In Asia: Weekly Insight and Features from Asia

Weeks into his new post, In Asia editor Alma Freeman spoke with The Asia Foundation’s new Korea country representative, Peter Beck, from Seoul for his insight on South Korea’s domestic politics, North Korea’s transition, Seoul’s new mayor, the contentious National Security Law, and more.

You have lived and worked extensively in South Korea, and you’re an expert on issues related to the region, particularly North Korea. How did you first become interested in Korea?

When I was a college student, my mother worked for United Airlines and I was lucky enough to spend my summers traveling. In the spring of 1987, I visited Seoul on the very eve of Korea’s democratization. Right outside my humble inn I could see students fighting for the freedoms I had been born with. This made a lasting impression on me. I also became fascinated by Korea’s rapid economic development. How did one of the poorest countries in the world develop so quickly?  For me, a dynamic country with friendly people was an unbeatable combination. So, when I got back to college, I immediately started studying Korean and changed my major to Asian Studies.

What do you see as the most critical issues facing the Korean peninsula now?

South Koreans are watching the transition in North Korea closely. The vast majority hope the transition will be smooth and stable. Almost no one here wants a sudden collapse of the North Korean regime.

Domestic politics is also in a state of flux. There is going to be a presidential election here in December and, true to the nature of democracy, it’s too hard to tell who is even in the lead right now. Meanwhile, voting irregularities in the Seoul mayoral election and a still unfolding bribery scandal are rocking the ruling Grand National Party.

In terms of Korean society, the issue that is getting the most attention right now is the education system and in particular the problem with bullying and suicides among students. There is growing public awareness that even though Korean students are some of the best test-takers in the world, more attention needs to be paid to developing students’ social skills and civic values.

On the economic front, Koreans are very anxious about the world economy. Korea is heavily dependent on trade. If Europe goes back into recession and China slows down, that could have a serious impact on the Korean economy.

Read more »

In the 60 years since The Asia Foundation began, the global development landscape and accompanying aid architecture has changed dramatically. Tackling the challenge of global poverty reduction seems to be on track. In the early 1980s, more than half of people in developing countries lived in extreme poverty. Today, this figure is around 16 percent and falling. Asia is largely responsible for these dramatic figures. Asia has experienced one of the most rapid paces of development in human history and, hence, it is no wonder that political and economic pundits have dubbed this era “The Asian Century.”

Many countries in Asia also share the unique experience of being aid recipients and donors, often simultaneously. Asian countries as donors are now contributing to significant shifts in global aid architecture.

Alongside this success, however, the Asian Century faces looming challenges. These include climate change, the global financial crisis, food security, humanitarian crises resulting from devastating natural disasters, and persistent pockets of conflict and fragility. For many countries in Asia, the challenge is how to maintain a positive development trajectory, while tackling these challenges and avoiding the middle-income trap. It is fitting that the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF4) is being held in Asia. As host, South Korea provides a valuable, concrete example of how aid can be an effective catalyst of development.

Many countries in Asia also share the unique experience of being aid recipients and donors, often simultaneously. Asian countries as “donors” are now contributing to significant shifts in global aid architecture. Two decades ago, aid from the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development‘s (OECD) Development Assistance Committee (DAC) member countries constituted 80 percent of total aid. Today this amount is closer to 50 percent. Contributing to this change in composition of global development assistance is the significant increase in assistance from non-DAC countries, notably China and India.

Read more »

It is entirely appropriate that the Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness is being held in the city of Busan, South Korea. In many ways, Busan symbolizes the story of Korea’s transition from poverty and aid dependence to aid donor and host of the most important global meeting on development cooperation. Forum participants from around the world are marveling at the glass and steel towers and the busy port. But go back a few decades and the picture was very different.

Thousands of delegates descended on Korea's major port town, Busan, this week for the HLF4. Photo: Flickr user: LWY

During the Korean War (1950-53), Busan was the only major port that did not quickly fall into North Korean hands. Through that port, war material and humanitarian supplies flowed into the devastated country. For many soldiers, aid workers, and journalists, Busan (then spelled Pusan) was their first view of this largely unknown country, and the first impression was almost universally negative. The surrounding hillsides were covered with the shanties of millions of refugees who flowed into the enclave. Nevertheless, with massive external assistance, Korea went on to recover its lost territory and begin the arduous task of rebuilding.

During the 1950s and 60s, the international community, especially the United States, stepped in to support Korea’s reconstruction and development with direct budget support and technical assistance. Then, aid flowed through the port of Busan in the form of the “three whites” (sugar, flour, cotton) that met the immediate needs of the people and helped re-start the economy.

Read more »

In a recent speech at the Overseas Development Institute, former UK Prime Minister Tony Blair stressed the important role that leadership plays in development.

Now, as the Forum draws to an end, the importance of leadership proves a crucial and timely message, and one that is closely tied into the growing debate about development “ownership”; for it is important to remember that ownership requires “owners.” Such owners, however, cannot be confined to the top leadership of central government, as ownership also requires action and support from leaders at the sub-national level, as well as across all sectors, including the private sector and wider interests in civil society. The new challenge for development that has been addressed in Busan – and will, hopefully, continue to be addressed beyond it – is how the international community can help to facilitate or broker processes through which these leaderships can work better together to share ownership of locally appropriate and legitimate institutions and policies.

But, while policy-makers recognize that leadership matters, they are also prone to ask the questions: “So what?” and “What can we do about it?” In light of such unanswered questions, the Developmental Leadership Program (DLP), an international policy initiative directed by an independent steering committee of partner organizations, including The Asia Foundation, funded primarily by AusAID,  works to better understand and promote the role developmental leadership plays in fostering sustainable economic growth, political stability, and inclusive social development.

Read more »

As thousands of development experts and leaders gathered this week in Busan, Korea, for the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness, The Asia Foundation has just published a book featuring case studies from the Philippines that focus on many of the most critical development challenges being raised in Busan.

The book, Built on Dreams, Grounded in Reality: Economic Policy Reform in the Philippines, examines both successful and unsuccessful reforms in order to draw lessons from those experiences. The five highly regarded reforms include: introducing competition and liberalization in three sectors (sea transport, civil aviation, telecommunications); privatizing water service in Metro Manila; and passing a property rights law to allow faster titling of residential lands. The book also documents two long-running reform efforts with limited success: improving tax administration for better fiscal outcomes, and reforming the National Food Authority, a government corporation responsible for ensuring food security, particularly the stability of supply and price of rice.

A number of regularities that can inform development thinking and practice emerged from the cases:

1. Institutional change is an iterative, non-linear, and context-specific process. Successful reform involves the embedding of technically sound policies within the murky and ever-shifting world of politics and coalitions. While the process is protracted and unpredictable, it can be influenced to produce positive development outcomes. The case of civil aviation provides an excellent example of this iterative process. In the initial years of the Arroyo administration (2001-2004), liberalization advocates were appointed onto the national policy body, the Civil Aeronautics Board. However, the elections of 2004 changed the policy environment when the owner of the dominant carrier is alleged to have supported the president’s election bid. In an effort to continue reform, advocates shifted strategies by combining the “open skies policy” with a political base from the president’s home province of Pampanga where there was a major airport, Clark Airport, a former U.S. military facility. Over time, an aggressive liberalization policy emerged that unleashed the development of the airport. From a low of 50,000 passengers in 2004, the airport handled about 700,000 passengers in 2010.

   Read more »

This story is one that I have shared many times before. Years ago, I found myself walking through a stunning village in Bazarak, Panjshir Valley – home of the late Ahmad Shah Massoud – over 50 miles from Afghanistan’s capital, Kabul. I was there to help monitor preparations for the 2004 presidential elections. Just after 10 a.m., when we (I had three other colleagues with me: a driver, guide, and interpreter) arrived, I was brought to the village head’s house. The site was unforgettable: a cozy traditional house, basic setting, no electricity but a generous supply of natural fresh water, possibly from melted ice flowing down from the Hindu Kush Mountain range. As soon as I walked into the house, I was introduced in Pashtu: “Herizal Hazri, election worker from Malaysia.” A stocky man (the village head) immediately shook my hand, and said through our interpreter, “Malaysia is good. … Mahathir is our leader!” (Yes, I did think of testing his conviction but again, as a foreigner, I knew better than starting a debate, especially with a village head!)

I was surprised; but not because he adored Malaysia and its former prime minister so much, but rather that this short exchange of words was happening here, in a remote village in the Pansjhir Valley, with no electricity, no internet, and largely buffered from the outside world due to war, or more precisely: many wars. I thought to myself, if only I had travelled here to measure the effectiveness of Malaysia’s foreign policy, my ratings will be largely boosted by this conversation.

Seven years later, this moment stuck with me as I sat down to co-write a chapter on Malaysia’s foreign policy and South-South Cooperation for the new book, Emerging Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation, jointly produced by the Korean Development Institute and The Asia Foundation which was just released at the Fourth High Level Forum in Busan.

It is not too much to claim that South-South Cooperation is an important tenet in Malaysia’s foreign policy. Since its independence in 1957, Malaysia’s involvement in promoting greater cooperation and solidarity among newly independent countries of Asia and Africa has been a prominent feature of its modern political history. While Malaysia did not participate in the inaugural Bandung Afro-Asian Conference in 1955, it quickly played an integral role in the formalized South movements such as its active membership in the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), Association of Southeast Asia Nations (ASEAN), and the G77 caucus within the United Nations.

Read more »

When times are tough, it’s difficult to settle into a charitable mood. At the mention of global aid, people grumble that we can’t even afford to care for our needy at home. But as with individual lives, a nation needs to look beyond immediate concerns in forging a path for the future. The tougher times are, the bolder and more resolute we must be in upholding our responsibilities. Having ascended to donor country status, we cannot sidestep or neglect our role of offering aid to countries that lag behind in economic progress.

We live in a borderless global community interlinked by networks created by globalization, not to mention our connectivity in terms of computers and communication. No countries can survive cut off from these global fetters. A country’s problems and challenges are no longer restricted to its own borders. They become global problems and concerns that require regional or international solutions.

War and peace, struggles for democratization, sustainable economic development, and environmental challenges are common endeavors members of the entire world community in the 21st century must address together for the viability of the planet, regardless of where they live. We learned from our own experience a century ago that self-exile and estrangement from the global mainstream can cost a country its very sovereignty. This is why we have endeavored over the years so desperately to get into the front-runners’ group in global society.

Read more »

On October 13, President Obama will host President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea for a state visit in Washington. President Lee will also address a joint session of the United States Congress. As only the fifth head of state to be given such full honors by President Obama, one would think that Koreans would follow this summit meeting with their closest ally with great interest. So far, however, it seems that the Korean media and the general public are not paying much attention.

On October 13, President Obama hosts President Lee Myung-bak of South Korea for a state visit in Washington. Photo: Flickr user KOREA.NET

One reason for this apparent low level of interest is that the U.S.-Korea relationship, at least at the official level, is in great shape. The two governments are closely aligned in their policies toward North Korea and other security interests in the region. President Obama has repeatedly praised South Korea for assuming a larger leadership role in the global community – such as hosting a G20 meeting last year and the High Level Forum on Aid in Busan later this year. The one challenging issue that has been linked to this visit is the long-delayed ratification of the Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Lee and Obama have advocated for the ratification, and Obama submitted the KORUS FTA, along with FTAs with Panama and Colombia, to the U.S. Congress where it was approved today by a bipartisan majority.

However, U.S. ratification of the FTA may be a mixed blessing for President Lee. He has also pressed the Korean National Assembly to follow U.S. action with swift ratification. But the opposition party and civil society are already mobilizing to call for renegotiation or rejection of the pact, or at least to make the political debate very difficult, as Korean parliamentarians and demonstrators are wont to do.

Read more »

Over the past year, The Asia Foundation in partnership with the Korea Development Institute (KDI) has convened a series of dialogues on Asian Approaches to Development Cooperation to discuss the experience and perspectives of six Asian countries: China, India, Korea, Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand. The dialogues, involving development cooperation officials and policy analysts, from each country, reveal intriguing similarities across these countries on the philosophy, purpose, and modalities of their assistance. They also provide insight on the relevance of current international aid frameworks for their approach to development cooperation and whether donor alignment around an agreed set of principles is desirable or possible.

Outcomes from the series suggest that it is unlikely that Asian donors currently outside the tent will respond to the overtures to welcome them in. Fundamentally, Asian countries conceptualize development differently from traditional donors. This largely stems from the following:

• Their experience of being both aid recipients and aid donors – often simultaneously – often creates an aversion to using the donor-recipient dichotomy. “Aid” is rarely used to describe Asian cooperation partnerships and most countries do not consider themselves donors.

• Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) are not often used to describe either the goals or indicators of development cooperation in Asia. Rather, Asian countries in many cases tend to focus on mutual benefit with partners, respond to partner country requests, and emphasize shared and sustained growth.

• A more explicit linking of development cooperation with foreign and economic policy objectives, but with fewer policy conditionalities for cooperation partners.

• Many Asian nations view the notion of development as an investment rather than an altruistic contribution. Development is viewed as more than aid, encompassing trade, investment, and technology as part of the cooperation equation.

  Read more »

The Fourth High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness (HLF-4) at the end of November in Busan, Korea, will be the most inclusive global consultation on development cooperation ever held. As national host of the forum, the Korean government has created a unique opportunity for all major aid players to come together by throwing open the doors to representatives of non-governmental organizations and the private sector.

In November, Korea wil host the Fourth High-Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness in Busan. Photo by Flickr user LWY.

At a conference last week in Seoul, the Seoul Civil Society Forum on Aid and Development Effectiveness, co-organized by The Asia Foundation and the Korean Civil Society Forum on International Development (KoFID), representatives of civil society organizations (CSOs) from around Asia came together to finalize their strategy for contributing to an outcome at Busan that has a strong potential to make a difference in the lives of people in developing countries.

The Seoul forum was also an opportunity for Korean and regional CSOs to engage in direct dialogue with the Korean government on development issues. In a remarkable two-hour session, CSO representatives interacted with Enna Park, director general in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade, who leads the Korean government’s preparations for the Busan meeting. Many international participants expressed their appreciation for the way Park responded positively and candidly to their suggestions and questions regarding the Korean government’s stance on the issues to be discussed at HLF-4.

Read more »