South Korea will start carbon trading from 2015

This week South Korea became the latest country to announce a carbon emission trading system. The Korean ETS will start in 2015 and country is the first in Asia to announce such a scheme. As Australia’s fourth largest trading partner with a two-way trade of $31.9 billion in 2010-11, the move puts a further lie to the idea an Abbott Government will rollback the carbon tax if it wins office in the next 12 months.  The Korean strategy plans for the republic to become one of the top seven ranked green economies by 2020 and one of the top five by 2050.

Unlike Australia where the issue has been politically divisive, the Korean bill was passed unanimously in a 148-0 vote with 3 abstentions. Companies that emit 125,000 metric tons or more of carbon dioxide a year will be subject to Korea’s cap-and-trade system, along with factories, buildings and livestock farms that produce at least 25,000 tons of the gas annually, according to the bill.  

Not surprisingly the Korean decision has been welcomed by the Australian Government. Climate change minister Greg Combet was quick off the mark with amedia release on Thursday. Combet congratulated the South Korean Government for “taking this important step to drive sustainable growth and reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. Combet said Australia was now one of 34 countries around the world to use emissions trading as the primary vehicle to drive carbon pollution reduction. “We are far from leading the world, as some have claimed,” Combet said referring to Coalition carping that Australia was taking too much of a risk with its tax.

The South Korean cap and trade ETS will cover around 500 of the country’s largest emitters. The Government will set emissions caps and reduction targets for each trading period. South Korea’s carbon price is yet to be determined but the penalty for non-compliance will be capped at $83 a tonne. The environment ministry launched a voluntary “cap without trade” Target Management System this year. But from 2015, the ETS will be mandatory for installations emitting 25,000 tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent and firms emitting 125,000 tonnes, with smaller entities continuing with the TMS. Three three-year phases are planned, with at least 95% of allowances given for free in the first two.

The bill that passed the national assembly this week was authored by the Green Growth Committee. The GCC was launched by Korean President Lee Myung-bak in 2009. A year earlier, on the 60th anniversary of the founding of Korea, President Lee explained why the ETS was needed. “Green growth is not a matter of choice, but a requirement that we must fulfil by all means for our future survival,” he said. “What matters is whether we can take the lead based on our own original technology, or whether we have to lag behind other countries.”

South Korea was the world's eighth largest emitter of carbon in 2010. In November 2009, the government adopted a medium-term emissions reduction target of 30%, relative to ‘business-as-usual’, by 2020. Just as they have done in Australia, the Korean business community strongly objected saying the plan was over ambitious and would make Korean industry uncompetitiveness. However, the Presidential Committee considered an ambitious target necessary in order to stimulate a broad range of clean technology innovation for greater energy efficiency across the economy, as well as for the deployment of renewable energies.

Korea  enacted legislation in April 2010 to permit the government to intervene in the market “to address market failures in promoting green growth”. The law made provisions for the emissions rights trading system. Sustained industry opposition forced many revisions was followed by inter-party parliamentary squabbles that almost killed the bill. But on 2 May, the law passed during a surprise lame-duck session. The program was passed despite fears it would hurt the economy, because of the long-term benefits to the country’s huge conglomerates from being more energy-efficient and exporting greener goods.

Weeping for monsters: North Korea's dynastic dues

I’ve been thinking all week about the hysterical sobbing in those images of North Koreans mourning Kim Jong-il. Was it pretend-crying just to avoid looking different to everyone else? Was it just group hysteria? Was it stage managed by the government and then exaggerated out of all proportion? Was it genuine grief for a leader that was a daily presence to them? Was it grief for their own loved one who have died in famines and their miserable fortune to live in such an accursed place? Was it fear that things could get worse under Kim Jong-un? Was it simply just a great chance to cry uncontrollably and not look out of place?

The ambiguities hidden in the tears define North Korea as it has done since the end of World War II. When the Democratic People's Republic of Korea set up shop in the northern part of the peninsula in 1946 they were faced with two big problems. The North had always been more remote and less developed and now 2 million more fled south to avoid the Communist DPRK. The three-war that followed left the new country in tatters.

North Korea converted to a centrally planned economy which strangled small business. Dissent was not tolerated and all good was embodied in leader Kim Il-sung. In turn Il-Sung promoted “Juche” as a concept of self-reliance which would have to make do in difficult times. Il-Sung said juche meant man was the master of everything and decided everything. That man was him and he mobilised the entire workforce to industrialise North Korea rapidly after the civil war.

But always suspicious of the South, they built up their military might to deter invasion. They ran up massive debts mainly to the USSR, China and Japan. By 1980 they defaulted on all their loans and the economy has been contracting ever since. The collapse of Soviet Communism in 1989 left Russia unimpressed with their poverty-stricken debtor. That meant an increasing reliance on China with which DPRK shared philosophies and its only open border. Il-sung refused to consider Gorbachev’s perestroika because he knew it led to glasnost. He died in 1994 and first son and heir apparent Kim Jong-il took over.

Born in 1942 Jong-il spent his first years in Siberia with his parents. His father commanded the 1st battalion of the 88th Brigade, a Red Army unit made up of Chinese and Korean exiles. Jong-il was born in Vyatskoye, a fishing village near Khabarovsk where the railway turns south to Vladivostok. As a schoolboy, Jong-il was interested in politics and Marxist literature. He learned English in Malta and as early as 1980, was effective head of the politburo with only his father to look up to. He inherited his father’s personality cult and was named head of the armed forces in 1991.

With Jong-il making all the decisions since they defaulted on their debts, North Korea’s economy collapsed. When Il-Sung finally collapsed in 1994, aged 82, Jong-il was undisputed leader. The US were worried by his nuclear ambitions and threats to leave the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. The countries signed an Agreed Framework as one of Jong-il’s first achievements in office. It allowed the DPRK to continue developing nuclear technology at foreign expense but with light water reactors rather than the nuclear proliferating graphite reactors they already had.

The US overplayed its hand. President Clinton rashly assumed North Korea was on the verge of collapse and DPRK officials knew his assumption. Congress would not pass a bill to end the trade embargo in place since the end of the Korean War and the US dragged its feet in calling for tenders to build the new reactors. By October 2002, the US believed North Korea had an enrichment program and confronted them with their evidence. Three months later North Korea left the NNPT. The Framework was no longer Agreed and the subsequent Six Party talks were almost completely fruitless. North Korea had gone rogue.

While nuclear testing proceeded with Iranian and Pakistani know-how, the fate of the people of North Korea worsened. Jong-il oversaw a collapse in industry and technology and floods and storms in 1995 wrecked existing electricity and health infrastructure and destroyed harvests. Hungry peasants ate what survived before it was fully developed and the country could no longer feed itself. Women and children bore the brunt of the death toll of a million or more in the three years that followed.

Food from China, South Korea and the US eased the situation until Jong-il refused all overseas aid in 2002. Inclusion in Bush’s 2002 State of the Union “Axis of Evil” heightened the sense of North Korea’s isolation. Famine conditions worsened again. Recent escapees told the BBC hunger and starvation were common with homeless people dying in the railway station, and others too weak to beg. Complaining about this inside the country would lead to instant imprisonment.

It’s not difficult to imagine the logical leaps of doublethink North Koreans must take in order to make sense of their world. Death is all around them but so is a regime that demands obedience and Juche. Even when people were confronted on the street by evidence of the failure of the regime, their total reliance state media meant foreign powers and the evil South could always be conjured up as scapegoats.

The extraordinary scenes in Pyongyang after Jong-il’s death are not without precedence. This week’s public lamentation eerily resembles the carefully choreographed mourning after Kim Il-sung died. Life seemed almost too unbearable to go on without Dear Leader. But just as in 1994, the State machinery will be whipped into shape after a decent interval and the leadership cult will swing to Kim Jong-un. The world should learn from Clinton’s mistake. North Korea can survive dysfunction. Bellies may remain empty but the belicose dynasty of Dear Leader will continue. As the handpicked factory worker in the sobbing video said “I will change sorrow into strength and remain faithful to Comrade Kim Jong-un.” It’s best the North Koreans cry now because it will not be tolerated in six months time.

Ban Ki-Moon is new UN boss

Ban Ki-Moon from Korea has been elected UN General Secretary. He will take up the role when Kofi Annan’s second five year term expires on 1 January, 2007. The 62 year old Ban is currently South Korea’s foreign minister and speaks fluent English and French. He was appointed by acclamation on Friday by the 192-member General Assembly. He is the first Asian appointee to the role since U Thant of Burma whose term expired in 1971. In his acceptance speech to the assembly, Ban said “My tenure will be marked by ceaseless efforts to build bridges and close divides. Leadership of harmony not division, by example not instruction has served me well so far. I intend to stay the course as Secretary-General”.

Ban Ki-Moon was born in Eumseong, in the central province of North Chungcheong in 1944. He was educated in Seoul and graduated from the National University in 1970 with a degree in International Relations. He wanted a diplomatic career and passed the foreign service examination. He gained a Masters in Public Administration from the John F Kennedy School of Government at Harvard which is regarded as one of the best public policy schools in the US. During a nearly 40 year diplomatic career, he was posted in India, Austria, Washington and at the United Nations. His affiliation with the UN dates back to 1975 when he was appointed a staff member of the UN division of the South Korean Home Office.

While he was South Korean ambassador to Austria in 1999, he was appointed chairman of the preparatory commission for the Comprehensive Nuclear Test Ban Treaty Organisation. He came to international prominence after 9/11 when Korea had presidency of the UN General Assembly. The first sitting day was 12 September and it was Ban’s role as chef-de-cabinet to the president to see through the prompt adoption of the assembly's condemnation of the attacks. Ban returned home in 1996 to became national security adviser to the president in 1996 and took the office of vice minister in 2000. He was appointed Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs and Trade in January 2004.

Ban declared his candidacy of UN secretary general in February and ran a skilful campaign claiming he would turn the UN into an effective, accountable and transparent global organisation. He promised to reform the "culture of the organization, increase accountability and toughen ethics." He called on member states to allow the Secretariat "greater flexibility matched by greater accountability." He described the US troubled relationship with the thus: "Global challenges call for global responses. The United States cannot do it alone. The United States needs the United Nations, and vice versa." U.S. Ambassador John Bolton endorsed Ban saying, "we believe he is the right person to lead the United Nations at this decisive movement in its history, particularly as the UN struggles to fulfil the terms of the reform agenda that world leaders agreed to last fall."

The office of Secretary General is defined prosaically in the UN Charter as the organization's "chief administrative officer" (Article 97) but holds much “soft power”. Traditionally the post rotates around the world’s regions and this was Asia’s turn. Ban will be the eighth Secretary General in the UN’s 60 year history. He was one of seven candidates vying for the role and topped all four informal polls in the UN Security Council. He will head an organization that has 92,000 peacekeepers around the world and a $5 billion annual budget. The reputation of the UN has been tarnished by recent corruption scandals. The incumbent Secretary-General Annan believes Ban has the credentials for the job saying he was "a future secretary-general who is exceptionally attuned to the sensitivities of countries and constituencies in every continent" and he would be "a man with a truly global mind at the helm of the world's only universal organisation."

Ban has three months to effect a transition. Korean Prime Minister Cheong Wa Dae has not yet nominated a replacement foreign minister so Ban will need to play both roles for at least another month. Korean media have pointed out there may be a conflict of interest between the roles. They have pointed out that his criticism of North Korea failing to comply with a UN Security Council resolution is at odds with his Korean role in an administration that is clinging to its engagement policy with the North.

mixed results for North Korea missile tests

On Wednesday July 5 (not July 4, US Independence Day, as incorrectly reported by many media), North Korea carried out nuclear missile tests which have caused a storm of worldwide reaction.

North Korea's most dangerous potential weapon is the Taepodong-2 (named by outside observers for the launch site) missile, the range of which is thought to include Australia and parts of Alaska and Hawaii however Pyongyang has a very limited number of these experimental long-range missiles. The Taepodong-2 launch was unsuccessful with the first stage engine burning for just 40 seconds, less than half its expected time. Several minutes later, the missile fell into the Sea of Japan (East Sea) which lies between North Korea, Russia and Japan. The Taepodong-2 is a larger version of the Taepodong-1, which was tested in 1998 in a probable failed attempt to place Pyongyang's Kwangmyongsong satellite into orbit. The Koreans claimed the launch was successful and the satellite was transmitting the melody of the immortal revolutionary hymns ‘Song of General Kim Il Sung’ and ‘Song of General Kim Jong Il’ and the Morse signals ‘Juche Korea’ in 27 MHz'. Despite these explict details no evidence could be uncovered by Western intelligence agencies that the spacecraft had actually reached orbit.

Though North Korea failed in its longer-term ambitions on July 7, the test two days earlier was more successful when they launched the short range Hwasong and the medium range Nodong missiles. They have up to 200 Nadong missiles which have a range of up to 1,300 kilometres (putting it in reach of Japan and Okinawa.) The Nadong is based on Scud technology and Pyongyang has sold the weapon to Iran, Syria and Libya.

Unlike the 1998 launch, few were surprised by this week’s activities. Though the exact launch date was unknown, North Korea did little to hide the exercise. In June, American satellite photographs revealed that the North was proceeding with the test-firing of the long-range missile at a launching pad on a remote east coast site. Just days before the launch, the Chinese tried to put together an "informal" meeting of the dormant six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear program. The six parties are the US, Russia, China, Japan and the two Koreas. The North has boycotted the talks since September, citing American efforts to blacklist the Macau bank it uses for overseas financial transactions.

Because the long-range missile failed, the US has not played a large role in the response. US national security advisor, Stephen Hadley called the tests “provocative behaviour,” but added that they marked “no immediate threat” to the US. Japan, which views itself as the main military focus of the North Korean tests, reacted more strongly. It has implemented sanctions, including banning North Korean officials from visiting Japan and suspending the ferry from North Korea to Japan. Tokyo also took the North Korean missile tests to the U.N. Security Council. Japan asked the Council on Friday to ban international sales of North Korean missiles. The US States, Britain and France back the resolution but it is opposed by the other two permanent members China and Russia.

The South Korean response has been less clear-cut than Japan. Seoul political bickering and their desire for political unification mean that they have mixed threats of economic retaliation (withholding food and fertilizer shipments) with calls for dialogue with Pyongyang. Russia, who were not notified in advance, criticized the launch but called for a calm response. Russian President Putin was quoted as saying “We would prefer it if Russia and the international community did not receive such presents” but also cautioned "these events should not lead to emotions that would conquer common sense when considering such issues." Whereas China, which provides the North with its oil and much of its food, is apparently unconcerned by the launch despite the North's rebuff to their talks proposal. Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Liu Jianchao said "we'll continue to work together with all the other parties and play a constructive role."

North Asia is a powderkeg. Since 2000, North Korea has more than quadrupled its suspected stockpile of plutonium, withdrawn from the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty and resumed flight testing of its missiles. China is arming heavily and South Korea and Japan are also keeping pace. The launch could increase support for hawkish candidates in the race to succeed Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who is scheduled to retire in September. The chief cabinet secretary Shinzo Abe is favourite to succeed Koizumi has built his popularity with a tough stance on North Korea and China. Abe said the tests were "a serious problem from the standpoint of our national security, peace and stability of the international community and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction."

The North, however, said it had the right to test missiles. South Korea's Yonhap news agency on Friday quoted Choe Myong Nam, councillor at the North's UN mission in Geneva, as saying the launches were successful and could be continued. "It's an unfair logic to say that somebody can do something and others cannot. The same logic applies to nuclear possession," Choe said. He continued, “the missile launches are not intended to strike anyone and it's the North position that missile launches could be continued,"

It is safe to say that the world has not heard the last of Taepodong-2. That is one of few things that are safe in the troubled Sea of Japan.

Japan and Korea with rocks in their heads

Today, South Korea set up an 18-ship naval blockade around a disputed group of islands, warning of a "physical clash" as two Japanese coastguard ships steam towards them.

The islands are to be found in the middle of the Sea of Japan roughly half way between the two countries. The Koreas know the islands as Dokdo and the Japanese call them Takeshima. Woolly Days’ atlas has a third name for them: Liancourt Rocks. The islands got this name from a French whaler "Le Liancourt" which visited them in 1849. The Russians named them Manalai and Olivutsa Rocks in 1854 and a year later the English got in on the act calling them the Hornet Rocks.

So why all this fuss over these multi-named but tiny islands one hundred and fifty years later? To quote a serial philanderer, it’s the economy, stupid. But that is only partially correct. The Koreans and the Japanese have a long history of political and military disputes and Dokdo/Takeshima (/Liancourt/Manalai/Hornet etc.) is, along with the recompense of the so-called ‘comfort women’, one of the most important unresolved squabbles from the Second World War.

I said the islands are roughly half way between the two countries but Korea is slightly closer being 217km away compared to the 250km distance to Japan. And though there is no fresh water on the islands, there are approximately 50 Koreans living there working as police, government officials, lighthouse keepers and one unattached couple who live off the fishing.

And it is the fact that they are rich fishing grounds that makes the islands economically important. There is also possible reserves of natural gas though none has yet been found. The Koreans have placed an Exclusive Economic Zone around the island and the Japanese are not happy.

The rocks are also important for military strategic reasons. They served many times as a military base, most notably in the Russo-Japanese War. The Japanese claimed the islands in that year of 1905 using the doctrine ‘terra nullius’ (familiar to Australians as the point of law that led to the native title legislation.) They remained a Japanese possession until the end of the Second World War. The Americans excluded the rocks from Japanese administrative authority in 1946. However the exclusion order did not clearly state who should take over the rule of the rocks. Indeed, the US maintains a policy of non-recognition for claims by either side to this day. The South Koreans claimed it in 1952 towards the end of the Korean War but the Japanese fought skirmishes in a vain effort to re-establish control in 1953. The incident ended with the sinking of a Japanese ship. In 1954, the Korean government rejected a Japanese offer to seek arbitration at the International Court of Justice. Instead the Koreans built a lighthouse and helicopter pad. Subsequently they built a radar station enabling them to track the naval forces of Russia, Japan, and North Korea winding their various ways through the Sea of Japan. The status of the island was omitted from the 1965 “Basic Relations Treaty” which normalised the relationship between the two countries.

Today, despite the fact that they are major trading partners, both sides still vigorously claim the islands. This month, the Japanese dispatched two ships to conduct a maritime survey near the islands without first formally notifying the Korean government. In response, the Koreans dispatched eighteen patrol ships and warned Japan not to go through with its plans.

Last heard (April 19, 2006), the Japanese convoy were still on course, ignoring Seoul’s calls to turn back. Japan's chief cabinet secretary, Shinzo Abe, claimed that there was "no problem" whereas South Korean Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said "We don't want the situation to worsen, but we will take all steps to protect the sovereignty over Dokdo.”

Another Korean spokesman warned ominously "in case of any physical clash, Japan should assume full responsibility."

Seoul Searching

Icy greetings from freezing Seoul. Today was quite mild as the temperatures rose to a balmy three degrees. Unlike Friday when it rose from a low of minus -8 to a sizzling -3 as those damn Siberian winds kicked in again. No snow, just a bitterly cold Russky breeze blowing in from the North.

Seoul is the most inaptly named city in the world. It is a soulless place. It changed hands five times in the Korean war and was destroyed many times over in the process. As a result the whole city was rebuilt and it looks like how the Gold Coast would look if you dropped the temps by 30 degrees and dragged it away from the sea. The city is gridlocked with a rushhour that really is a rushday starting at 7am and continuing to 10pm. Thats the despite having a terrific subway system which I have been using to get around quite easily.

Not much English spoken here despite the strong American influence, with about 50,000 US troops stationed here. I saw quite a few of them when we took a tour to the DMZ on Saturday. The demilitarised zone was the ceasefire line at the end of the Korean war in 1953 and is now awash with soldiers, weapons, barbed wire, landmines, and of course, a Viking longboat. The Viking longboat is like something you'd see at Dreamworld except it is in the middle of a warzone. I guess you need something to keep the kids occupied when you are staring past a forbidding looking South Korean soldier into the famine-ravished North. The South Koreans built the largest flag pole in the world at the border so the North Koreans had to build a bigger one. It is so big that they have to take it down as soon as it rains as the flagpole can't support it when it gets wet.

Haven't found any restaurants serving dog yet but I saw this delicious looking repast on a cafe menu near the hotel:
"Nolboo's Soondae Kukbob is being made by putting the tripe, the horsehair's cap of badger, the womb and soondae in the thick broth from soupbone. It is good for your health especially by getting rid of its peculiar smell. Its taste is light and refreshing".

Call me a wimp if you like, but so far, I have passed on Nolboo's Soondae Kukbob even the horsehair's cap of badger, the womb and soondae don't do it for me.