A Response to Oranckay

Oranckay has responded to this post in which I reveled in Chung Dong-Young’s diplomatic incompetence and arrogance. Chung, as you recall, refused to meet Jay Lefkowitz, President Bush’s Special Envoy for Human Rights in North Korea, instead sending his parking valet to meet Lefkowitz at a tea shop at 7 p.m. This, contrary to Chung’s likely expectations, only had the effect of hardening the attitudes of U.S. officials and driving them further into the open for a lack of suitable private diplomatic venues that Chung himself cut off. Oranckay, to his credit, can barely stomach “Comrade” Chung [Oranckay probably rues Chung’s timing in opening his mouth again], but attempts a partial defense.

That being said, it is unfair to attribute the English language “Lefkowitz is not in same league” quote to Chung. To begin with I have not seen anything in Korean that quotes Chung actually using any such expression . . .

I am not sure why published accounts don’t qualify. Sure, most of us have known newspapers to garble things from time to time, but Chung himself isn’t exactly denying that he used the words attributed to him. I don’t know what evidence, if any, contradicts the accuracy of the quotation. Barring that, I give the newspaper a rebuttable presumption of accuracy.

. . . and more to the point, even if he did, the phrase has been translated into a tone that is misleading. In Korean, officials working with Chung are quoted, or rather paraphrased as saying, “격이 다르다는 이유로”¦”. The handy Naver dictionary says “˜ê²©ì´ 다르다’ means “not at the same level” and that’s surely what it means, devoid of any hint of insult or anything other than that someone is of different rank. There just isn’t anything that can be interpreted as an affront in the way you can read from the English expression “not in the same league. Not wanting to visit a representative of foreign government or other entity who is of a different “rank” is not in any way unusual, and in Korea only more so.

This is hair-splitting, and not even the right hair. The real point here is that Chung openly stated that he would not meet with a visting U.S. envoy because Chung claims a higher place in the diplomatic food chain. Whether you believe Chung is irrelevant. Chung is an ass for so stating publicly, and the difference between “league” and “level” is microscopic in that context.

Oranckay then calls it out-of-bounds for Jay Lefkowitz to have addressed a candlelight vigil for human rights in North Korea at City Hall:

I humbly submit that it would only be fair to also make note of Lefkowitz’s appearance at a public gathering, one that became a candlelight vigil and prayer meeting as the sun went down, in front of Seoul city hall.

Mr. Lefkowitz spoke a gathering organized by one of Korea’s larger church organizations, one formed by prominent ministers who despite decades of opportunities never said much about human rights in South Korea, held in front of city hall, to, according to the Chosun Ilbo, pray for (1) human rights and freedom for North Korea, (2) that God would protect liberal democracy and market economics (in South Korea), and (3) for better economic times for the “common people” and for “national reconciliation.

I should think that any discussion of what’s appropriate or not between any two countries would have to include the fact that a special envoy from one country spoke at a highly political (the old establishment’s BS about “liberal democracy and the market economy in SK”) rally in front of city hall in the capital city of the other.

Oranckay seems to believe there’s something unique about politicians of one country taking public positions on political issues in other countries. I’ll just close this post with a series of links to other occasions when political leaders of one nation attempted to make their case directly to the people of other another nation:

• Roh, addressing a civic group in Los Angeles, explains why North Korea’s desire for nuclear weapons is understandable.
• The South Korean Foreign Ministry pays a Washington PR firm over $1 million to “to put a positive spin on its U.S. policies in a nation that has been reading them as increasingly hostile.”
• Korea’s former ambassador launched a program to correct America’s “misconceptions” about Korea.
• Korea’s embassy quietly hires a former U.S. journalist–one apparently unregistered as a foreign agent–to provide a how-to guide to influencing U.S. news coverage by selectively “feeding” sympathetic journalists stories.
• An apparent South Korean effort to funnel thousands of dollars in illegal contributions to the Kerry campaign.

Admittedly, none of these situations consisted of a politician addressing a large open-air rally. That’s best explained by the fact that if any political organization in America called a public rally to oppose human rights in North Korea or support more unconditional aid to Kim Jong Il, said rally could have reconvened inside the nearest phone booth. The point is, Lefkowitz’s mission is to promote the cause of human rights in North Korea, and there’s nothing unprecedented about public advocacy for that cause in another nation, particularly when that nation shuts off the option of quiet diplomacy.