Daegu International School News - Politics Section
Politics section
Pugnacious Rhetoric Bodes Ill for the Korean Peninsula as North
Korean Provocation Rises
By Jenny Yoo, May 27, 2013
North Korea’s insurgent nuclear test, a third of its kind, conducted on February 12 of this year, and its launch of the “satellite” or the long-range rocket Unha-3 on December 12, 2012, have only incurred further international calumny, alienation, and United Nations sanctions. To make matters worse—at
least in North’s perspective—, it has encountered legitimate, close-by threats as well with the onset of two military joint drills between the U.S. and its
neighbor, South Korea: a two-month Foal Eagle drill that began on March 1 to last until April 30 and the Key Resolve drill which was successfully
orchestrated from March 11 to 21 as in every previous year.
Now, North Korea has catapulted direct action following verbal salvos against its neighbor, only to receive its fair share in vicious bandying of both
action and words.
On March 11, 2013, the North Korean army’s Supreme Command reneged on the armistice that had mandated a cease-fire for the Korean War in 1953, according to the Korean Central News Agency. Since March 7, North Korea has used the revocation of the armistice as a verbal retaliation against the new U.N. sanctions that had unanimously been imposed on that day, themselves in response to North’s nuclear test in February. These sanctions are to militate against North’s travel, banking, and trade. On the day of North’s repeal, the U.S. Treasury Department rubbed more salt on the scandalized nation by placing new fetters on the Foreign Trade Bank, its major foreign exchange avenue. Despite the breach on the Red Cross hotline imposed by the North on the same day, communication gateways were left open to commute South Korean workers safely to the Gaesong Industrial Complex, the rare seat of bilateral business.
“I think most analysts say this is a fantasy: they really don’t have the technology to do that with any reliability,”remarked CNN Reporter Tom Foreman on March 21, concerning the North’s another threat to “launch a nuclear missile across the Pacific and hit the mainland of the United States.”
Max Fisher, Foreign Affairs Blogger of the Washington Post, agrees: “there are some very good reasons to think that Pyongyang is bluffing
about full-scale nuclear war,” wrote Fisher on March 29.
Yet, as Foreman quickly noted, potential North Korean preemptive strikes on U.S. bases in Japan or Guam are much more feasible.
Seoul, South Korea’s capital, has not been exempt from militant threats from its hostile neighbor either. North’s missile threats to Washington
came along with similar versions for Seoul, to which South Korea responded: North would get “erased from the Earth.”
On March 30, North Korea vaulted the ongoing aggression to a new level—at least its purpose was to. It declared that a “state of war”with South
Korea has touched off.
“Martial music and mass rallies were the only choice, if you were lucky enough to own a TV,” reported CNN Correspondent Jim Clancy on the 31.
Yet, neither the heightened aspersion from the North nor the response from the South is getting much gut reaction from the South Koreans, who
seem complacent and nonchalant about the jading rhetorical warfare.
“Meantime, here in the South Korean capital, it is a completely different scene—people can see their past, their history; they are looking to a
brighter future, one that does not include war,” Clancy commented from the Deoksu Palace in Seoul, as the traditional parade played out at the front
gate.
“South Korean people are not even interested,” noted a passerby and a Seoul resident, Seon-joo Yoo, to CNN. Expats in South Korea are equally unconcerned despite the persistent scaling-up of alerts from the North.
“My family at home [in the U.S.] worries but understands that Koreans are living life as usual because they cannot constantly fear war,” said
Tamar Herman, a student at Yonsei University in Seoul, to the New York Times.
New York Times reporters Jake Doherty, Kim Farado, et al., have also posited various possible reasons behind the North’s provocation, now
accepted as habitual in the South. Their reasons include appealing for aid and other spinoffs from the South’s potential propitiation, earning the title of a
“nuclear state,” fending off supposed attacks from the South or the U.S. by preemptive verbal attacks, and instilling a sense of unification within the
struggling, famine-stricken, and isolated nation.
Whatever the reason, the North has not backed down from its current verbal barrage—rather, it has gone further.
On April 9, North Korea announced through foreign ambassadors within Pyongyang that it could be launching its missiles on 10 to the East
Sea.
The Korea Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, a state agency in the North, issued a statement of even higher level: “The situation on the Korean
Peninsula is inching close to a thermonuclear war due to the evermore undisguised hostile actions of the United States and the South Korean puppet
warmongers.”
The missile launching, however, did not unfold on the projected date, though. North’s warnings to the foreigners in the South for evacuation
fell flat, while Seoul and Washington both gripped tight onto their new stricter fronts against the North.
On April 1, South’s President Park’s statement became a mainstay for this new dealing strategy: “I consider the current North Korean threats very
serious … If the North attempts any provocation against our people and country, you must respond strongly at the first contact with them without any political consideration,” instructed Park to the nation’s generals.
Washington’s determination goes in tandem with Seoul’s, avowing not to conciliate the North any longer for the sake of the peninsula’s security
and aplomb. While such new dealing strategy seems to have reined in North Korea for now, the pugnacious rhetorical warfare cannot be for anybody’s good. As both Koreans walk further away from the historical event that has divided them apart, a revival of the spirit of cooperation and mutual understanding is required of both parties. Only such bilateral effort, after all, can usher in true security and sustainable aplomb to the peninsula.
DIS Pulls Off First Mock Presidential Election
by Jenny Yoo, G11
On October 8, the AP U.S. History teacher at DIS, Mr. Lewis, announced an ambitious and unprecedented project to his juniors: launch and run a Mock U.S. Presidential Election involving grade 6 through 11. For this student-oriented project, juniors divided into Democrats and Republicans in order to campaign for President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, respectively.
Voting “D-Day” was scheduled for November 6, the same date as Election Day for Americans, although the time difference between Korea and America made the Mock Election occur hours earlier at DIS. Overseer of elections, Mr. Lewis, explained the purpose of this project as a “chance to talk about Presidential Elections”. “This was a great way to
how … to the students the electoral process in America [and] get the whole school involved in it,” remarked Mr. Lewis. “Just to show the students how we do it in America, how it works—that was the goal.”
Mr. Lewis elaborated that this project was a great opportunity for students to learn
about “all the different things that go into an election”, including the party platforms. He then proudly added, “Out of my 20 years of teaching, this is the best we’ve ever done.”
The highlight of this project was the Mock Presidential Debate held on November 1 in the DIS Presentation Hall. Each party consigned three debate participants to represent their candidate’s policies, ideals, and beliefs. All six student debaters were given 23 questions a
few days prior to the Mock Debate to prepare for it. Emulating the format of the real Presidential Debates between President Obama and Governor Romney, this Mock Debate also consisted of three political discussions before the final match at the polls. Mr. Lewis moderated the debates, and all students in middle and high school were invited to this event.
Alexander Mallary, a Republican debater, elucidated on the preparatory steps he had
to take for the debate: “[T]he first thing that I did was to watch the real debate between President Obama and Governor Romney. After studying how Romney answered each question, I then went to the Internet and found as much information as possible. Then I studied the questions … and applied my knowledge.”
To Alexander, the debate was a hands-on learning experience that gave him not only “a better understanding of how politics [works] in America,” but also a good grasp of his candidate’s political stance. The fruitful rewards were shared by the audience as well.
“The students’ responses were well-prepared and eloquent,” remarked Mrs. Jessica Mutter, DIS Art teacher. “[T]he 11th graders helped to educate all the students there about the current events and political climate in the U.S.”
Another viewer, DIS Science and AP Biology teacher Mr. Hugh Cole, agreed on the success of the Mock Debate: “It was apparent that the members of both teams had done a tremendous amount of research and were well prepared for all types of questions.”
The gumption of the student debaters was best materialized when the moderator proceeded to pose extra questions not given beforehand to augment the political discussion. One student observer, Moon Choi, G9, commented on the escalation: “I thought the project reflected some of the intensity that the real Presidential Election generates in the U.S.”
Naturally, such an unprecedented event invited room for improvement. Mrs. Mutter commented that “a good general knowledge about U.S. history from the 1970’s to the present would have enhanced the debate further—especially in terms of the foreign policy in the Middle East”. Mr. Cole recognized the “time spent … shuffling through notes for a response and consultation”. To him, this foible could have been avoided by a division of labor, so to speak, among the student debaters so that “one person was an expert on a smaller group of questions” for the benefit of “[keeping] things flowing more smoothly”.
Notwithstanding, there was no mistake about the success of DIS’s first Mock Election Project. “Walking around the hallway while the Presidential Campaign was going
on, I felt very involved in the election as if I were a citizen of the U.S,” said Moon. “I know I would jump at the chance of being [a] part of the project. I was buoyed by the passion and that joyous seriousness that this Mock Election Project radiated around the school.”
In hindsight, the only general points missed, according to Moon and Mr. Lewis, were the insufficient information regarding the political stances of the presidential candidates and the project’s outline.
“I wish [that] in the future, the others who aren’t directly participating … would be more informed about each side’s promises. The debate … was nearly the only chance to hear from both [candidates],” Moon expatiated. Mr. Lewis concurred with her on this, concentrating rather on the logistics of the project itself.
“The only thing that could’ve been better was the time at the assembly when we went over what we were doing in front of the students—I wish we would’ve had a power point or something to explain a little better to students,” said Mr. Lewis. “I don’t know how much the rest of the school actually learned about the electoral process,” he added.
Nevertheless, both the participants and the observers seemed to recognize that no project fully administered and orchestrated by students can be perfect. “[O]ur students did everything,” remarked Mr. Lewis, underscoring how impressed he was with his students and the project.
“But again, the whole project was brilliant,” was Moon’s resolve. “[I]t was an opportunity to understand … [the] Election from personal experience.”
Cheers resounded throughout the DIS hallways when the Mock Election results were
announced by Principal Gary Odom on November 7, a live testament to the significance of this project and the participation level of all secondary school students at DIS. By sheer coincidence, the winner of the DIS Mock Election turned out to be victorious in the real American elections: Barack Obama. President Obama had a greater and more authentic victory in the actual election. His margin of victory was huge here at DIS though, a 28%
leverage over his competitor in the ultimate ratio of 64% to 36%. Perhaps, more important than the concurrent voting outcomes was what all DIS students reaped from this simulated project. As re-elected President Obama noted in his Acceptance Speech, “Democracy … can
be noisy and messy and complicated” but that “these arguments we have are a mark of our liberty”.
On October 8, the AP U.S. History teacher at DIS, Mr. Lewis, announced an ambitious and unprecedented project to his juniors: launch and run a Mock U.S. Presidential Election involving grade 6 through 11. For this student-oriented project, juniors divided into Democrats and Republicans in order to campaign for President Barack Obama and Governor Mitt Romney, respectively.
Voting “D-Day” was scheduled for November 6, the same date as Election Day for Americans, although the time difference between Korea and America made the Mock Election occur hours earlier at DIS. Overseer of elections, Mr. Lewis, explained the purpose of this project as a “chance to talk about Presidential Elections”. “This was a great way to
how … to the students the electoral process in America [and] get the whole school involved in it,” remarked Mr. Lewis. “Just to show the students how we do it in America, how it works—that was the goal.”
Mr. Lewis elaborated that this project was a great opportunity for students to learn
about “all the different things that go into an election”, including the party platforms. He then proudly added, “Out of my 20 years of teaching, this is the best we’ve ever done.”
The highlight of this project was the Mock Presidential Debate held on November 1 in the DIS Presentation Hall. Each party consigned three debate participants to represent their candidate’s policies, ideals, and beliefs. All six student debaters were given 23 questions a
few days prior to the Mock Debate to prepare for it. Emulating the format of the real Presidential Debates between President Obama and Governor Romney, this Mock Debate also consisted of three political discussions before the final match at the polls. Mr. Lewis moderated the debates, and all students in middle and high school were invited to this event.
Alexander Mallary, a Republican debater, elucidated on the preparatory steps he had
to take for the debate: “[T]he first thing that I did was to watch the real debate between President Obama and Governor Romney. After studying how Romney answered each question, I then went to the Internet and found as much information as possible. Then I studied the questions … and applied my knowledge.”
To Alexander, the debate was a hands-on learning experience that gave him not only “a better understanding of how politics [works] in America,” but also a good grasp of his candidate’s political stance. The fruitful rewards were shared by the audience as well.
“The students’ responses were well-prepared and eloquent,” remarked Mrs. Jessica Mutter, DIS Art teacher. “[T]he 11th graders helped to educate all the students there about the current events and political climate in the U.S.”
Another viewer, DIS Science and AP Biology teacher Mr. Hugh Cole, agreed on the success of the Mock Debate: “It was apparent that the members of both teams had done a tremendous amount of research and were well prepared for all types of questions.”
The gumption of the student debaters was best materialized when the moderator proceeded to pose extra questions not given beforehand to augment the political discussion. One student observer, Moon Choi, G9, commented on the escalation: “I thought the project reflected some of the intensity that the real Presidential Election generates in the U.S.”
Naturally, such an unprecedented event invited room for improvement. Mrs. Mutter commented that “a good general knowledge about U.S. history from the 1970’s to the present would have enhanced the debate further—especially in terms of the foreign policy in the Middle East”. Mr. Cole recognized the “time spent … shuffling through notes for a response and consultation”. To him, this foible could have been avoided by a division of labor, so to speak, among the student debaters so that “one person was an expert on a smaller group of questions” for the benefit of “[keeping] things flowing more smoothly”.
Notwithstanding, there was no mistake about the success of DIS’s first Mock Election Project. “Walking around the hallway while the Presidential Campaign was going
on, I felt very involved in the election as if I were a citizen of the U.S,” said Moon. “I know I would jump at the chance of being [a] part of the project. I was buoyed by the passion and that joyous seriousness that this Mock Election Project radiated around the school.”
In hindsight, the only general points missed, according to Moon and Mr. Lewis, were the insufficient information regarding the political stances of the presidential candidates and the project’s outline.
“I wish [that] in the future, the others who aren’t directly participating … would be more informed about each side’s promises. The debate … was nearly the only chance to hear from both [candidates],” Moon expatiated. Mr. Lewis concurred with her on this, concentrating rather on the logistics of the project itself.
“The only thing that could’ve been better was the time at the assembly when we went over what we were doing in front of the students—I wish we would’ve had a power point or something to explain a little better to students,” said Mr. Lewis. “I don’t know how much the rest of the school actually learned about the electoral process,” he added.
Nevertheless, both the participants and the observers seemed to recognize that no project fully administered and orchestrated by students can be perfect. “[O]ur students did everything,” remarked Mr. Lewis, underscoring how impressed he was with his students and the project.
“But again, the whole project was brilliant,” was Moon’s resolve. “[I]t was an opportunity to understand … [the] Election from personal experience.”
Cheers resounded throughout the DIS hallways when the Mock Election results were
announced by Principal Gary Odom on November 7, a live testament to the significance of this project and the participation level of all secondary school students at DIS. By sheer coincidence, the winner of the DIS Mock Election turned out to be victorious in the real American elections: Barack Obama. President Obama had a greater and more authentic victory in the actual election. His margin of victory was huge here at DIS though, a 28%
leverage over his competitor in the ultimate ratio of 64% to 36%. Perhaps, more important than the concurrent voting outcomes was what all DIS students reaped from this simulated project. As re-elected President Obama noted in his Acceptance Speech, “Democracy … can
be noisy and messy and complicated” but that “these arguments we have are a mark of our liberty”.
Park? Moon? –The 18th Korean Presidential Election
by Gratia Jung
Korea’s 18th Presidential Election is going to be held on December 19th. There are 2 candidates;
Park, Geun-Hye and Moon, Jae-In. The table below shows their 10 main election pledges.
Korea’s 18th Presidential Election is going to be held on December 19th. There are 2 candidates;
Park, Geun-Hye and Moon, Jae-In. The table below shows their 10 main election pledges.
All Korean citizens over 19 can vote for the election. The candidate elected to the presidency
will serve in this position until February 24th, 2018 (5 years). Voting begins at 6:00 a.m. and ends
at 6:00 p.m.
Naver News
will serve in this position until February 24th, 2018 (5 years). Voting begins at 6:00 a.m. and ends
at 6:00 p.m.
Naver News