The Fire This Time

It's become routine for Korean people being dislocated by "redevelopment" programs to protest. But under President Lee Myung-bak's administration, such routine democratic behavior is more and more embattled. Lee is hostile to citizens who behave like citizens instead of docile employees, as shown by his paranoid response to last summer's candlelight vigils against US beef imports.

Tuesday morning the Seoul police raided a sit-in on the rooftop of a five-story commercial building in the Yongsan district. Accounts of what happened vary, naturally, but it is certain that six people were killed, one of them a policeman, and twenty-three were injured when a fire broke out. The police claim that the protestors threw Molotov cocktails which ignited cans of paint thinner. The protestors say they threw Molotov cocktails after the police turned water cannons on them (in January weather, on a fifth-story rooftop!). It was the first day of the protest, and the police seem to have moved in without attempting to deal with the protesters first. According to The Hankyoreh, 1600 police were involved in the action; I haven't yet seen any report of the number of protesters.

I have mixed feelings about this. The Hankyoreh chides the police for moving carelessly into "an area they knew to be dangerous", though I'd criticize them more for using water cannons in such a confined space -- were they trying to kill people? On the other hand, the protesters brought Molotov cocktails into an area they knew to be dangerous -- 70 containers of highly inflammable paint thinner! -- and threw at least one of them; for once, the police claims seem to coincide with the protestors'. I support people who fight back against police violence, but the weapons must be chosen sensibly. It's lucky more people weren't killed, and both sides share the blame.

And now it seems that the families of the dead (except for the one police officer, of course) have been impeded by the police "from confirming the identities of their bodies".

In addition to being consistently irresponsible towards the victims’ families, police are using harsh tactics against citizens protesting the deaths. They used a water cannon against 1,500 people who held a candlelight protest late Tuesday night, then engaged angrier protesters in a stone-throwing battle. then the police threw rocks back at the more active protesters. Roughly twenty people were injured at the candlelight protest, including members of the press, and were taken to area hospitals. Two people were arrested.

Police even used violence against members of a National Assembly fact-finding mission.

According to statements from the Renewal of Korea Party Wednesday, party member Yu Won-il identified himself as a member of the National Assembly but was verbally abused and beaten, with police demanding to know “if you can do what you want ‘cause you’re a member of the National Assembly.” He has since been diagnosed with a concussion, requiring two weeks of treatment.

In other news, the blogger known as Minerva has been indicted "on charges of spreading false information through online articles to destabilize the foreign exchange market." The Korea Times is a bit more critical than I'd have expected, noting again that the information Minerva posted was accurate, not false.

(P.S. January 24: The Hankyoreh reports:

A recording of a police radio transmission made just before Tuesday’s deadly crackdown on a protest in the Yongsan district revealed that police armed and hired security guards to participate in a joint operation to evict tenants and protesters. The record, which contradicts the police’s assertion that it did not mobilize the contracted personnel, is expected to influence an ongoing investigation being conducted by the prosecution.

This news fits with the Korean government's increasing tendency to try to repress dissent under Lee Myung-bak. It's depressing to think that Koreans should have to fight again the battles they fought for freedom in the years before 1987. But at least, under present conditions, it's a little easier to expose the government's lies, and it may be possible to fight this out in the courts rather than the streets. More information here.)

Forecast

I'm returning to the States tomorrow, so posting will be light for a while, as we bloggers say.

Meanwhile, if you're interested in what's happening in Korea, look at the news sites I've linked to before, and check out the site of The Hankyoreh, an independent newspaper founded in 1988. It has some tasty features for the Korean-challenged, such as translations of political cartoons like this one.

Come to think of it, I should add a Korean blogroll when I get settled back in at home.

Keep On Keepin' On

After a couple days' rest, Koreans returned to the streets last night in memory of two schoolgirls who were killed accidentally by a US military transport in 2002. A US military court acquitted the soldiers who were driving the transport, which touched off protests.

This was not unreasonable: US soldiers who commit certain crimes can usually expect cover-ups and amazing lenience from their superiors. When a gay American sailor was brutally murdered by fellow sailors in 1992, for example, the Navy tried to claim he'd killed himself by accident. It took a protracted campaign by the victim's mother to get the Navy to bring the killers to trial. US forces in Korea and elsewhere have often exhibited a disturbing casualness about the lives of the locals. Here's an interesting right-wing take on the incident, ostensibly by an American GI, full of Red-baiting and resentment against unappreciative locals, and this remarkable howler:

Korean journalists do not report the news in the sense that people in West expect. Citizens from western countries expect their news outlets to serve as a check and balance on the government and big business and provide factually based news. In Korea the media often reports what the government and big business want reported as well as what British journalist Michael Breen calls, “speculation, trial balloons, rumour, and deliberate distortions” in the name of ratings.

It takes real chutzpah to say in 2008, after US media complicity with "the government and big business" to stir up support for the invasion of Iraq, and now of Iran as well, that western news outlets provide factually based news at odds with their governments. It's certainly true that the Korean media I've seen have reported what the Korean government and business want about this summer's protests, but that has hardly made them "anti-American" or friendly to the protesters -- very much the opposite. This sort of distortion makes me doubt everything in "GI Korea's" article. And really, if Koreans are so unappreciative of Americans' sacrifices for them, if Koreans are so easily swayed by troublemakers in the pay of Kim Jong Il, why not just pull American troops out of the peninsula?

Last night's memorial vigil drew thousands. According to the Korea Herald ("Candlelight vigils mark death of girls"),

Some 5,000 members of the Free Citizens' Alliance of Korea held a rally in front of Seoul Station at 3 p.m., denouncing the candlelight vigils and marched towards Cheonggye Plaza through Namdaemun and Gwangyo.

"Social instability continues because of candlelight vigil participants," said the alliance of conservative civic groups. "They must immediately stop disrupting state affairs and illegally marching on the roads at night."

If the Free Citizens' Alliance could only draw 5,000, having had plenty of time to prepare and publicize their rally, President Lee is in serious trouble. But then, you knew that. Today both the English-language Korea Herald ("Truckers' strike disrupts supply chain") and Korea Times have lead articles on the truckers' strike. The Times also has an article quoting Korean economists on the problems with Lee's economic policies, and another on the World Bank's downgrading of Korea's "business-friendly" status.

The photo above shows some Korean Vietnam veterans punching a protester. Since the Herald doesn't mention this skirmish, I think it's a safe bet that the vets started the fight. From this photo, it appears that they started by overturning an information table. (Their target bending over the fallen table could be the man I photographed the other day.) Notice the other Korean in the background, in military garb, impassively watching the assault.

And here's an opinion piece on the protests from English OhMyNews, by another foreigner.

All Quiet on the Eastern Front

Things seem kind of quiet in Korea today, if you ignore the truckers' strike, and both the English Korea Herald and Korea Times did their best. The government has announced plans to "freeze or minimize hikes in public utility and transportation charges" to take some pressure off low-income Koreans. Former Korean President Kim Dae-Jung, a conservative dissident who spent many years in prison and was nearly assassinated by the Park Cheong-hee dictatorship, endorsed the candlelight vigils in a speech today (?). Kim hailed the current protests as "the practice of direct democracy" comparable to that in "Athens 2,000 years ago."

Well, not quite -- it was more like 2,500 years ago, and the protests aren't really direct democracy: they aren't binding on the government. But it's the thought that counts, and for someone of Kim's stature to endorse the vigil puts paid to the "anti-American" and "outraged radicals" smears that Lee Myeong-bak's apologists have been throwing around. In a mostly pretty decent history of the vigils in today's Korea Herald ("Deja vu? Candlelight vigils in 2002 and present"), Henry Shinn points out:

Today's candlelight vigils are not as overtly anti-American [as those of 2002], but they are definitely anti-Lee Myung-bak.

Yes, the issue that sparked the outcry was U.S. beef. And yes, there are some radical protesters who harbor anti-American sentiments. Anti-American sentiment may grow depending on how the situation unfolds, but it does not reflect of the vast majority of protesters so far.

An interesting irony in the beef outrage is apparent through recent polling that shows the majority of the protesters still support the KORUS FTA and the benefits it may bring. Koreans on the streets may arguably be confused or conflicted, but to say everyone bearing a lit candle is anti-American would be inaccurate.

However, if one listens to the chants of the protesters and the signs posted all over Seoul, it is apparent the overriding anger of the populace has been squarely pointed at Lee, not at the United States.

Shinn quotes Lee's predecessor Noh Mu-hyeon saying last week that "the march to Cheong Wa Dae was a meaningless act and that, 'Even if the beef deal was wrong ... it is still wrong to push for the removal of the (Lee) administration. It's unconstitutional and undemocratic.'" Well, maybe. But was the attempted march to the Blue House meaningless? I don't think so, if only because the police resorted to violence to stop it. It also made explicit that it was Lee, not his cabinet, his ministers, or his secretaries, whom the protesters held accountable.
Shinn also seems a bit too eager for "ideological clashes" as the "progressive leaning" demonstrators "witness counter-protests by conservative groups who are saying 'enough is enough.'" Conflict, ideological and otherwise, is just part of the democratic process; apparently it makes Shinn (like many American journalists) nervous. And there's a certain punitive relish in that "enough is enough." Couldn't the stance of the candlelight vigils be boiled down to the same slogan? Why it is only the Right who get to clean house?

One of today's editorials sternly orders the nation "Back to work".

Now that those who have grievances have vented their anger, they are urged to stay away from the streets. They can afford to go back to work, wait and see what action the administration takes. Moreover, a prolonged protest will do more harm than good to the nation and to them eventually, if not immediately.

Okay, I can figure out that it is the editoralist and the Korean right generally that are 'urging' those who have grievances to stay away from the streets. But are the protesters staying away from work? The vigils took place at night, when even the famously overworked Koreans have some free time. One can work for Samsung or LG and for democracy too. And a vast number of Koreans simply watched the vigils online. The vague threat of "more harm than good ... to them eventually, if not immediately" may have in mind problems like US Wall Street's latest attempt to bring Korea to heel, but I can't help thinking that the writer has something more immediate in mind, however vaguely. Still, after having read the Herald's editorials on and off for over eight years now, I must say that their writers are as out of touch with reality as the editors of the Wall Street Journal.

Autarchy In The ROK

Funny thing: the Korea Herald has been yammering that the evil candleight vigils interfere with decent people's lives, spreading chaos and anarchy, and blocking traffic. So what do you call this?
And it wasn't Candle Girl who put those barriers in place.

(Photos, again, from OhMyNews.) These containers were mounted and anchored here in preparation for tonight's vigil commemorating the pro-democracy movement of 1987. (Yay, I can link individual articles at the Korea Times! The articles, however, are thinner on both information and propaganda than at the Korea Herald.) There's talk of a million people gathering in cities around the country. I wouldn't be surprised if there were more than that.

Meanwhile, the young woman who was stomped by Korean cops a week or two back refuses to try to prosecute the police: she wants action taken against those who ordered the cops to use violence ("Tension mounts as one million gather for vigils" at the Korea Herald site).

The Right is having conniptions. According to the Herald there will also be a counter-rally tonight, organized by right-wing groups, and there are two editorials lamenting the weakness of neo-liberalism in Korea today. One ("Pleading no strike") attacks truck and taxi drivers for threatening to strike if they aren't allowed to raise their rates because of soaring fuel prices, accusing them of "seeing the present political and social turmoil as an opportunity to demonstrate their power against the government, which has chosen a business-friendly policy." Hell, yeah: that's how politics works. As for "business-friendly", truck drivers and taxi drivers are also "business" -- they just don't have the clout and access to the President that the conglomerates, Korean and foreign, enjoy. Why shouldn't they raise their rates to cover their costs? The editorialist complains "their strikes will cause serious problems to the nation's industries and further aggravate the social atmosphere."

We understand the difficulties that the skyrocketing oil prices have caused for truckers and public transport businesses. Yet memories are still vivid of the nationwide truckers' strike in 2003, which resulted in total losses of $540 million to the manufacturing and export businesses. At that time, the truckers' action had the justifiable reason of correcting an inadequate hiring system involving corporate consignors and the drivers, who were mostly the owners of the vehicles they drive.

How much do you want to bet that in 2003, the Herald opposed the strike and scolded the truckers for costing their betters so much money? It's always easier to support popular movements in hindsight. It seems to me that the truckers and taxi drivers today also have a justifiable reason for action. The writer concludes:

It is time for all to show restraint and allow businesses and the government the space to breathe. Collective action should be limited to delivering each group's demands to the authorities. Everyone should deeply consider the consequences of their moves. A strike at this time will undermine public trust in the labor movement, and plunge the nation into sheer hopelessness.

I love this sweet reasonableness, but most Koreans also need some space to breathe, after years of rising prices and high unemployment. It's time that the government and the conglomerates felt the squeeze for a while, and "deeply considered the consequences of their moves" to enrich themselves while the mass of Koreans suffered.

The Herald's other editorial scolding today's youth ("Not for disorder") waves its hindsight around even more blatantly. It begins by eulogizing the movement that brought down the dictatorship. But, but, but ....

However, everyone should calmly ponder how relevant the democratization struggles of past years are to the present candlelight vigils in Seoul Plaza. The only connection we see between them is that those young people on the lawn circle are enjoying the fruits of the fight against dictatorship throughout the 1960s, 70s and the 80s. The middle and high school boys and girls there may not know the history well, but their parents should.

Their parents know the history very well; that's Lee's problem. And if the kids didn't know the history, they're learning it quickly as Lee tries to restage the repression. If the editorialist can't see the connection between this movement and its predecessor, many (most?) Korean citizens can.

Anti-U.S. beef demonstrations have developed into antigovernment actions, which have at last produced deplorable scenes of youths using steel pipes, ropes and ladders to destroy police buses. Political groups have joined citizens, who had benign intentions, to snatch what they were unable to gain through the regular political process. The situation is approaching a flash point where the nation could face a breakdown of the democratic order achieved through decades of dedicated struggles.

Of course, the deplorable scenes of youths using steel pipes to destroy police buses were preceded by deplorable scenes of police using clubs, boots, shields, and water cannons to injure and intimidate the protesters. And it's noteworthy, as I've noticed before, that while this writer and other Lee supporters deplore the idea that troublemakers are trying to remove a democratically elected President before his term is over, it didn't bother them when the Right tried to impeach Lee's predecessor Noh, an elite move very different from the popular anger Korea is seeing now. Was the impeachment attempt also an "antigovernment move"? Antigovernment moves are okay for me, but not for thee.

The Right is also spluttering that you can't go around rewriting laws as you find it convenient! The beef import agreement was signed, sealed and delivered, and it would be wrong to renege on it. As if governments didn't do such things all the time, often in much more serious matters. The Herald editorialist inadvertently provides a counterexample:

Twenty-one years ago on June 10, massive demonstrations by students and office workers forced military rulers to give up an attempt to prolong their time in power. Protesters were agitated by the news of the death of Yonsei University student Lee Han-yeol, who was hit on the head by a tear gas grenade the day before. Earlier in the year, Seoul National University student Pak Jong-cheol was tortured to death in a police interrogation room.

On June 29 that year, the Chun Doo-hwan government agreed to rewrite the Constitution to reintroduce direct presidential elections and allow opposition leaders to run in the election. June 10, 1987 is thus remembered as a milestone in the nation's democratic advancement. However, people power in the Republic of Korea had been built up strenuously via bloodbaths in 1960 and 1980 and numerous protests and great suffering in the name of freedom and human rights.

How's that again? The Chun regime rewrote the Constitution to appease the violent rabble? Yet the editorialist -- rightly -- admits that the 6.10 movement is remembered as a milestone in the nation's democratic advancement. The Lee regime, though elected as Chun was not, equally wishes to override democracy by pushing through policies that the overwhelming majority of Koreans oppose, and Lee has tried to keep his power through Red-baiting and police violence. Despite the writer's handwringing, it's the popular opposition to Lee that represents the democratic heritage Koreans have worked for so long to build.

P.S. Just as I thought! I found the text of a Herald editorial from September 3, 2003, that I'd saved in e-mail. As I expected, far from granting that Korean workers had "justifiable reasons" for striking, the writer fulminates that they're scaring away foreign investors:

Thanks to brisk international media coverage, South Korea has earned an unwanted reputation as home of the most militant labor activism. Red headbands with long tails and clenched fists punching the air to a regular beat have become trademarks of Korea's unionized workers, whose calendars are always marked with a "spring strike" often extended to a "summer struggle."

Over the past decade, the labor movement in Korea has turned increasingly uncompromising and foreign-invested firms were not spared from the pattern, or some bore the brunt of trouble. As if they have collectively decided that they have had enough, foreign CEOs in Korea are issuing a spate of complaints and demands to the government on labor policies.

And so on. The writer concedes that "businessmen must end their attempts to create illegal funds for themselves and for use in currying favor with political power," but all in all he assumes that the fault for labor unrest lies entirely with the workers, not with those foreign (and domestic) investors seeking "a cheaper and more peaceful labor market." In practice that means no environmental or work-area safety regulations, brutal suppression of union organizing (let alone striking), and huge tax incentives for the investors. Koreans are right to resist any attempt to impose these conditions on them.

Students and Grannies and Monks -- Oh, My!

The Korean police have been playing rough again, trying to disperse some of the crowds that are settled in for a 72-hour marathon vigil to complete their month of protests against President Lee Myeong-bak’s trade policies. (Photo, again, from OhMyNews.) This seems stupid to me. The vigils are going to end in a day or two – why would the police want to make more trouble for themselves?

Thursday evening, says an editorial in the Korea Herald, titled “Protests or Anarchy?”,

former members of Army counter-intelligence units and other "conservative" groups occupied Seoul Plaza before the hordes of demonstrators arrived. The "ex-HID" men are holding 72-hour memorial services for their "fallen comrades sacrificed in the performance of patriotic missions," on the lawn in front of City Hall, while groups supporting the Korea-U.S. free trade agreement and "law and order" movements are chanting their slogans nearby. But the anti-Lee Myung-bak crowd virtually surrounded the plaza and overwhelmed the opposing group due to their great number and thunderous loudspeaker chants. Tens of thousands of policemen in heavy riot-control gear just looked on.

Even this overtly propagandistic writer doesn’t claim that “the anti-Lee Myung-bak crowd” attacked, overtly interfered with, or threatened the pro-FTA and “law and order” groups, let alone the ex-Army men. It seems they simply outnumbered them. That can be an uncomfortable position in which to find oneself, as I know from experience, but it’s not a danger to democracy. Despite the editorialist’s prattling about “democracy”, it seems he doesn’t understand what the word means. Judging by the last sentence of that paragraph, the writer wishes the police had attacked the “anti-Lee Myung-bak crowd” right then and there, just for having turned out in numbers. Usually, policemen in riot gear “just look on” while right-wing thugs are attacking peaceful demonstrators, and it’s that scenario the writer seeks to invoke.

The editorialist claims to be concerned that the public has turned against Lee’s administration so quickly, within a few months after it came to power. The writers I’ve read who take this tack conveniently forget the failed impeachment proceedings brought by Korean rightists against Lee’s prececessor, Noh Mu-hyeon. All my Korean friends were furious at having to defend Noh, who had disappointed them seriously after he took office, but they knew that the right-wingers were worse. If memory serves, the Herald didn’t wring its hands over the unfairness of that affair. The situation reminded me a lot of the impeachment of Bill Clinton, another case of an attempted coup on trumped-up charges by right-wing politicians and corporate media.

As far as I can tell from my Korean friends and the English-language Korean news I’ve read, Koreans were tired of the malfeasance of Lee’s predecessors: they didn’t so much vote for Lee and his policies as against the other guys. The fact that Americans have more experience with democracy than Koreans hasn’t kept us from making the same mistake many times. So the editorialist blames the protests for swaying, even misleading decent people. It doesn’t occur to him that these huge demonstrations might be an expression of the Korean public’s will, which is what they seem to be.

Nor did it occur to the three young Korean writers for English OhMyNews, all of whom criticize the protesters for disobedience and disrespect to elders; they also forget that a good many Korean elders have joined the vigils. These young writers are showing disrespect to their peers as well as their elders when they accuse them of being sheep led by anarchists. One even seems to equate today’s protests with the mass popular movement that overthrew Cheon Doo-hwan’s dictatorship in 1987; I think her analogy backfires – does she wish she still lived under a military regime? Still, one can find the same phenomenon in the US, with young conservatives joining older ones in denouncing those who fail to obey slavishly their elected officials.

The good citizens are in despair [concludes the Herald’s editorialist]. They ask themselves if 21 years is still not enough to create a stable democracy here. Many people are just praying that the anniversary of the June 10, 1987 pro-democracy movement next week will remind everyone of the precious thing they struggled to achieve throughout the dark 80s. It was definitely not this chaos.

Again, which “good citizens” does he have in mind? Presumably he means the upper levels of Lee’s administration, and the corporate interests on both sides of the Pacific who may not get their way now. The protesters are also good citizens, trying to use peaceful means to turn around an administration that most Koreans do not support. In general, reactionary regimes depend on the passivity of most citizens to push their destructive policies: that gave Korea its economic crisis, the US and Britain the invasion and occupation of Iraq. Democracy in 1987 was achieved on the streets, not by waiting passively until the next election came along (which would have meant “never”), so it is not clear that the heirs of the earlier movement object to this year’s vigils – indeed, many are participating in them. Besides, as the editorialist also complains, voters showed their lack of support for the ruling party in last week’s by-elections.

As for “this chaos,” it’s a lie. The country is not in chaos. I’ve been all over Seoul in the past two weeks, and life is mostly going on as usual. The editorialist, like other remaining Lee Myeong-bak’s supporters (Lee’s approval ratings are down to 20 percent, near those of his buddy Bush), is simply trembling at the power of free speech and the peaceful assembly of citizens.

Ruling Party, Don't Try Any Tricks!

Last night, watching the news on Korean TV, I had the pleasure of hearing the US ambassador to Korea admonish the Korean people to “learn the science” about American beef. The Korea Herald quotes him saying to reporters, “We have said many times, we don't see any need for renegotiation of the agreement since it is based on science… We don't think there is a scientific justification for changing the agreed basis that we worked out in April.”

Does this mean that the Bush administration is now prepared to “learn the science” of global warming, or evolutionary theory? Or is science just for foreigners? Would you trust a Bush official’s claims about what is scientific and what isn’t? Anyone who’s read Fast Food Nation knows that there are more reasons than Mad Cow Disease to worry about the American meat industry.

Some Koreans express worry that the world will think that Koreans are only worried about the health risks of American beef. Considering that polls show that a large majority of Koreans do indeed worry about that, the fact shouldn’t be swept under the rug. But it’s true that many Koreans, perhaps most, see the beef imports as just one of a constellation of issues where Lee is at odds with their interests.

With respect to women's rights, many activists feel that Lee Myung-bak's Grand National Party has failed Korean women by reducing the size of and resources for the Ministry of Gender Equality. They have also accused President Lee of supporting laws that provide men with increased socio-economic advantages over women.

"The government is trying to revive a law that we fought several years ago to abolish," said Kim. "The past law provided men who had completed mandatory military service with preferences in the application and examination processes for becoming public service personnel."

In addition, the Korean "grandmothers" are enraged by Lee Myung-bak's sheer refusal to acknowledge the terrors of sexual slavery that were forced upon them prior to and during World War II. At their weekly Wednesday protests, the grandmothers are now pressuring President Lee, as well as the Japanese government, because they feel he has abandoned the daughters of Korea by placing economic and diplomatic relations with Japan over unresolved historical issues.

Other issues include Lee’s wish to privatize water and healthcare, his corporate cronyism, and now of course his willingness to use violence against peaceful protesters.

Today’s Korea Herald editorial ("Assembly Can Help") assures the reader that everything will turn out okay:

Despite the government measure, protests will go on for some time until the objectors are finally convinced that they have attained their goal. An encouraging development is that the Grand National Party reached a near consensus in calling for "renegotiation" with the United States, which the government party had turned down while opposition groups demanded it in unison.

In a representative democracy, it is the solemn duty of political parties to bring all social and political questions to the parliamentary forum and extract a decision through exhaustive debate. The 18th National Assembly, which opens this week, now assumes the important mission of resolving the U.S. beef issue on behalf of the protesters in the streets and the agonized government authorities.

The editorialist thinks that beef is all that interests the unruly masses, and lets slip his agenda in the last graf:

The previous 17th Assembly disappointed the nation as it failed to ratify the Korea-U.S. FTA before its closure due useless wrangling over the U.S. beef imports. The new Assembly now has a great opportunity to recover public trust in the legislature.

I don’t believe that “the public” mistrusts the legislature because of its failure to ratify the FTA. But, of course, by “the public” the conservative Herald means what US media mean by “the public”: corporate leaders, right-wing politicos, and corporate media. The great majority of Koreans aren’t “the public,” any more than workers, women, and racial minorities are “the public” in the US.

The protesters aren’t ready to take the pressure off of Lee’s government yet, though. The candlelight vigils will continue for at least the next few days. Ambassador Alexander Vershbow might be right that there’s no scientific reason for renegotiating the beef deal, but as President Lee has found out to his surprise, there are serious political reasons for doing so.

(The photo and the Candle Girl logo above come, again, from OhMyNews. I wish I could have included the graphic from a poster I saw about the May 31 vigil, which showed Candle Girl looking pissed off, but I can’t find it online. The sign the young women are holding says, “President Lee has lasted 100 days, the candlelight vigils last 30 days – Ruling Party, don’t try any tricks!”)