News

Who’s in control?

If you’re a Korea news buff, you’ve probably been reading about plans to transfer wartime control of Korean armed forces on the Korean Peninsula from the United States to South Korea.  The U.S. plans to transfer wartime control to the Korean military in 2009, enabling South Korea to assert its authority in the event of renewed hostilities with North Korea.  Interestingly, it seems to be one of the few times when the ruling Uri Party and the United States seem to be in agreement, while the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) remains opposed in principle.  Both Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Korean President Roh Moo-hyun have expressed support for the plan, while a number of Korean dignitaries, including GNP leaders, former Korean defense ministers, and retired Korean generals have come out in opposition of the plan.  Reasons for opposing the transfer range from a lack of national consensus, the "hastiness" of the transition, and the assumed cost of the transfer to Korea.  I have no opinion on the transfer itself, but I wanted to point out that it is very ironic that the U.S. and the Roh Administration are in agreement–on a contentious military issue, no less–while the GNP, which is traditionally a strong supporter of the U.S.-Republic of Korea alliance, opposes the agreement.  One wonders whether Roh and the Uri Party have thoroughly assessed the implications of this transfer beyond the fact that empowers Korea in the event of an outbreak of hostilities with the North.

Swapping places of power

The Associated Press is reporting that 79-year-old Cuban President Fidel Castro underwent intestinal surgery and temporarily relinquished power to his younger brother Raul, his 75-year-old heir apparent.  It is unknown whether Castro is critically ill or whether he will recover and reassume power.  Eventually Castro will permanently step down–or die in office–and Cuba will name a new leader.  When Castro resigns as Cuban President and head of the Cuban Communist Party, Cuba could very well follow the precedent set by North Korea and name a family member to succeed him.  North Korea became the first communist nation to engage in dynastic succession by transferring power from Kim Il Sung to his son, Kim Jong Il.  Raul is his brother’s most likely successor.  Some suggest that Raul, at 75, is too old to be president and would have a brief tenure as president.  From a democratic point of view, a brief length of tenure would be a welcome change for a communist regime.  Like the selection of 79-year-old Pope Benedict XVI to succeed Pope John Paul II, it is likely that Raul will succeed his brother in spite of his age.  No one really knows what will happen in Cuban politics after Fidel Castro dies, but President Raul would be much more likely to continue his brother’s policies than other potential candidates.
 
Kim Jong Il’s son Kim Jong Chol is currently considered the leading candidate to succeed his father as leader of North Korea.  In a fit of futile "what if," and "what will never be" musing, I pondered what would happen if Raul Castro and Kim Jong Chol decided to swap power and take over as presidents of each other’s countries.  I thought about what would happen if the new leaders of two very different, relatively isolated communist nations swapped power and suddenly became the ruler in each other’s countries.  Aside from having to learn Korean and Spanish, Raul Castro and Kim Jong Chol might actually infuse reform into their newly adopted nations.  While they might not last long as leaders, because they would lack the support apparatuses necessary to sustain their regimes, they might just achieve international legitimacy and prompt their countries to reform.  Of course, this is all an exercise in futility.  It is indisputable that Cuba would develop a mighty fine kimchi and ginseng industry, and North Korea would field one heck of a baseball team and start manufacturing cigars.

Why are we so happy?

A recent survey published by the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom named Denmark "the happiest place on earth."  I immediately wondered whether the survey was taken after violence against Danes flared up in the Muslim world following the publication of controversial cartoons in the Danish Jylland-Posten newspaper in September 2005.  If I were Danish, I still would not wear a Danish flag when traveling outside Europe for fear of possible reprise.
 
I noted that the United States is ranked higher than most European countries, with the exception of Scandinavian countries and other small states such as Switzerland and Austria.  European countries traditionally rank high in terms of quality of life, and many people assume that European life is more satisfying (happy) than American life.  That may not be the case.  At the same time, Americans often seem discontent and angst-ridden, particularly when it comes to dealing with world events, politics, and economics.  Perhaps life is not as bad as it seems to some Americans.
 
I also thought it interesting that residents of the New World (North and South) appear to be generally happier than those in the Old World (with the exception of Cubans), and although Asian and Oceania Pacific Rim nations ranked generally lower, as a group their happiness factors were higher than those in Central/South Asia and the Middle East.  One big surprise–Saudi Arabia.  Perhaps Saudis are among the happiest people because they are flush with petrodollars.  African nations, as expected, generally ranked at the bottom of the survey.
 
Here’s a condensed list of country listed in order of their happiness factor:

1.   Denmark

2.   Switzerland

3.   Austria

4.   Iceland

5.   The Bahamas

23. United States of America

41. United Kingdom

82. China

90. Japan

125. India

177. Zimbabwe

178. Burundi