1639267,00.html">"I'm more of a man than any liberal."</a> Now, I'm sure Coulter would be the last women in the world to claim allegiance to feminist post-modernism, but her pithy statement reflects beautifully a key concept in post-modernist thought. This thought is the idea that gender is a socially constructed concept. What this means, in more simple terms, is that what we think of as "masculine" and "feminine"--as male and female--has as much do with societal norms and values as it does with supposedly fixed biological categories. Ann Coulter is "more of man than any liberal" because, supposedly, she personifies masculine traits: she's aggessive, tough, rational, and so on. She is telling us that women who embrace such traits are, for all intents and purposes, men. On the other hand, men who adopt supposedly feminine traits cease being "true men" and become something else, something less than men.</div><div><br /></div><div>Note, though, a clear implication of Coulter's statement, which is that maleness is "naturally" superior to femaleness, that feminine traits are essentially undesirable and inferior. So, Coulter, after all, isn't a feminist, nor is she a post-modernist. For she essentializes "maleness": she tells us that maleness can only be defined, understood or interpreted as a binary opposition to femaleness and, that by definition, maleness is superior to femaleness, at least in the world of politics.</div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-30185981134478144972006-09-27T17:06:00.000-07:002009-07-25T17:08:03.849-07:00Photo blog: The Migrant Workers' Hospital and Foreign Migrant Workers' House<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmueTmmbjAI/AAAAAAAAAGM/KvnSkEcgcOw/s1600-h/MigrantWorkersHospitalAndMigrantWorkersHouse.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 160px; height: 160px;" src="http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmueTmmbjAI/AAAAAAAAAGM/KvnSkEcgcOw/s320/MigrantWorkersHospitalAndMigrantWorkersHouse.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362553840931146754" /></a><br />September 27, 2006 • The Migrant Workers' Hospital (MWH) and Foreign Migrant Workers' House are two of many organizations set up to assist foreign migrant workers in Korea. The MWH, however, is the first and only hospital established specifically to treat foreign workers. It is the product of a great deal of hard work and dedication on the part of Rev. Kim Hae-sung. Rev. Kim was kind enough to sit for an extended interview with me; he also provided a tour of his facilities and encouraged me to take many pictures. I am reproducing some of the photos via an online photo album. Click on the link to see the pictures.<br /><br /><a href="http://picasaweb.google.com/timothyclim/MigrantWorkersHospitalAndMigrantWorkersHouse">Migrant Workers' Hospital and Migrant Workers' House</a>, September 27, 2006 - 28 PhotosTimothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1443399780955133841.post-10760133947218638492006-05-23T17:09:00.000-07:002009-07-25T17:40:52.190-07:00An Interview with Shakil (Migrants' Trade Union, South Korea)<a onblur="try {parent.deselectBloggerImageGracefully();} catch(e) {}" href="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmulB-NRzjI/AAAAAAAAAGc/6psgXO4fl08/s1600-h/shakil.jpg"><img style="float:right; margin:0 0 10px 10px;cursor:pointer; cursor:hand;width: 320px; height: 248px;" src="http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_r0Kf-5ZkqTM/SmulB-NRzjI/AAAAAAAAAGc/6psgXO4fl08/s320/shakil.jpg" border="0" alt="" id="BLOGGER_PHOTO_ID_5362561234611850802" /></a><div><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif;font-size:100%;color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style=" font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;font-size:12px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 2px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 2px; font-family:Verdana, 'Courier New', Courier, Monaco;font-size:medium;"><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The Migrants' Trade Union (MTU) is a small, but important development in the evolution of international migration in South Korea. It represents an effort by foreign migrant workers--primarily from Bangladesh and Nepal--to establish their own political voice in South Korea. The union is headed by Anwar Hossein. Hossein, however, was violently arrested by Korean immigration authorities on May 14th, 2005, and incarcerated in the Chungjoo detention centre (south of Seoul). He was held for almost a year, but was recently transferred to a hospital due to ill-health. This is most likely a "face-saving" tactic, which will allow immigration authorities to release Anwar for "humanitarian reasons." During his detention, the MTU's vice president, Shakil, was the acting president of the union. The following text is a translation of an interview I had with Shakil on May 22, 2006.<br /><br />IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER. T</span></span><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">his is not a verbatim interview. The interview was conducted in Korean and with an interpreter. The "quotes" below, therefore, reflect not only a (rough) translation, but also my personal effort to create a smooth and coherent response in English. (My notes, in other words, were very choppy, so I edited them before reproducing here.) I have endeavored, however, to reflect the clear intent of Shakil in everything reproduced below.</span></span></i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /><br /><br /></span></span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">When and why did you first come to Korea?</span></span></b></i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I came to Korea in 1992 on a tourist visa. Initially, though, didn't intend to stay in Korea; I was interested in going to another country, such as Japan. I saw Korea basically as a stepping-stone. When I came to Korea I initially wanted to establish my own business, buying Korean goods and then selling them to buyers in Bangladesh. This didn’t work out, so eventually I had to find work, but the only work available was low-skilled work in factories.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">How long have you been in Korea?</span></span></b></i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">For 14 years, since 1992.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">How long do you plan to stay?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I don’t know. Personally, I don’t want to stay in Korea. Life is very hard in Korea as an undocumented worker. Living in Korea is very stressful and frustrating. I was arrested once in 2000, but I was released. This was because I was injured at the time. I have not left, however, because I feel a responsibility to the MTU. I will leave when the union achieves its major objectives.What was your life like in the first few years?My first job was in Incheon at a company that manufactured public phones. I worked there for three years. After three years, though, my visa expired for good—I was able get four 6-month renewals, but since then I have been in Korea without a valid visa. After that point, I moved frequently between jobs to avoid getting caught by immigration authorities.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Do you have family or children in Korea?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">I’m not married, and I have no family in Korea. My mother and father live in Bangladesh, but I haven’t been back since I came to Korea. My mother died in 2005, but I wasn’t able to go back. If I had, it would have been nearly impossible to return to Korea.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What got you involved in political activities?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Originally, I didn’t have any intention to get involved in politics or in union activities. When I moved to Ansan, however, I was injured and went to the JCMK [Joint Committee for Migrant Workers in Korea] for assistance. This was in 1998. I was grateful for the help, and, in 1999, I started working as a volunteer counselor for the JCMK. Before that, though, I was familiar with the activities of the JCMK. In 1995, when 13 foreign workers from Nepal staged a sit-in at Myongdong Cathedral, some Korean NGOs helped the workers. </span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">This was where the JCMK started. The Nepali workers, who were all trainees, demanded worker accident insurance. All were suffering from injuries and had been unable to receive treatment. They thought they might be able to get help--or at least bring some attention to their suffering--through a public protest. Although their protest wasn’t entirely successful, the government did respond. It was at this time that I realized there was a need for migrant workers to be organized—although not necessarily to achieve political goals per se. At the time, I was content to work through organizations such as the JCMK. By 2000, however, I realized that we--foreign migrant workers--needed our own organization, so we organized a “headquarters” for a struggle against government crackdowns and the trainee system.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br />BACKGROUND OF THE MIGRANTS' TRADE UNION</span></span></b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;"><br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">How/when did the union begin?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The union began from the “headquarters” originally formed in 2000. In May 2001, however, we joined the Equality Trade Union, and formed the Migrant Workers Branch. So the first migrant workers' union was called the "ETU-MB." The ETU-MB had four chapters: Seoul/Gyeonggi/Incheon, Ansan, Maseok, and (a separate) Incheon. Our new organization was still primarily focused on the same issues as earlier, but this was also the time the government began to consider creating the employment permit system.The situation was changing, so our focus also began to change. Another big event happened when the government announced a deadline for all illegal workers to leave Korea. The announcement was made on November 14, 2003. After this announcement, the ETU-MB, the Nepalese Struggle Alliance, and Korean Human Rights Center/Incheon joined together in a sit-in protest. The protest lasted for more than 1 year. The joseonjok were also demonstrating, although their protests were separate from ours. However, we all demanded the same thing: a stop to the crackdown on illegal workers; we also demanded that all undocumented workers be legalized and that the training system be abolished. This was a very intense period—14 foreign workers committed suicide.<br /><br />We didn’t succeed. Still, it was a very fruitful experience in other ways. One of the primary benefits was that the demonstration dramatically increased public awareness of migrant workers and of foreign worker issues. After the protest, too, we realized that we needed a more formal organizational structure. Hitherto, the ETU-MB was divided into four geographic areas: north Gyeonggi, south Gyeonggi, Seoul, and Incheon. We thought that we needed to find a way to create a more cohesive organization, so we created a planning committee with representatives from the four chapters, plus one representative from the Nepalese Struggle Alliance, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, and the Equality Trade Union. Altogether, we had seven representatives on the planning committee. The planning committee was particularly concerned with membership, which had shrunk drastically after the long struggle against the government: prior to the beginning of the struggle, the ETU-MB had between 400 to 500 members, but afterwards there were only about 100 or so. Many of our members had been arrested and deported. One of the objectives of the planning committee was to expand membership by creating smaller chapters in specific areas, including: Ansan, Anyang, Osan, Songsu, Tongdaemun, Uijongbu, Suwon, and Incheon.<br /><br />On April 24, 2005, the MTU was finally established.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What is the current membership (number)? Has membership been growing?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">In April 2005 we had only about 91 members. Today (in 2006), we have about 300 members. So membership is increasing, but only ver slowly.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">From which countries do the members come from?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Most of the members are from Bangladesh and Nepal. There’s about an even split between these two groups. Of the remaining 100 or so members, there are workers from Sri Lanka, Burma (Myanmar), Indonesia, and the Philippines.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Are the members all “illegal” or undocumented workers?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Prior to the crackdown in 2004, many of our members were legal. After that, though, almost our entire membership is undocumented. Probably less than 10 percent of our members are working in Korea legally.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What are the long-term plans of the union?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We are still concerned with government crackdowns on illegal workers, but our longer term goals are to expand the MTU into a national union, and, in conjunction with Democratic Labor Party, to reform the Employment Permit System. Instead, we want to establish a “Worker Permit System.”<br /><br /></span></span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">RELATIONSHIP WITH KOREAN ORGANIZATIONS</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Does the union have support of Korean unions?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Yes. We have had strong support from Korean labor unions, especially the KCTU. In fact, we are an official member of the “Seoul Council” and the “Gyeonggi Council” of the KCTU.<br /><br /></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><i><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What is the nature of this support? Financial? Organizational?</span></span></b></i></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">The KCTU provides a great deal of organizational support, and is currently assisting us in our efforts to create a national union. If we succeed in this regard, then we can become a full member of the KCTU. The KCTU also provides financial support, currently about 6 million wonper month. In addition, we receive about 2 million won a month in membership dues. If we have any major events, the KCTU usually provides additional funding.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What about other civic organizations in Korea?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">We have very good relations with Korean NGOs, including the JCMK, and also receive some financial assistance from these organizations. We are in constant touch with NGOs through an executive committee. We are also constantly involved in making solidarity with other organizations.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Any problems or difficulties in relationship with Korean organizations?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">No, as I said, we have good relations with the Korean NGO community.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">OTHER QUESTIONS</span></span></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="line-height: 14px; "><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Other than Anwar, has the union or its members been targeted by immigration officials?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Beside Anwar, no other union member has been arrested by immigration authorities, although we are under constant surveillance--I know that I am watched by immigration authorities. This is one reason why living in Korea is so stressful for me.<br /><br /></span></span><b><i><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">What is the current condition and status of Anwar?</span></span></i></b></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><p><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-weight: normal; line-height: normal; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; "><span><span><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:verdana;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-size:small;">Anwar has been released from the detention facility because of ill health. Although, he is technically not free—supposedly, if he regains his health, he’ll be returned to detention—most likely, he will not be deported. Anwar’s health, though, is a serious problem. If he doesn’t recover soon, it is likely that he will not be reelected as president. Even in that event, he’ll continue to play an important role in the union as long as he is in Korea.</span></span></span></span></span></span></span></span></p><span style="font-family:Verdana,Courier New,Courier,Monaco;font-size:-1;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-family:arial, fantasy;color:#2A2D2E;"><span class="Apple-style-span" style="font-weight: 100; line-height: 14px;"><div align="center"></div></span></span></span><p></p></span></span></span></div>Timothy Limhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18163131603144654135noreply@blogger.com0