South Korea’s populist turn

Author: Editorial Board, ANU

7 March 2022

South Koreans will head to the polls to elect a new president this Wednesday, 9 March. With campaigning characterised by mudslinging and populist rhetoric, the contest has been dubbed the ‘unlikeable election’.

Leading the race is Yoon Suk-yeol of the main conservative opposition People Power Party (PPP) and a former prosecutor general under the current Moon Jae-in administration. Yoon jumped ship after clashing with the administration over prosecutorial reform, and his reputation as a tough investigator who doesn’t bend to political pressure has propelled him to the top of many pre-election polls.

Closely following Yoon is progressive ruling Democratic Party candidate Lee Jae-myung, a former mayor and governor in Gyeonggi province. Starting out as a factory worker who then injured his arm in an industrial accident before turning to politics, Lee is promoting a rags-to-riches story as part of his promise to roll out a universal basic income and address wealth inequality.

Trailing the two leaders was Ahn Cheol-soo, a renowned former doctor and software entrepreneur of the centrist opposition People’s Party. This positioned Ahn to play the role of spoiler or kingmaker.

Just six days out from the election, Ahn withdrew from the race and threw his support behind Yoon. With Sim Sang-jung of the small opposition leftist Justice Party unable to gain traction, the four-way contest has now been stripped down to two.

The issues that voters are most concerned about are the cosy relationships that breed corruption between political elites and the chaebol (the family-owned conglomerates that dominate the South Korean economy) and socioeconomic and standard-of-living issues such as housing affordability and jobs. These issues gained traction against the backdrop of the 2016-17 candlelight protests, which saw millions take to the streets to demand the ouster of then president Park Geun-hye who was ultimately impeached.

While Moon Jae-in promised hope and change, many in South Korea feel too little has been done. It is unclear whether Yoon or Lee can do much better in the areas where voters demand the most progress. Neither of the two leading candidates have any experience as legislators in the National Assembly – a first in South Korea’s democratic history. Yoon and Lee each routed nominees from their own parties with more experience and pedigree, helped by scandals that tarred their opponents.

Both are also beset by scandals and drama of their own.

Lee’s wife is accused of using a government employee as her personal assistant and misappropriating public funds, while Lee himself is under scrutiny for a suspicious land development deal and rumours of ties to organised crime.

Yoon has been forced to apologise for his wife’s fraudulent CV, and to deny accusations of connections to a cultist shaman and a predilection for anal acupuncture.

The negative style of campaigning that has characterised the election has left a significant number of swing voters and younger voters still undecided in the lead up to the poll.

In our first lead article this week, Myungji Yang explains that Yoon’s tactics to win the presidency are focused on winning young male voters through a ‘divisive “us-versus them” strategy’. This involves demonising gender equality as the cause of South Korea’s economic woes. Yoon has promised to ‘abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, among other anti-feminist signals’.

Yoon’s approach is to tap into the frustrations of young men surrounding social mobility and the continuing widening of wealth inequality, themes portrayed so starkly in the South Korean global smash TV show Squid Game. Skyrocketing housing and rental prices in Seoul and an unemployment rate of nearly a quarter of South Koreans aged 15-29 highlight the problems. It is an approach that appears disingenuous given that South Korea is a male-dominated society which ranks 108 out of 153 countries in the World Economic Forum’s Gender Gap report.

Lee’s core pledge of a universal basic income has also been labelled populist. To his supporters it is the sort of radical fix needed to address the growing wealth gap. But his detractors say he is seeking to buy votes with free money and the economics of his policies don’t add up.

Amid the populist pledges and mudslinging, both Yoon and Lee have failed to outline how they will address chaebol reform. Neither candidate has touched on the issue in their campaign manifestoes or shown signs in campaign debates that they will bring serious pressure to bear on chaebol elites.

The populist turn in South Korea politics also comes at a time when South Korea’s geopolitical position is becoming more challenging than ever.

As Peter K Lee explains in our second lead this week, ‘the next South Korean president will face a difficult conundrum between North Korea and China. South Korean leaders on both the left and right have long claimed that North Korea’s denuclearisation was the foremost priority for the region and world peace … Yet North Korea is increasingly of secondary importance to the United States’, behind dealing with China, and now behind Russia too in the wake of its aggressive war against Ukraine.

How the next leader in the Blue House decides to balance the continuation of Moon’s diplomatic outreach to North Korea with policy towards China and Russia ‘will inform South Korea’s position on the Indo-Pacific, wartime operational control, trilateral cooperation with Japan, participation in groupings like the Quad, and prospects for deeper cooperation with partners like Australia’.

If a turn to populism is the way of the future in South Korea politics, the country will again need to rely on its strong culture of civic participation and protest, which gave rise to the 2016-17 candlelight protests, to safeguard the quality of its democracy.

The EAF Editorial Board is located in the Crawford School of Public Policy, College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.

How South Korea’s conservatives hope to

divide and conquer on the way to the

presidency

5 March 2022

Author: Myungji Yang, University of Hawai’i

Five years after the Candlelight Revolution in South Korea, the effervescence, spirit of solidarity and optimism for social change have faded away. When millions took to the streets to oust corrupt president Park Geun-hye in late 2016 and early 2017, Moon Jae-in’s election promised hope and change. Many thought conservative political forces — the corrupt establishment — would lose their political influence.

But as South Korea prepares to elect a new president on 9 March 2022, voters seem more than ready to move on from Moon. The conservatives are back, led by Yoon Suk-yeol, a one-time member of the Moon administration who now leads the primary opposition People Power Party (PPP) and seems to have captured the imagination of those disillusioned with left-leaning policies, especially younger males.

Despite Yoon’s lack of policy knowledge and often reckless remarks, he holds a not-unsubstantial lead over his Democratic Party opponent Lee Jae-myung. In the polls.

One of the most interesting aspects of the imminent 2022 election is that many parts of the electorate have not made up their mind yet. Recent surveys show that both Yoon and Lee’s support rates combined add up only to about 70 per cent, split evenly between the candidates. In previous elections, most presidents-elect received more than 40 per cent of the vote. Both candidates still need to gather more votes. Neither strongly appeals to the broader population and voters are not enthusiastic about the upcoming election.

Yoon is an intriguing and unusual case as he had no experience in electoral politics before becoming the PPP’s presidential candidate. Ironically, he was Moon’s prosecutor general before defecting to the conservatives after the administration pursued prosecutorial reforms. Yet it is not clear what political values and new visions the conservative candidate and his party represent or how they would achieve them. Beyond dyed-in-the-wool conservatives, Yoon’s support is built on voters’ disappointment and frustration with Moon’s performance as president.

Identifying itself as the ‘candlelight government’, the Moon administration promised to realise the values supported by the candlelight protesters — equality, fairness and social justice — but has failed to successfully address important socioeconomic issues. The Moon administration has overseen a rapid increase in housing prices while failing to meet high expectations about social and political reforms.

Further, real estate, college admissions and sexual harassment scandals among high-ranking government officials — although sometimes politicised and exaggerated by conservative media — have led many to believe that the Democrats are not that different from those they replaced. Yoon’s support comes mostly from opposing the incumbent government.

Traditionally, young South Koreans vote for more progressive candidates. A new phenomenon that needs more attention in this election is that Yoon’s strongest political base is young male voters in their twenties. His promise to abolish the Ministry of Gender Equality and Family, among other anti-feminist signals, has certainly helped him. South Korea’s conservatives have found success by provoking gender conflict and mobilising anti-feminist narratives, arguing that gender equality policies violate meritocratic values and fair competition and result in reverse discrimination against men.

One possible explanation why this message has resonated so strongly with young South Korean men may lie in the efforts of conservative elites to capitalise on frustration and resentment about a lack of economic opportunities and limited future prospects in an extremely competitive labour market.

Instead of pledging to reduce social inequality and increase opportunities for younger generations, conservative presidential candidate Yoon has adopted the easier and more divisive ‘us-versus them’ strategy: men against women. Just as right-wing populists in other countries scapegoat immigrants and minorities by accusing them of taking jobs away from native-born people and threatening the existing social order, South Korean conservatives are hoping to win the presidency with the similar messaging.

The current presidential electoral scene is not what candlelight protestors expected. Left-leaning reformers failed to deliver the socioeconomic changes they promised. Conservatives have learned nothing from their maladministration in the previous government and continue to repeat outdated anti-communist and anti-feminist rhetoric.

Whoever becomes the next president will inherit a huge political burden: the necessity of healing a society wrecked by divisions of gender, generations and class. If the new government continues to rely on a politics of exclusivity and immediate political gain, it will damage South Korean democracy and exacerbate disillusionment with the country’s political class.

Myungji Yang is an Associate Professor of Sociology at the University of Hawai’i, Manoa

South Korea’s candlelight protests

7 February 2017

Author: Sun-Chul Kim, Emory University

Political protest has always propelled South Korea’s democratisation. It was through the mass uprising in April 1960 that South Koreans ended the autocratic rule of Syngman Rhee. The democracy that followed the ‘April Revolution’ was short-lived, but the subsequent military regimes of Park Chung-hee (1961–79) and Chun Doo-hwan (1980–87) had to cope with a recalcitrant opposition that tirelessly protested authoritarian rule. In June 1987, another mass mobilisation eventually forced the authoritarian rulers to concede democratic reforms.

Political protest did not slow down with South Korea’s transition to democracy. On the contrary, street protest became the new normal as democratic space expanded. Students, workers, civic organisations, and even opposition political parties and lawmakers took to the streets in protest of government policies. Observing the pervasiveness of protest in South Korea in 2008, an Al Jazeera reporter came to the conclusion that ‘protest has become part of [South Korean] culture’. Given this context, the recent candlelight protests that erupted in response to the scandals of President Park Geun-hye and her confidante, Choi Soon-sil, were no isolated event.

The use of candlelight as a form of protest traces back to 2002 when two teenage girls were killed by US armoured vehicles on military training manoeuvres. A proposal for a candlelight vigil circulated among internet cafes after the news spread that the US soldiers responsible for the deaths of the Korean girls had been acquitted in the US court-martial. Thousands gathered in Gwanghwamun Square to commemorate the victims. The candlelight vigil was picked up by activist groups and turned into a symbol of the movement against the perceived injustice. Ever since 2002, mass demonstrations in South Korea have taken the form of candlelight protest.

The advent of the candlelight protest signified important changes distinct from earlier protests. In the past, it was impossible to picture a protest scene in South Korea without conjuring up the image of violent clashes and the exchange of teargas and Molotov cocktails between protesters and riot police. Violent protests persisted into the 1990s, well after South Korea’s democratic transition, but the emergence of the candlelight protest offered a new platform that enabled protesters to convey their seriousness of intent through peaceful means.

Specifically, the candlelight protests of the past three months have been remarkable in their absence of violence, despite the high political tension and massive number of protesters roaming the streets. On the one hand, this had to do with greater tolerance on the part of the police and favourable court rulings that opened up new marching routes previously unavailable to the protesters — a trend not uncommon during times of revolutionary change. But it also had much to do with the adept handling of the rallies and marches by the organisers.

The weekly candlelight protests were organised by Emergency Action for Park’s Resignation, a coalition of more than 1500 civic organisations. In the past, large coalitions were often plagued by fierce infighting among competing political groups. To avoid discord, the anti-Park coalition set rules for decision making based on the lowest common denominator among participant organisations.

Its role was focused on providing political space for citizens of all walks of life to come and express their views freely. From booking celebrities to setting up lost-and-found services, the coalition paid close attention to the details of the rallies to make them more accommodating to all.

Combined with unprecedented levels of frustration and anger among South Koreans, the outcome was explosive. Week after week, the coalition successfully mobilised millions of South Koreans on the streets of dozens of cities and channelled their anger into a powerful political message. Eventually, the candlelight protests pushed reluctant lawmakers to cast their vote to impeach the president in the National Assembly, marking one of the most significant events in South Korea’s political history.

The success of the anti-Park candlelight protests illuminates the growth and maturity of civil society in South Korea. At the same time, it brings to attention the weakness of its party system as a mechanism for political mediation. South Korean political parties have been characterised by their extreme fluidity, which involves frequent splits, mergers and name changes.

In the absence of stable political parties with which to communicate political agendas and develop a shared identity, civil society organisations often bypassed the mediation of political parties when it came to promoting new agendas or resisting policies. Consequently, direct action was frequently used as leverage vis-à-vis the decision makers.

The latest candlelight protest set an unusual example in that street protesters and opposition lawmakers found themselves in sync throughout the impeachment campaign as well as the subsequent legal proceedings. But this rare accord is unlikely to be sustained as the ruling party goes through another split and the fractured opposition field prepares for an early presidential election in late spring, pending confirmation of President Park’s impeachment by the Constitutional Court.

Lacking a reliable partner in party politics, the anti-Park coalition will likely break into multiple political lines as the competition for the president’s office deepens. Precisely because they lack reliable partners in party politics, however, they will most likely get together again and return to street politics when there is another serious breach of democratic principle. Protest politics will continue in South Korea.

Sun-Chul Kim is Assistant Professor of Korean Studies at the Department of East Asian Languages and Cultures, Emory University.

https://www.eastasiaforum.org/

A Russian Tzar And A Burmese Monarch – OpEd

Myanmar's Min Aung Hlaing. Photo Credit: Mikhail Frolov, Tatarstan President's Office, Wikipedia Common

 March 7, 2022

By Kanbawza Win

The self-appointed, modern Burmese monarch Min Aung Hlaing (MAH) following the advice of a modern Tzar, Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin, who had graciously supplied the Burmese army known Tatmadaw (TMD) meaning (Terrorists Marauding, Dacoits) with the latest modern weapons coupled with a secret advice of not to show any mercy, or sympathy even to the women and children, has now amply demonstrated to the world, with Russia attacking the weaker neighbouring sovereign country of Ukraine. The common denominator between Burmese military regime and the current Russian regime is that they repeatedly lie the very concept of truth, as perhaps they have taken a good example from the Third Reich’s Joseph Goebbels, a master manipulator, and a terrific orator, that knows how to whip up a crowd in a frenzy is the propaganda minister of Adolf Hitler, who said “If you repeat a lie often enough, people will believe it, and you will even come to believe it yourself.” So also, the Burmese cut-throat MAH (ratvdk;) taking a leaf out of its teacher and benefactor, modern Russian Tzar, Vladmir Putin, and knowing very well of how his Tatmadaw backed political party lost miserably in the elections of getting less than 10% of the winning party (the NLD party led by Daw Aung San Suu Kyi) shuttered at the prospect of going back to the barracks, after ruling the country from 1962 in taking the beloved country to the level of the Least Developed Status. Hence, he had no choice, but to implement a military coup d’état with the blessings of his mentor former General Than Shwe (better known as the Burmese Bulldog).

In an interview with VOA (Voice of America) Myanmar’s military government spokesman Zaw Min Htun has said that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was “justified for the sustainability of their country’s sovereignty and demonstrated Moscow’s position as a world power,” which was also released in Russian. Last year, General Min Aung Hlaing, Myanmar’s military chief, met the head of Russia’s state arms exporter Rosoborone in Moscow to discuss “potential military technical cooperation”. He told Russia’s Defence Minister Sergei Shoigu that Myanmar’s army had “become one of the strongest in the region” thanks to his country’s help, according to Russian news agency TASS. So, it is no wonder when the Myanmar’s military junta expressed its support for Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, placing itself at odds, with most of the world community that has condemned the Russian military action and moved to introduce crushing sanctions on Moscow. (PHOTO)

However, countering Myanmar’s military junta, the opposition Burmese government in exile better known as the National Unity Government of Burma (NUG) issued a statement in support of Ukraine, saying that “The National Unity Government of the Republic of the Union of Burma condemns the unprovoked acts of war directed against Ukraine and its people.” The NUG called the attacks “terrifying in Ukraine is a violation of the United Nations Charter and international law and is not a good example in the 21st century. Moreover, it will be a major obstacle to the maintenance of international peace, security, and human development. Myanmar stands in solidarity with the people of Ukraine.” It must be remembered that Coup leader MAH had visited Russia in June last year and there are strong ties between the Burmese and Russian militaries. Russia is one of the few countries to have defended the military council that seized power in a Feb. 1, 2021, coup, overthrowing the civilian government and detaining de facto leader Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and other high-ranking officials. Since then, U.N. and Burmese experts have repeatedly called for a ban on arms sales to the military council, but Russia has ignored the call. Perhaps, Putin seems to copy the false flag operations and moves to establish puppet states remind us, of what Imperial Japan did in northeastern China, of Manchuria, in the early 1930s and named it as an independent Manchukuo. The world suddenly resembles a century ago when blatant violations of international law prevailed. Have our civilized world any lessons from the two world wars?

Putin’s sabre-rattling recalls some of the stuff that Khrushchev used to do when he banged his shoes at the UN General Assembly. Now that everybody witnessed that Russia and Ukraine’s first round of talks failed to ease Europe’s biggest ground war as Russian missiles pounded Ukraine’s cities and, troops have pressed closer to the capital, Kyiv, resulting in millions of Ukrainians fleeing the country.  International efforts to punish and isolate Russian President Vladimir Putin have intensified and taken aim at his country’s most important finances. Even traditionally neutral Switzerland joined the growing coalition of nations imposing a raft of sanctions on Putin and associates, demanding Russia withdraw its troops immediately. But Putin seems to remain impervious to the pressure and insisted Russia was not targeting civilians in its attacks despite abundant evidence to the contrary. Rather than back down, Putin is driving an increasingly brutal tactics which MAH carbon copied. An embattled Ukraine moved to solidify its bond with the West by applying to join the European Union. It’s a largely symbolic move for now that could take years to become reality and is unlikely to sit well with Putin who has shown that his real concern is not so much security, but bitterness at how in the early 1990s Soviet and Russian leaders handled the secession of states from the then USSR and its’ ultimate collapse. Hitherto, many in the West have viewed Putin as a rational actor who drives a hard bargain. Rational actors can be dealt with by diplomacy and international structures. But recent speeches raise concerns that the Russian president might not be operating rationally. Indeed, he has appeared emotional and unhinged in various claims. Some speculate that there is truly a mental health issue in the mix, like what MAH is going through now as asking the women folks to take care of the security of the army compound and forcing them to carry the guns.  Can Ukraine become a similar war of attrition for Russia, a sort of defeat? At the beginning of the war, perhaps few would have believed, but as time passes, such a scenario seems to become increasingly possible. Contrary to the general atmosphere echoed by the media, numbers, and facts-on-the-ground do not suggest an easy Russian victory; rather, there’s much heavier Ukrainian resistance and Russian losses, and much slower Russian advance than expected. The conflict overall is starting to show signs of evolving into a war of attrition that Russia may not even be able to win, just like in Burma that the Junta could not win the NUG whom it labeled as terrorist somewhat similar a thief crying thief. Burma has been in turmoil since a coup a year ago, with at least 1,500 civilians killed by security forces, according to activists cited by the United Nations, which the junta has also accused of bias. The military has been battling militias allied with a parallel National Unity Government (NUG), which last year called for a nationwide revolt and has been outlawed by the Burmese Junta.                                                                                                                                                                           

 One must recollect that even as Russian President Vladimir Putin wages war against Ukraine, his country’s economy has begun to collapse under the weight of unprecedented penalties of the Western governments. But one would scarcely remember that President Joe Biden spoke 6,500 words about nuclear weapons during his State of the Union speech, but not one of them acknowledged the dangers of nuclear war that have spiked upward during the last decade and even more steeply in recent days. The militarism that Martin Luther King Jr. warned us about has been spiraling toward its ultimate destination in the nuclear era — a global holocaust that would likely extinguish almost all human life on Earth. During this reality, leaders of the world’s two nuclear superpowers continue to fail — and betray — humanity. The world should recollect that in the stark light of March 2022, Albert Einstein’s outlook 75 years ago about the release of atomic energy has never been more prescient or more urgent: “This basic power of the universe cannot be fitted into the outmoded concept of narrow nationalisms. For there is no secret and there is no defense, there is no possibility of control except through the aroused understanding and insistence of the peoples of the world.” The phrase “narrow nationalisms” aptly describes the nuclear-weapons policies of the United States and Russia. They have been engaged in a dance of death with foreseeable human consequences on a scale that none of us can truly fathom.                        Mr. Shahid cited the UN Charter, the Organization’s founding document, which outlines a world where countries settle disputes by peaceful means, without the threat or use of force. “The violence must stop. Humanitarian law and international humanitarian law must be respected. And diplomacy and dialogue must prevail.” But Putin has not heeded this warning as everybody knows that the Council members voted in favour of the UN General Assembly convening after Russia vetoed a resolution. The resolution gives the Assembly power to take up matters of international peace and security when the Security Council is unable to act due to unanimity among its five permanent members – China, France, the United Kingdom, the United States, and Russia – who have the power of veto. But while Russia raises the nuclear threat, loses the war of global public opinion, and suffers from the hammering its currency and financial and energy sectors are taking, its troops on the ground continue to dictate events inside Ukraine. In the meantime, that Burmese Junta forces have torched at least 6,158 civilian homes in the 13 months since the coup, mostly in areas where anti-regime resistance is the strongest. Sagaing Region suffered nearly 60 per cent of the damage, according to independent research group Data for Myanmar. 

At least the current Burmese leader MAH is far more honest than Putin in their private life as MAH adopted son is married to the Burmese chief pf police’s daughter gives raison d’être of why the Burmese security forces are so close to each other in their all out war against the entire populace of the country. Whereas Putin is married to Lyudmila Aleksandrovna Ocheretnaya, who was a flight attendant for the Kaliningrad branch of Aeroflot from 1983 to 2014 and now his two daughters Maria and Katerina lives with their mother Lyudmila. But Putin has never publicly acknowledged his children, though media outlets have reported often. Then he had another daughter in 2015 with former Russian rhythmic gymnast Alina Kabaeva. At least in their private life MAH is more honest than Putin. 

MAH, has exchanged numerous visits with senior Russian military officers, though there has been no face-to-face meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, even though he has reportedly made several requests to meet with Putin. It was Maung Maung Aye who talks to the Russian army officers about acquiring air defense systems and acquired US$2.3 billion worth of weapons during his trip, according to Russian news agencies. Myanmar military personnel also study at several military schools and training facilities in Russia, including the Omsk Armor Engineering Institute, the Air Force Engineering Academy in Moscow, the Nizhniy Novgorod Command Academy and the Kazan Military Command Academy. While the junta has made clear its position on Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, it is not without links to the latter; Ukraine also supplies weapons to the Myanmar military. It purchased from Ukraine an estimated 1,000 BTR-3U armored personnel carriers (APCs) to be assembled in Myanmar. And in 2016-17, Ukrainian arms manufacturers reportedly shipped parts for Mil Mi-2 and Mil Mi-17 helicopters, BTR-3U armored personnel carriers, a ship engine, and ship propulsion and radar systems through a local arms dealer in Myanmar.

But the silver lining for the resistance group is that there are many good Military Council members who do not like the unjust repression of the terrorist military council and have high levels of ideology and want to serve the people and love the truth and want to see the TMD as a professional army that is loved by the people. These people usually defected to the resistances’ side and the resistance has developed support mechanisms for defectors. No doubt there is a growing trend of officers and soldiers leaving the military dictatorship who do not like the unjust repression of the military junta and wish to escape and is estimated that hundreds of deserters fled the Military Council in the first two months of this year including from the Air Force. Hence, let us wait and see how long the marauding Russian Tzar and the Burmese monarch remain on the scene.

 

Robert Reich: Four Things You Can Do For Ukraine – OpEd

 March 7, 2022 

By Robert Reich

The waitperson where I had breakfast this morning broke down in tears over Ukraine. “I just don’t know what to do,” she said.

She’s not alone. I feel the same way. You probably do, too.

That one tyrant can cause this much human suffering defies whatever progress we assumed civilization had made since Hitler’s rise almost a century ago. That Putin can wreak such havoc on innocent people, seemingly unconstrained by others in Russia’s government, makes a mockery of modern ideas about governance in even totalitarian regimes.

That he has control over a nuclear stockpile capable of annihilating much of humanity lays bare — even more starkly than does climate change — how far humanity has fallen behind in the primal race between technology and survival.

But bear in mind several encouraging things. The rich nations of the world that still practice democracy are exercising a unity of resolve not seen in decades. Thankfully as well, we in the United States have as president a person who is sane, thoughtful, experienced, and even-tempered. Can you imagine where we’d be with the former guy?

Beyond this, there is no reason to suppose that the grim calculus behind “mutually-assured destruction,” which has so far prevented a nuclear holocaust, has changed.

Finally, by all accounts Putin is not having an easy time of it. The people of Ukraine are mounting a fierce resistance. He cannot “win” this war. Even if he establishes a puppet government there, the resistance will continue.

So what can you do to help Ukraine? Four things.

1. First, you can contribute to Ukrainian relief efforts. Here are organizations I trust:

— Ukraine Crisis Fund. The international humanitarian group is providing food, water and other items to families fleeing violence in Ukraine. Contribute here.

— Doctors without Borders. Staffers with the medical relief organization remain in Ukraine and are “seeking ways to respond to the medical and humanitarian needs as the conflict evolves.” Offer support here.

— ICRC. The Swiss-based organization is supporting the work of the Ukrainian Red Cross in helping those impacted by the war. Donate to the ICRC.

— Keep Ukraine’s Media Going is a GoFundMe campaign for journalists around Ukraine that also aims to help reporters relocate and continue their work from neighboring countries. Donations can be made here. 

2. Second, you can write your members of Congress expressing your view that the United States should sanction Russian oil and gas, and that you are willing to make the financial sacrifice of higher prices at gas pumps and for home heating oil that will almost certainly result.

3. Third, you can urge your members of Congress to open wide America’s borders to Ukrainians fleeing Putin’s war, and help them transport themselves and their families here.

4. Fourth and finally, whatever your political persuasion, you can put aside your anger and frustration with Americans who disagree with you on other issues and recognize our shared commitment to democracy and human rights and our mutual loathing for the murderous rampage we are witnessing in Ukraine. Bearing witness to this calamity and unambiguously condemning it should, at the very least, be something we can all agree on.

Robert B. Reich is Chancellor's Professor of Public Policy at the University of California at Berkeley and Senior Fellow at the Blum Center for Developing Economies, and writes at robertreich.substack.com. Reich served as Secretary of Labor in the Clinton administration, for which Time Magazine named him one of the ten most effective cabinet secretaries of the twentieth century. He has written fifteen books, including the best sellers "Aftershock", "The Work of Nations," and"Beyond Outrage," and, his most recent, "The Common Good," which is available in bookstores now. He is also a founding editor of the American Prospect magazine, chairman of Common Cause, a member of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, and co-creator of the award-winning documentary, "Inequality For All." He's co-creator of the Netflix original documentary "Saving Capitalism," which is streaming now.

 

The China-Australia Laser Incident: More Than Meets The Eye – Analysis

 March 7, 2022

By Mark J. Valencia

Australia accused a Chinese warship of shining a military grade laser at an Australian Air Force Poseidon 8A (P-8A) surveillance plane.  The incident occurred on 17 February in Australia’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) and also involved the dropping of sonobuoys by the Australian aircraft.  Australian politicians quickly seized the opportunity to blast China and bolster their standing in the upcoming elections. Prime Minister Scott Morrison said the incident was an “act of intimidation.” Defense Minister Peter Dutton said Australia “would always stand up to China’s coercion, bullying and intimidation”. But politics aside, there is much more to this incident than meets the eye.

The Australian Department of Defense condemned China’s “unprofessional and unsafe military conduct.”  This position has been backed by several Australian analysts including former RAAF Group Captain Peter Layton. He authored a piece in the prominent Lowy Institute’s Interpreter alleging that China’s use of a military-grade laser was a purposeful hostile act of aggression “authorized at the highest levels.”   The piece further asserted that “trying to injure people appears on its way to being the new Chinese grey zone norm”.  These dangerous assertions are speculation based on questionable assumptions.   The incident and explanations thereof raise many questions and deserve closer examination.

First, it is not clear what type of laser was fired at the plane. The Layton piece said that it was part of a fire control system. But others said it was a “dazzler designed to temporarily blind adversaries or burn sensors.”   The Layton piece alleges that such use “appears to be in contravention of the 1995 Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons”. Both Australia and China are parties to that Protocol.

Core questions are what type of laser was used, what was the intent of firing the laser, and what was its effect?

The Protocol stipulates that “laser weapons specifically designed_ _to cause permanent blindness to unenhanced vision are prohibited.” But it also states that “blinding as an incidental or collateral effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems is not covered by the Protocol. So was the laser aimed directly at– and only at– the cockpit, with the intention to blind the pilots or damage critical electronic equipment? Or was it aimed at the plane as a whole as a range finder? Did it blind or injure the pilots, or were they wearing protective eyeware? To be sure, firing a laser at an aircraft is a n unfriendly act. But if the laser was not designed to injure, and there was no intent to cause harm and there was none, the Protocol may not have been violated.

Second, why did the Chinese warship fire a laser at the plane? Was this a response to a hostile act on the part of the aircraft? The US produced P8As are armed with torpedoes, Harpoon anti-ship missiles and other weapons. Did the Chinese commander consider its approach ‘unsafe’, harassment, or a hostile ‘provocation’? If so, was the action justified? 

The Australian Defense Force had been tracking the surface vessels for days. If there was thought to be a submarine in the vicinity, was the P-8A subhunter trying to identify it and collect its ‘signature’ to pass on to the Americans. If so, was it reasonable for China to view this act as hostile or at the least ‘unfriendly’?

The Layton piece claims that the use of the laser was unprovoked because the Australian subhunter dropped the sonobuoys in the vicinity of the Chinese warships only after the firing of the laser. If –as the piece says– the laser was fired before the P-8A dropped the sonobuoys, their deployment could have been seen as retaliation and a ‘hostile act’.

Both Australia  and China have agreed to the Code for Unplanned Encounters at Sea (CUES). It recommends “avoiding the discharge of objects in the direction of vessels encountered”. Did the aircraft’s dropping of sonobuoys near the vessels go against this recommendation?

The Chinese vessels were exercising their UN Convention on the Law of the Sea supported right of freedom of navigation on the high seas.  Yes they were in the Australian EEZ and this may have added an element of knee-jerk nationalism to the Australian reaction. But as the U.S. never tires of pointing out, EEZs are “international” waters for purposes of navigation by warships.

There are many questions that need to be answered before jumping to conclusions and assigning blame. Indeed, there may be enough to go around.

Mark J. Valencia

Mark J. Valencia, is an internationally known maritime policy analyst, political commentator and consultant focused on Asia. He is the author or editor of some 15 books and more than 100 peer-reviewed journal articles. He is currently an Adjunct Senior Scholar, National Institute for South China Sea Studies, Haikou, China