This is a blog for the community of Geography 170: "Geographies of Violence in the Age of Empire" in the Department of Geography at the University of California, Berkeley. This course explores a range of answers to the question: How might geographical thinking be used to critically explore new forms of violence and empire?


Nov 23, 2010

south korea and north korea

Hi All:

I wonder how we can use the themes in class in analyzing or in attempting to understand the current occurrences between South Korean and North Korea. (this is sad and terrifying to begin with)

Here are the links of the news I have found in the past hour:

If there is anyone who knows or has a link to local news agencies in both, please feel free to share them. (though i would doubt that N.K. has one that is not under strict restrictions or control)

4 comments:

Stephanie R said...

I agree that this would be very important to discuss. If North Korea has been placed in the "Axis of Evil" and is seen as a threat by the US, our government could use the fear of potential nuclear weapons in the DPRK to justify extreme forms of retaliation... including war. The secrecy of the North Korean government already makes it seem like it does not share the same values as "the rest of the world", solidifying it as the most foreign of "other" in the eyes of most Americans. This is a dangerous situation to be in.

tiffany troy said...

i like your analysis and the way you say it, stephanie. indeed, this is something that we must keep abreast with! i wonder how the US will respond or react to this, given the context you have clearly identified...oh, and how will china be perceived and/or pressured, since they are a growing power within the bloc...

daisy said...

I agree. And being placed in that category, as well as describing North Korea's actions as belligerent, unprovoked, reckless, etc. justifies the US's and S. Korea's (et al) refusal to negotiate with North Korea at all. It sort of reminds me of Reagan's refusal to negotiate with terrorists. It makes sense, up to a point - people are dying.

I found this interview with an investigative journalist who has covered Korea for about 30 years particularly interesting. I think it provides some useful background.

http://www.democracynow.org/2010/11/24/tim_shorrock_direct_talks_with_north

rfpm said...

here is another interesting article about the subject:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/11/30/world/asia/30korea.html?hp

some more things i found interesting is the idea that if the N. Korean regime falls is the idea that private Chinese companies will have to be compensated by investment opportunities in the "new" Korea. I believe that this directly ties into the notion of privatization of violence: China, it seems, will allow for an entire government (albeit, a government that has hurt a countries economic development for its own uses) so long as they have something to "gain" from it economically speaking. It is interesting how as China's economy grows, their government actions appear to look more and more "American, at least in this case. The idea that China must be compensated if N. Korea were to fall also shows that there is both an increased fear and respect for China's economic and military might worldwide.

Also, and I am just throwing this out there, why haven't we "outsourced" or "sold" our drone program to the s. Korean military? We havent hesitated to sell out military power before to our advantage, why not now? Just a thought