There are moments in life that we simply can't explain and completely feel helpless, and thus overwhelmingly sense existance of a supernatural being that may look down on our earthly lives and guide those to detined places. Surely none of victims or those enrolled in Virginia Tech University on early Monday morning last week would've foreseen or even guessed in their wildest dreams that an atrocity such as the one occurred on that day would've taken place on the supposed-to-be a holy ground of an academia. According to aftermath statements from some survivors and witnesses, many experienced a strong disbelief even when they faced the terrorizing scene under their own eyes and fiercing sounds of ammunitions flying right by/penetrating through their bodies. One survivor from a German class in which the shooter entered and fired at students and a professor therein said, he couldn't still believe his own eyes until he felt one of his ears was penerated by a flying bullet and started to bleed, even then, he continued to imagine/think, the blood pouring down from his ear and the body on top of him felt like a ketup-like substance, just like the one used in any ordinary hollywood films.
In the amid of doomed chaos, still a reel of fortune or a destined path laid by a supernational being - or whatever it may be called - divided the fates of those therein. How ironic! Some survived by pretending dead when the shooter walked around nearby bodies of their friends, some survived by their prof holding off the door to prevent the shooter from entering the room, etc.
Among the stories from survivors, the most intriguing of all was regarding Liviu Librescu, a professor who survived the holocaust during WWII. Apparently, he gave up his life in order to secure more time for his students to flee from the scene. In a message by one of thousands of mourners for Dr. Librescu, an anonymous writer wrote that Dr. Librescu survived the holocaust and lived for sixty something more years only for this day (to sacrifice himself so as to save others).
It won't be much of anybody's surprise that he was thinking of, if he had any chance to think of anything then, the rampaged strikes reminded him much of events he would've experienced during the war as a holocaust victim and psychological debt he might hadtoward other Jew victims of the war who were not fortunate enough to survive through the dark tunnel of the time. And this caused him to decide to stand against the evil, once he feared and ran away from. There is not doubt that he was a brave man and was the one who shone us the light among the dark.
Now, talking about the dark side of the event, the shooter Choi, known as a Korean American immigrated when he was still a child. Most of those who had been acquainted with him at some point of their lives recalled him as a very introverted child who never bother to make an effort to engage with anybody, and more than that, even rather reluntant to do so. Trying to understand what would have been going through his mind at the time of massacre may be beyond our capability, obviously even his own family, according to the statement released by his sister, didn't notice the eerie darkness that has dwelled in him until the moment of the massacre. Well,,, whether those who knew him could've guessed the date of massacre coming or not may not be the most important issue here. The significance is there were people who thought something was snapped in him and his behaviors bazzed, sometimes even threatening, but decided to let him be there alone, knowing that he was not capable of dealing with the devil inside all alone.
Of course, the issues with gun-control in the US, and the NRA's role therein have been a great concern, and perhaps is the priority we need to talk about at this moment, but personally, I rather welcome that people make an effort to look inside of the shooter's psychological state and any social/cultural environments that may have influenced him, because hate crimes, which doers do not fear to take their own lives, do usually take more delicate and complicated origins than controlling tools of conducts, in this case, a 9-mm gun and another handgun Choi used.
An interesting point here occurred from observing the incident and its aftermath is the reaction from Korean government and people therein, not to mention of those from Koreans residing in the US. Korea's strong attachment to its fellow countrymen abroad has been well known dispite diplomatic misconducts of failing to protect them on an occasional basis. The case concerning Choi wasn't an exception and most Koreans expressed their sincere consolation to the US.
Articles from major daily newspapers in the US including the Washington Post and and the NYT repeated cleared that the shooting by an individual is nobody's responsibility. But it seemed that it was nation-wide heartfelt consolation from Korea that drew the condolation and a sort of redemption to other fellow Koreans in the US.
Thursday, April 12, 2007
Wednesday, April 11, 2007
Interview on Korea's chief negotiator of the FTA with the US.
<연합인터뷰> 김종훈 "통상조약, 공동선위해 주권일부 접는것"(서울=연합뉴스) 경수현 기자 = "통상조약이란 공동선을 위해 주권을 일부 접는 것입니다"광화문 외교통상부 청사의 집무실에서 만난 김종훈 한미 자유무역협정(FTA) 우리측 수석대표는 투자자-국가간 소송에 대한 합의를 두고 주권포기니 나라를 내주었다느니, 일방적으로 손해만 본 독소조항이라느니 하는 반대파들의 비난 표적이 되고 있는데 대해 답답해했다. 우리 투자자를 보호하기 위해 외국과의 통상협상에서 우리도 반드시 얻어야하는 것인데 왜 투자자-국가소송이 우리에게만 일방적으로 불리하다는 것인지 이해하기 어렵다는 표정이었다. 미국과의 협상은 끝났지만 김 수석대표는 요즘도 협상때와 마찬가지로 하루 24시간이 빠듯할 정도로 분주하다. 국회에 참석해 협상 결과를 설명하고 후속대책 마련을 위해 관련 부처를 만나야하기 때문이다. "지난 일요일에는 그래도 좀 잤는데 개운하지가 않네요" 응접테이블을 마주하고 가까이에서 본 그는 온몸에 피곤한 묻어났다. 미국과의 피를 말리는 막판 마라톤 협상이후 제대로 쉬지를 못했다. 국가 통상 역사를 새로 쓴 한미FTA를 어렵게 타결했지만 그보다 더 힘들다는 대내협상(국민설득과 국회 비준동의)이라는 가시밭길이 기다리고 있는 것이다. 김 수석대표는 임기가 끝나는 7월이후의 거취에 대해 "외교부는 순환근무가 원칙인데다 본부 근무 3년이 다돼가므로 외교관 직분을 충실히 할 수 있는 데로 가야지 국내에서만 근무해서야 되겠는가"며 무거운 짐을 벗어버리고 싶다는 속내를 숨기지않았다. -- 4월2일(월요일) 타결 직전에 다녀온 곳은 청와대였나. ▲청와대는 아니고 광화문에서 몇몇 장관들이 모여 있었다. --돌아오면서 최종적으로 협상안을 받겠다고 미국에 통보한 시점은. ▲낮 12시40분쯤이었다. 미국도 나름대로 전전긍긍한 것 같다. 미국 행정부와 의회의 문서수발 담당자가 낮부터 대기하다가 미국시각 일요일 밤 11시40분까지 기다렸던 것 같다. --당초 3월31일(토요일) 새벽 1시였던 협상 시한이 연장될 것이라는 짐작은 언제 했나. ▲처음부터 했다. 4월1일 밤에 경제 관련 장관 회의에 갔더니, 2일 새벽 1시 타결을 전제로 후속일정이 짜여 있었다. 그래서 오전 11시까지 협상이 계속될 수 있다고 보고했다. 아침에 출근해 타결 소식이 없더라도 협상중일테니 너무 궁금해하지 말라는 말씀도 드렸다. --농업 분야는 처음 연장 때 통고받지 못해 토요일 새벽 5시 가깝게 협상이 진행됐는데. ▲협상은 배짱 싸움이다. 분과장들은 별도의 지시가 있을 때까지 열심히 하라고 했다. 당시 농업, 자동차, 섬유는 열심히 협상하고 있을 때다. 또 의약품, 투자, 지재권, 금융, 서비스 등도 몇개 쟁점이 남아 있었다. --토요일 새벽에 협상 연장 가능성을 공개하지 않은 이유는. ▲토요일 새벽 1시쯤 연장 가능성을 공개할까 생각은 했지만 그렇게 하면 우리의 생각이 노출될 수 있다고 판단했다. 미국이 48시간 연장 얘기를 꺼내서 아침에 연장사실을 브리핑한 것이다. --장관급에서 다룬 패키지 협상 대상은. ▲시간이 흐른 뒤 얘기하자. 방식은 장관급으로 올라온 상태에서 서로 의견을 좁히는 것이다. --막판 협상전 2차례의 고비는. ▲의약품 때문에 논의가 중단된 2차 협상 때와 연말에 무역구제 분야에서 미국이 법률 개정은 안된다고 통보했던 때다. 그래서 되면 되는대로 안 되면 안되는 대로 값을 키워 다른 것하고 교환할 생각을 갖고 국회에 살짝 보고했는데 문건이 유출됐다. 결과적으로 보면 무역구제와 의약품 분야의 최저가 보장, 투자자-국가간 소송제(ISD) 간접수용에서 부동산.조세 제외 등으로 해서 좀 맞췄다. (이 부분에서 그의 목소리가 다소 커졌다) ISD는 왜 그렇게 불안해하는지 모르겠다. 국가주권을 내준 것이라는 주장은 이해되지 않는다. 세계무역기구(WTO) 같은 다자간 통상조약도 공동선을 위해 주권을 일부 접는 것이다. --한덕수 총리가 빠르면 내주중 협상원문을 공개하겠다는 의사를 밝혔는데. ▲봐야 한다면 보여줄 수는 있다. 그러나 보안이 지켜져야 한다. 또 문구 조정이나 법률 검토과정에서 바뀔 수 있다는 것을 전제해야 한다. 나중에 바뀌었다고 논란이 되면 안 된다. (FTA 비판자들이)무엇을 그렇게 숨긴다고 그러는지 모르겠다. (지난 4일 배포한 세부협상 자료를 들추면서) 자 봐라. 유전자변형유기체(LMO) 기술협의, 스냅백 이런 것이 (배포자료에) 다 들어있다. --의심을 갖고 보면 그럴 수 있지 않나. ▲이미 다 공개하겠다고 국회에서 말했다. 다음주에 공개하면 관세양허표 같은 것들은 오타 문제 등 때문에 숫자를 일일이 다 확인해야 하는데 나중에 달라졌다고 할까봐 걱정된다. 해보긴 하겠는데 참으로 걱정이다. --전문직 비자쿼터를 따내는 작업은▲미 의회를 상대로 한 정지작업은 오래전부터 해왔다. 6월30일 체결되면 호주가 했던 식으로 할 것이다. 장담할 수는 없지만 할 수 있다고 본다. --비자 유형은. ▲호주는 새로 만든 것이다. 체류상의 여러가지 편의를 누릴 수 있는 카테고리를 만들어 받고자 하는 것이 우리 목표다. 별도의 카테고리를 만들어야 하고 쿼터는 호주보다는 많아야 할 것이다. --노동분야 등 추가 협상 가능성이 거론되고 있는데. ▲미국 민주당이 다수석을 차지하면서 행정부도 곤혹스러운 입장이다. 미국도 국제노동기구(ILO) 기준을 모두 충족하지 못한다. 민주당은 그렇다면 미국법을 고치라는 입장이지만 합의가 도출되지 않았다. 가설적으로 미 행정부와 의회가 합의를 이룬다면 다시 협상할 수 있지 않겠느냐는 얘기가 나올 수 있겠지만 불확실한 상황을 갖고 말하는 것 자체가 부적절하다. 막판 협상때 그런 일이 있으면 안 된다는 반대 의사도 이미 강하게 표명했다. --한반도역외가공지역(OPZ)위원회 아이디어는 어떻게 나왔나. ▲역외가공이 당장되면 좋겠지만 현실적으로 쉽지 않다. 미북관계, 북핵문제, 미국의 테러관련법, 적성국교역법 등을 봐라. 협정문에서 일거에 (문제를) 해소, 개성공단 제품이 협정 발효후 바로 미국으로 실려나가는 것을 목표로 삼기는 힘들다. 그렇다면 그것을 위한 가능성을 열어놔야 하는데, 일단 역외가공 지역이라는 원칙에 합의하고 이를 구현하기 위한 위원회를 만들어 점차 협의하자는 쪽으로 정부 내부에서 올해들어 좀 논의가 됐다. 그것 자체도 미국이 응하기 쉽지 않을 것이라고 봤다. 마지막 협상 앞두고 미측에 우리 문안을 던졌고 저쪽에서 거의 그대로 우리 문안을 받았다. 미측이 좀 더 추가하고 싶은 문안을 넣어 수정안을 만들기는 했다. 협의 과정에서 느낀 점은 미국도 6자회담 등 동향을 긍정적으로 평가하고 그런 모멘텀을 계속 살려가려 한다는 것이다. 원칙은 하는 것으로 하되 필요한 조건들은 협의해 나가자고 하는 것은 적절히 절충된 것 같다. --영문 명칭에도 한반도가 들어가나. ▲"COMMITTEE ON OUTWARD PROCESSING ZONE ON KOREA PENINSULA"로 돼있다. --이익의 균형을 맞췄다고 하는데 정부내에서 평가방법이 있나. ▲경제와 통상은 다르다. 경제학자들은 개방은 개방자체로, 교역은 교역자체로 좋다고 한다. 그런데 통상은 경제+정치다. 통상은 돌아가서 그 품목에 관심있는 업계에 할말이 있어야 된다. `이건 내가 받았습니다'라고 말할 게 있고 `저쪽도 챙겼습니다'라고 말할 게 있어야 한다. --웬디 커틀러 미측 대표와 협상 타결 뒤 통화는 했나. ▲두번 했다. 비준도 남아있고 하니까 서로 발언을 조심할 필요가 있다는 얘기를 나눴다. 그게 바로 정치영역이다. --양측 협상단 모두 명분을 얻은 것인가. ▲굳이 말하자면 우리 입장에서 공산품은 94%까지 조기철폐 됐으니까 돈이 된다. 농업은 우리가 선방했다고 하지만 미국은 시장접근에서 많이 개선했다고 볼 것이다. 미국은 제도개선 차원에서 투명성, 이해관계자의 의견제출 기회, 동의명령제, 고시나 기술표준 제정절차의 투명성 등에 관심이 많았다. 이들 내용은 미국이 받아갔다고 할 수 있지만, 우리도 어차피 그쪽 방향으로 갈 필요가 있다. --자동차 분야 스냅백과 신속분쟁처리절차는 미국이 제시한 아이디어였나. ▲그렇다. 자동차 분야에서 우리는 시장접근을, 미국은 비관세 장벽 개선을 요구했는데 미 의회는 약속이 지켜질지 보장받고 싶다는 시각이 있었다. FTA를 체결하려면 상대편의 요구를 서로 수용해야 한다. 불쾌한 생각도 들었지만 시장접근은 실리 문제이고 미국 요구는 명분이어서 명분은 주고 실리는 챙긴다는 생각으로 받아들였다. --얀포워드 예외품목수는 ▲남성용 셔츠 등 관세분류 코드(HS10단위)로 하면 33개다. 지난 3년 평균 1억3천만달러 수출된 품목이다. 그 다음에 관세특혜할당(TPL)이 있다. 미국과 한국에서 원사 공급이 부족한 중간투입재로 만든 완제품은 원사기준 예외다. 금액으로는 대체로 3억달러가 좀 넘는다고 한다. 업계가 적극 활용하면 잠재력이 있다. --한미FTA에 따라 개정해야할 국내 법률은. ▲지금 부처별로 집계하고 있는데 농업 등 4개 분야는 덜 끝났고 나머지 15개 분야 집계 결과만 보면 15개 안팎의 법률 개정이 필요하다. 전체적으로 20개안팎이지 않을까 생각한다. 계속 집계하고 있지만 고시나 시행령 등은 15개나 20개정도이니, 이 것까지 다 합치면 40개 정도다. --법률 개정 부담은 당초 예상보다 덜한 수준인데. ▲법률을 고쳐야 하니까 어찌됐든 부담은 있다. 하지만 고칠 것은 고쳐야 한다. --미국도 물품수수료 면제는 법률 개정사항이라고 들었는데. ▲그렇다. 또 미국이 지리적 표시 특별취급 품목으로 들고나와 우리도 안동소주 등이 있다고 받아쳐서 합의됐고 이는 시행령 개정사항인 것으로 안다. (여기서 공식적인 질문은 끝나고 가볍게 개인적인 얘기를 물었다)--수석대표 지위는 언제까지 가나. ▲작년 2월에 발령받을 때 7월1일까지로 돼 있다. 6월말 체결 때까지다. --국회 비준 동의 과정에서 협상 당사자를 부르지 않겠나. ▲비준은 범 정부 차원에서 해야 한다. 비준은 어떻게 보면 정치행위다. 협상 수석대표보고 책임지라고 하는 것은 좀 그렇다. --그럼 7월이후에는 어떻게 되나. ▲외교부의 원칙이 순환근무다. 올 가을에도 내년 봄에도 인사가 있을 것이고 본부 근무 3년이 다 돼가므로 외교관 직분을 충실히 할 수 있는 데로 가야지 국내에서만 근무해서야 되겠는가. 지나고 나니까 때때로 어려운 고비도 있었지만 보람도 있었다. 예전에 분과장 및 분과원들과 용인에 모여 워크숍을 할 때 인생에서 유일한 기회이니 전력투구하자고 말한 적이 있다. 저는 장단기 이익을 갖고 주판알을 튕기는 것도 중요하지만 개방과 공정한 경쟁의 방향으로 간다는 메시지가 국민들에게 전달된게 더 중요하다고 생각한다. evan@yna.co.kr
Tuesday, April 10, 2007
Korean German Exiled Professor Song, the Aftermath.
Contact me via my email or leave your contacts if you need to learn more about the details, or simply have troubles to read the article.
2003년 9월22일부터 다음해 8월5일까지 한국에 머문 10달여 동안(그중 9달을 국가보안법 위반 혐의로 서울구치소에서 보냈다) 보수-진보 등 세력갈등의 진원지였던 재독 학자 송두율 교수가 사건 이후 처음으로 당시를 되돌아보는 책 <미완의 귀향과 그 이후>(후마니타스)를 냈다. <경계인의 사색>을 낸 뒤 5년간의 공백 끝에 나왔다.
그는 서문에서 당시 사건에 대한 기억을 “필자 자신의 것이기는 하지만 동시에 당시 한국사회가 경험했던 ‘집단적 기억’”으로 자리매김하면서 “때로는 잊어버리고 싶은 기억이지만 다시 살려내 반성적으로 고찰하고 또 이를 (한국사회와) 공유해야 할 의무를 느껴왔다”며 집필 동기를 밝혔다. 이는 그가 “광기와 폭력이 난무했던” 상황으로 파악하는 당시 사건을 한국사회가 너무도 쉽게 당시 사건을 망각해버린 채 아무런 생산적 교훈도 얻어내지 못하고 있다는 문제의식의 연장이며, 그것은 이 책 기획자의 착안점이기도 하다.
2003년 9월22일, 36년 2개월 만에 고향땅을 밟은 송 교수는 한달 뒤인 10월22일부터 다음해 7월21일까지 서울구치소 독방에 감금당했다. 책은 이때의 불편했던 기억을 실명까지 거론하며 구체적으로 더듬는다. “독일 영사는 (서울구치소가) 수감중인 미군 병사에게는 책상은 물론 침대와 냉장고 시설까지 허용하면서 저술이 본업인 독일대학의 (송)교수에게 최소한의 편의도 제공하지 않는 이유가 무엇이냐고 항의했다.”
그는 당시 유력지들이 무책임한 보도를 일삼았다며 한마디로 “썩은 내 나는 신문들”이라 질타했다. 검찰과 법원의 권위주의도 그에겐 너무 힘들고 낯선 풍경이었다. “도주나 자해의 위험이 없는데도 수갑만 채운 것이 아니라 포승에 묶인 상태에서 조사를 받아야 하는 공간이다.” “…그들(공안검사들)의 특권의식은 좀 유별난 것 같았다.” “무엇보다도 검사들의 수준에 놀라지 않을 수 없었어요. 그들이 보는 세상은 그렇게 단순할 수가 없어요. ‘아직도 김일성을 존경하느냐’는 질문을 해대질 않나, 계속 그런 식의 취조였어요.”
송 교수는 독일 현지에서 진행한 박상훈 후마니타스 주간, 김용운 기획위원과의 대담에서, 안전보장 확인도 없이 어떻게 귀국했느냐는 질문에, “떠날 때는 (구속 따위는) 전혀 상상할 수 없었다”면서 국정원에 직접 가서 조사받기로 약속한 바도 그렇게 한다는 얘기도 사전에 들은 바도 전혀 없다고 말했다. 선처를 호소한 자성의 글을 발표한 것은 상황파악이 미숙했고 국가보안법에 대한 투항이기도 했다는 비판에 대해선 “그 문제를 가장 가슴 아프게 생각한다”며 아내의 반대를 무릅쓰고 많은 주변사람들의 종용에 넘어간 점, 그리고 같은 맥락의 독일국적 포기도 아쉬워했다.
송 교수는 한국에서 초청할 경우 응할 것이냐는 질문에는 이렇게 답했다. “전보다 더 심리적으로 어려운 선택이 되겠지요. 반드시 돌아가야 한다는 그런 생각이 있는 것은 아닙니다만, 남한이든 북한이든 자유롭게 다니며 가르치고 대화할 수 있었으면 좋겠다는 바람은 늘 있지요. 기본적으로 이분법적 이념이나 편견, 단순논리에 의해 희생되지 않고 좀 자유로워졌으면 좋겠습니다. 한국에 다시 가고 싶으냐 아니냐 하는 문제가 중요한 것이 아니라, 갈 수 있느냐 아니냐가 여전히 내겐 더욱 절실한 문제입니다.”
한승동 선임기자 sdhan@hani.co.kr
2003년 9월22일부터 다음해 8월5일까지 한국에 머문 10달여 동안(그중 9달을 국가보안법 위반 혐의로 서울구치소에서 보냈다) 보수-진보 등 세력갈등의 진원지였던 재독 학자 송두율 교수가 사건 이후 처음으로 당시를 되돌아보는 책 <미완의 귀향과 그 이후>(후마니타스)를 냈다. <경계인의 사색>을 낸 뒤 5년간의 공백 끝에 나왔다.
그는 서문에서 당시 사건에 대한 기억을 “필자 자신의 것이기는 하지만 동시에 당시 한국사회가 경험했던 ‘집단적 기억’”으로 자리매김하면서 “때로는 잊어버리고 싶은 기억이지만 다시 살려내 반성적으로 고찰하고 또 이를 (한국사회와) 공유해야 할 의무를 느껴왔다”며 집필 동기를 밝혔다. 이는 그가 “광기와 폭력이 난무했던” 상황으로 파악하는 당시 사건을 한국사회가 너무도 쉽게 당시 사건을 망각해버린 채 아무런 생산적 교훈도 얻어내지 못하고 있다는 문제의식의 연장이며, 그것은 이 책 기획자의 착안점이기도 하다.
2003년 9월22일, 36년 2개월 만에 고향땅을 밟은 송 교수는 한달 뒤인 10월22일부터 다음해 7월21일까지 서울구치소 독방에 감금당했다. 책은 이때의 불편했던 기억을 실명까지 거론하며 구체적으로 더듬는다. “독일 영사는 (서울구치소가) 수감중인 미군 병사에게는 책상은 물론 침대와 냉장고 시설까지 허용하면서 저술이 본업인 독일대학의 (송)교수에게 최소한의 편의도 제공하지 않는 이유가 무엇이냐고 항의했다.”
그는 당시 유력지들이 무책임한 보도를 일삼았다며 한마디로 “썩은 내 나는 신문들”이라 질타했다. 검찰과 법원의 권위주의도 그에겐 너무 힘들고 낯선 풍경이었다. “도주나 자해의 위험이 없는데도 수갑만 채운 것이 아니라 포승에 묶인 상태에서 조사를 받아야 하는 공간이다.” “…그들(공안검사들)의 특권의식은 좀 유별난 것 같았다.” “무엇보다도 검사들의 수준에 놀라지 않을 수 없었어요. 그들이 보는 세상은 그렇게 단순할 수가 없어요. ‘아직도 김일성을 존경하느냐’는 질문을 해대질 않나, 계속 그런 식의 취조였어요.”
송 교수는 독일 현지에서 진행한 박상훈 후마니타스 주간, 김용운 기획위원과의 대담에서, 안전보장 확인도 없이 어떻게 귀국했느냐는 질문에, “떠날 때는 (구속 따위는) 전혀 상상할 수 없었다”면서 국정원에 직접 가서 조사받기로 약속한 바도 그렇게 한다는 얘기도 사전에 들은 바도 전혀 없다고 말했다. 선처를 호소한 자성의 글을 발표한 것은 상황파악이 미숙했고 국가보안법에 대한 투항이기도 했다는 비판에 대해선 “그 문제를 가장 가슴 아프게 생각한다”며 아내의 반대를 무릅쓰고 많은 주변사람들의 종용에 넘어간 점, 그리고 같은 맥락의 독일국적 포기도 아쉬워했다.
송 교수는 한국에서 초청할 경우 응할 것이냐는 질문에는 이렇게 답했다. “전보다 더 심리적으로 어려운 선택이 되겠지요. 반드시 돌아가야 한다는 그런 생각이 있는 것은 아닙니다만, 남한이든 북한이든 자유롭게 다니며 가르치고 대화할 수 있었으면 좋겠다는 바람은 늘 있지요. 기본적으로 이분법적 이념이나 편견, 단순논리에 의해 희생되지 않고 좀 자유로워졌으면 좋겠습니다. 한국에 다시 가고 싶으냐 아니냐 하는 문제가 중요한 것이 아니라, 갈 수 있느냐 아니냐가 여전히 내겐 더욱 절실한 문제입니다.”
한승동 선임기자 sdhan@hani.co.kr
Monday, April 09, 2007
Principle of not having a principle
According to the New York Times reports and the reports from Reuters over the weekend, the Bush administration "allowed," not even "turned a blind eye" on Ethiopia's arms trading with the North Korea, which was an obvious violation of the UN Security Council's sactions resolution against the NK. A few sources from the US government said, it was done so partly because Ethiopia was fighting against Islamic insurgents in its neighboring country Somalia, which concurred with the US's war on mostly Islamic milias in the region. While the Bush administration together with the Ethiopian government either have denied or avoided to confirm its truthfulness, the recently revealed apparently hypocritical side of the US foreign policy, which is saying one thing and almost always doing another afterwards - nonetheless it was not so surprising any more to many of us -, throws out some significant questions regarding setting a barometer in intergovernmental relations, role of the UN, effectiveness of the UN Resolutions, etc. Should it only have goals but not principles? Is it the way always has been therein? Or is it just another depressing dark side of underground politics, which of course based on an assumption that there also has been a bright side of onground politics. Let me hear your voice on this.
North Korea sells arms to Ethiopia with U.S. OK
Christopher Michaud
Reuters
Sunday, April 08, 2007
NEW YORK — The Bush administration allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from North Korea in an apparent violation of a U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution passed months earlier over its nuclear test, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Citing unnamed U.S. officials from a number of agencies, the Times said the United States allowed the January arms delivery in part because Ethiopia was fighting Islamic militias in Somalia in an offensive that aided U.S. policies of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.
A spokesman for the State Department declined to comment on the specifics of the arms shipment, but said the United States was “deeply committed to upholding and enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions,” the newspaper reported. No response from the Ethiopian Embassy was available.
Washington’s former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who helped push the resolution imposing sanctions on North Korea through the Security Council in October, said the United States should have told Ethiopia to send the weapons back.
“I know they have been helpful in Somalia, but there is a nuclear weapons program in North Korea that is unhelpful for everybody worldwide,” the Times quoted Bolton as saying.
U.S. intelligence agencies reported in late January that an Ethiopian cargo ship that was probably carrying tank parts and other military equipment had left a North Korean port. The shipment’s value was unclear, the Times said.
After a brief debate in Washington, it was decided not to block the arms deal and to press Ethiopia not to make future purchases, according to the report.
It was unclear if the United States ever reported the arms shipment to the Security Council, the Times said. But intelligence reports indicated that the cargo was likely to have included tank parts, leading at least some Pentagon officials to describe the shipment as a clear Security Council violation.
Several officials told the Times they first learned Ethiopia planned to receive military cargo from North Korea when the country’s government alerted the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa after the U.N. measure imposing sanctions was adopted on Oct. 14.
“The Ethiopians came back to us and said, ‘Look, we know we need to transition to different customers, but we just can’t do that overnight,’” the paper quoted a U.S. official as saying.
North Korea sells arms to Ethiopia with U.S. OK
Christopher Michaud
Reuters
Sunday, April 08, 2007
NEW YORK — The Bush administration allowed Ethiopia to complete a secret arms purchase from North Korea in an apparent violation of a U.N. Security Council sanctions resolution passed months earlier over its nuclear test, The New York Times reported in Sunday editions.
Citing unnamed U.S. officials from a number of agencies, the Times said the United States allowed the January arms delivery in part because Ethiopia was fighting Islamic militias in Somalia in an offensive that aided U.S. policies of combating religious extremists in the Horn of Africa.
A spokesman for the State Department declined to comment on the specifics of the arms shipment, but said the United States was “deeply committed to upholding and enforcing U.N. Security Council resolutions,” the newspaper reported. No response from the Ethiopian Embassy was available.
Washington’s former U.N. Ambassador John Bolton, who helped push the resolution imposing sanctions on North Korea through the Security Council in October, said the United States should have told Ethiopia to send the weapons back.
“I know they have been helpful in Somalia, but there is a nuclear weapons program in North Korea that is unhelpful for everybody worldwide,” the Times quoted Bolton as saying.
U.S. intelligence agencies reported in late January that an Ethiopian cargo ship that was probably carrying tank parts and other military equipment had left a North Korean port. The shipment’s value was unclear, the Times said.
After a brief debate in Washington, it was decided not to block the arms deal and to press Ethiopia not to make future purchases, according to the report.
It was unclear if the United States ever reported the arms shipment to the Security Council, the Times said. But intelligence reports indicated that the cargo was likely to have included tank parts, leading at least some Pentagon officials to describe the shipment as a clear Security Council violation.
Several officials told the Times they first learned Ethiopia planned to receive military cargo from North Korea when the country’s government alerted the U.S. Embassy in Addis Ababa after the U.N. measure imposing sanctions was adopted on Oct. 14.
“The Ethiopians came back to us and said, ‘Look, we know we need to transition to different customers, but we just can’t do that overnight,’” the paper quoted a U.S. official as saying.
Sunday, April 08, 2007
Flesh and blood.
Like many of writers preferring to stay behind the curtain and being pessive of revealing themselves, I too have felt rather shy to show myself online to even those who I have known for a long time. But what the hell, while I was downloading some photos from my out-of-fashioned digital camera, I found some of me and my beloveds in photos looking so great that keeping those only to myself would make me feel guilty. So here I am planning to share some with you from now on.
The scene behind me almost looks like one from a desert, but in fact, it is a hill leading to a cliff near an island not so far from Seoul. The first day of our arrival, we spent most of our day for an excursion of the island, and the next early morning, I found a gorgeous looking view point, which appeared to be an abandoned military checkpoint. Almost all parts of the island were laid right in front of my eyes while splendid reflection of the morning sun ray gently warmed my cheek. How magnificent! Laying the stiff back of mine on those soft soft grass on the hill was like a heaven. I lay there and spent god knows how many minutes or hours of dream-like tranquility. Feeling all refreshed and warm in my body and soul, I was ready for another battle to come, whatever it may be.
Thursday, April 05, 2007
BDA: Hill's Tactical Miscalculation.
Any of my readers who are interested in following issues related to the Six Party Talks among two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia, and the US should read the article below. Written by a former senior interpreter at the US State Department and now a visiting scholar at Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and a research professor at Korea University, Tong Kim continuously impresses me with his in-depth insights on many of ongoing issues from the perspective of the US government, but at the same time, not to forget about mentioning those from Korea. A series of his writings can be found at
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200703/kt2007032520413554330.htm
if you're really interested.
The article below, in particular, attracted my attention this morning because it confirmed my thoughts on the recent agreement of Feb. 14. The moment the US responsible negotiator Christopher Hill announced that the transit of NK's deposits in BDA will be implemented by the regulations and rules set by the in-situ banks dealing with the fund, it seemed apparent to me that the US wasn't willing to change any in their part, but certainly push NK further to legitimate pit hole by having NK to sign in another paper. This probably could've been understood along the same line with the reason the US has been insisting the SIX party talks regardless of increasing demands of bilateral talks between the US and NK. Anyways, enjoy the article, hope this brings up some of your critical ideas.
BDA: Hill's Tactical Miscalculation.
It is now clear what the confusion was all about in Beijing last week, concerning the technicalities involved in transferring the freed North Korean funds of $25 million from the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macau to an account held by North Korea in the Bank of China (BOC) in Beijing, or transferring them through BOC to a bank account in a third country.
No party in the talks seemed to have expected the money transfer issue would hold up the serious talks of nuclear dismantlement. No diplomat at the talks seemed to have studied beforehand the international banking requirements for ``remittance business’’ and the legal ramifications and concerns for an international bank to accept ``illegal funds.’’
All U.S. banks operating under U.S. laws including the Patriot Act are on notice to cut off transactions with any foreign bank that is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing.
Nobody explained why the North Koreans did not want or could not transfer the funds to their Trade Bank in Pyongyang or why they wanted the money transferred to BOC.
A testimony to the confusion and unpreparedness was found in the words of South Korean chief delegate to the talks, Chun Yung Woo, ``Absurd and preposterous things are happening, but nobody really knows why these things are happening.’’
Now Washington is sending back deputy assistant secretary of treasury Daniel Glaser, who watches terrorist financing and financial crimes, to explain to the reluctant BOC officials that their bank will not be punished after it receives the ``dirty money’’ from BDA.
Glaser was in Beijing only a week earlier to announce the conclusion of an 18 month investigation of North Korean illicit financial activities – including money laundering and counterfeiting – and a U.S. decision to unfreeze the DPRK related funds from BDA a couple of hours before the convening of the multilateral talks last Monday (March 19th).
Despite the U.S. treasury department’s barring all American banks from doing business with BDA and its condition that the released DPRK funds could only be used for educational and humanitarian purposes, assistant secretary of State Christopher Hill, who joined Glaser at the hurriedly staged announcement, appeared confident that the BDA issue would no longer be an impediment to the nuclear talks. It took him only a few hours to find that he was wrong afterwards.
Washington could have told Glaser to stay in Beijing and do what he is now going back there to do. This action could have saved at least a few days to a week to complete the transfer and to bring the parties back together sooner than possible under the present circumstances.
It does not surprise me that the North Koreans refused to discuss the substantive issues of how to implement the 2.13 agreement and what steps to take for disablement in the next phase. Under different circumstances, the defiant North Korea had walked out of meetings before, even when they had less understandable justification to do so.
From the beginning, the North Koreans said they would not move until the issue of financial sanctions is fully resolved. However, what they did not make clear before was that they wanted to ``see the money’’ deposited in their own account. Apparently the U.S. negotiating team had erroneously assumed ``U.S. assurances’’ for releasing the frozen DPRK funds, backed up by a policy pronouncement _ which was not exactly seen as an exoneration of North Korea from the U.S. charges of financial crimes _ would suffice to meet North Korea’s needs. This assumption quickly proved wrong.
Amid last week’s confusion, the frustrated U.S. chief negotiator said, ``The day I am able to explain to you North Korean thinking is probably the day I’ve been in this process too long.’’ About the same time the South Korean foreign minister said North Korea is ``an unpredictable group that gives us a headache.’’ The common sentiments reflected in these two statements are the incomprehensiveness and unacceptability of North Korean behavior.
Well, unacceptability is one thing, but if it is about incomprehensiveness, here is something to consider. Having a few bilateral meetings, a few occasions for social dinners and drinks or even going to a Broadway show is hardly enough to understand the reasons for North Korean behavior.
Those of us who had engaged the North Koreans for many years still found it hard at times to figure out the true motivation of what often appeared to be unreasonable or offensive behavior. But they always acted on their own reasoning and logic, either as a tactical move for what to pursue next or as a matter of ``principle’’ reflecting their unique thinking. Their logic is typical: ``You did or did not do that, so we do this.’’
There is plenty of blame to go around for the unproductive conclusion of the last round. Some of the blame goes to the United States, some to North Korea, some even to China _ for failing to persuade BOK to accept the risky DPRK related funds. The rest of the six parties were actually irrelevant to the complicated problem, and there was little that they could do, except wait in vain, wasting their valuable time.
My uneasy hunch is that the DPRK leadership, beyond the level of vice minister Kim Kye Gwan, was not fully satisfied by the final BDA outcome. It might be going through an internal debate over how far and how fast it should proceed with the negotiation process. It is also possible that the DPRK, now possessing nuclear weapons, may even think that they can drag out the process to squeeze the maximum political and economic benefits, believing that the Bush administration badly wants to strike a deal to meet its political agenda.
Washington is hoping to resume the talks in a week or two, once the money transfer is completed. The U.S. disposition of the BDA issue _ a verdict of conviction but no immediate punishment against the DPRK _ was perhaps the best creative compromise possible from the legal and political perspectives of Washington. That compromise probably was made possible by Hill’s negotiations within the administration, as Don Oberdorfer, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS wrote in last week’s Newsweek Korea about the U.S. envoy’s internal efforts.
The North Koreans should heed the rekindled criticisms among the opponents of the Bush administration’s new approach to the DPRK since their refusal to participate in the talks last week. They should remind themselves that they won a rare opportunity to engage the United States after waiting 6 long years. They should also remember that the United States still has other options to resort to, if it is convinced, as events may prove right or wrong, that there is no way to reach a fair negotiated settlement.
Lessons from last week: for the United States, it does not pay to push the process too fast. As a principle in negotiation, it will be more difficult to get a desired result, if you are seen as badly wanting a settlement. It should not act on assumptions until validated by unmistakable communication.
Critics of the administration’s BDA disposition are quick to point out no negotiation can succeed without pressure on the opposing party. Some of them warn that the United States should not use up all its bargaining chips at this stage. Some may even argue that negotiation must be conducted from a position of strength if it is to succeed. But I think the United States has plenty of leverage, including its capability and strength to pressure the DPRK, and the DPRK knows it.
The DPRK learned from its experience last week first what it takes to transfer funds from one bank to another in the international financial community. The real ownership of the released funds may belong to the government of the DPRK, but since the funds were deposited in 50 accounts under different names of entities and individuals some of whom are dead, the BDA required applications for each account, not a single, master application for all the accounts as the DPRK presented at first. More importantly, the DPRK must have learned it will be extremely difficult to have access to banking benefits if it engages in illicit financial activities in the future.
As long as the DPRK wants normalized relations with the United States and a stronger economy, its leadership should seriously cooperate with other parties to steadily move towards the common goal of denuclearization. What’s your take?
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/opinion/200703/kt2007032520413554330.htm
if you're really interested.
The article below, in particular, attracted my attention this morning because it confirmed my thoughts on the recent agreement of Feb. 14. The moment the US responsible negotiator Christopher Hill announced that the transit of NK's deposits in BDA will be implemented by the regulations and rules set by the in-situ banks dealing with the fund, it seemed apparent to me that the US wasn't willing to change any in their part, but certainly push NK further to legitimate pit hole by having NK to sign in another paper. This probably could've been understood along the same line with the reason the US has been insisting the SIX party talks regardless of increasing demands of bilateral talks between the US and NK. Anyways, enjoy the article, hope this brings up some of your critical ideas.
BDA: Hill's Tactical Miscalculation.
It is now clear what the confusion was all about in Beijing last week, concerning the technicalities involved in transferring the freed North Korean funds of $25 million from the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) in Macau to an account held by North Korea in the Bank of China (BOC) in Beijing, or transferring them through BOC to a bank account in a third country.
No party in the talks seemed to have expected the money transfer issue would hold up the serious talks of nuclear dismantlement. No diplomat at the talks seemed to have studied beforehand the international banking requirements for ``remittance business’’ and the legal ramifications and concerns for an international bank to accept ``illegal funds.’’
All U.S. banks operating under U.S. laws including the Patriot Act are on notice to cut off transactions with any foreign bank that is involved in money laundering or terrorist financing.
Nobody explained why the North Koreans did not want or could not transfer the funds to their Trade Bank in Pyongyang or why they wanted the money transferred to BOC.
A testimony to the confusion and unpreparedness was found in the words of South Korean chief delegate to the talks, Chun Yung Woo, ``Absurd and preposterous things are happening, but nobody really knows why these things are happening.’’
Now Washington is sending back deputy assistant secretary of treasury Daniel Glaser, who watches terrorist financing and financial crimes, to explain to the reluctant BOC officials that their bank will not be punished after it receives the ``dirty money’’ from BDA.
Glaser was in Beijing only a week earlier to announce the conclusion of an 18 month investigation of North Korean illicit financial activities – including money laundering and counterfeiting – and a U.S. decision to unfreeze the DPRK related funds from BDA a couple of hours before the convening of the multilateral talks last Monday (March 19th).
Despite the U.S. treasury department’s barring all American banks from doing business with BDA and its condition that the released DPRK funds could only be used for educational and humanitarian purposes, assistant secretary of State Christopher Hill, who joined Glaser at the hurriedly staged announcement, appeared confident that the BDA issue would no longer be an impediment to the nuclear talks. It took him only a few hours to find that he was wrong afterwards.
Washington could have told Glaser to stay in Beijing and do what he is now going back there to do. This action could have saved at least a few days to a week to complete the transfer and to bring the parties back together sooner than possible under the present circumstances.
It does not surprise me that the North Koreans refused to discuss the substantive issues of how to implement the 2.13 agreement and what steps to take for disablement in the next phase. Under different circumstances, the defiant North Korea had walked out of meetings before, even when they had less understandable justification to do so.
From the beginning, the North Koreans said they would not move until the issue of financial sanctions is fully resolved. However, what they did not make clear before was that they wanted to ``see the money’’ deposited in their own account. Apparently the U.S. negotiating team had erroneously assumed ``U.S. assurances’’ for releasing the frozen DPRK funds, backed up by a policy pronouncement _ which was not exactly seen as an exoneration of North Korea from the U.S. charges of financial crimes _ would suffice to meet North Korea’s needs. This assumption quickly proved wrong.
Amid last week’s confusion, the frustrated U.S. chief negotiator said, ``The day I am able to explain to you North Korean thinking is probably the day I’ve been in this process too long.’’ About the same time the South Korean foreign minister said North Korea is ``an unpredictable group that gives us a headache.’’ The common sentiments reflected in these two statements are the incomprehensiveness and unacceptability of North Korean behavior.
Well, unacceptability is one thing, but if it is about incomprehensiveness, here is something to consider. Having a few bilateral meetings, a few occasions for social dinners and drinks or even going to a Broadway show is hardly enough to understand the reasons for North Korean behavior.
Those of us who had engaged the North Koreans for many years still found it hard at times to figure out the true motivation of what often appeared to be unreasonable or offensive behavior. But they always acted on their own reasoning and logic, either as a tactical move for what to pursue next or as a matter of ``principle’’ reflecting their unique thinking. Their logic is typical: ``You did or did not do that, so we do this.’’
There is plenty of blame to go around for the unproductive conclusion of the last round. Some of the blame goes to the United States, some to North Korea, some even to China _ for failing to persuade BOK to accept the risky DPRK related funds. The rest of the six parties were actually irrelevant to the complicated problem, and there was little that they could do, except wait in vain, wasting their valuable time.
My uneasy hunch is that the DPRK leadership, beyond the level of vice minister Kim Kye Gwan, was not fully satisfied by the final BDA outcome. It might be going through an internal debate over how far and how fast it should proceed with the negotiation process. It is also possible that the DPRK, now possessing nuclear weapons, may even think that they can drag out the process to squeeze the maximum political and economic benefits, believing that the Bush administration badly wants to strike a deal to meet its political agenda.
Washington is hoping to resume the talks in a week or two, once the money transfer is completed. The U.S. disposition of the BDA issue _ a verdict of conviction but no immediate punishment against the DPRK _ was perhaps the best creative compromise possible from the legal and political perspectives of Washington. That compromise probably was made possible by Hill’s negotiations within the administration, as Don Oberdorfer, chairman of the U.S.-Korea Institute at SAIS wrote in last week’s Newsweek Korea about the U.S. envoy’s internal efforts.
The North Koreans should heed the rekindled criticisms among the opponents of the Bush administration’s new approach to the DPRK since their refusal to participate in the talks last week. They should remind themselves that they won a rare opportunity to engage the United States after waiting 6 long years. They should also remember that the United States still has other options to resort to, if it is convinced, as events may prove right or wrong, that there is no way to reach a fair negotiated settlement.
Lessons from last week: for the United States, it does not pay to push the process too fast. As a principle in negotiation, it will be more difficult to get a desired result, if you are seen as badly wanting a settlement. It should not act on assumptions until validated by unmistakable communication.
Critics of the administration’s BDA disposition are quick to point out no negotiation can succeed without pressure on the opposing party. Some of them warn that the United States should not use up all its bargaining chips at this stage. Some may even argue that negotiation must be conducted from a position of strength if it is to succeed. But I think the United States has plenty of leverage, including its capability and strength to pressure the DPRK, and the DPRK knows it.
The DPRK learned from its experience last week first what it takes to transfer funds from one bank to another in the international financial community. The real ownership of the released funds may belong to the government of the DPRK, but since the funds were deposited in 50 accounts under different names of entities and individuals some of whom are dead, the BDA required applications for each account, not a single, master application for all the accounts as the DPRK presented at first. More importantly, the DPRK must have learned it will be extremely difficult to have access to banking benefits if it engages in illicit financial activities in the future.
As long as the DPRK wants normalized relations with the United States and a stronger economy, its leadership should seriously cooperate with other parties to steadily move towards the common goal of denuclearization. What’s your take?
Wednesday, April 04, 2007
Breathing lessons
The tips how you can survive in Seoul.
A report published this week has suggested that air pollution in our big cities could be as damaging to our health as the radiation Chernobyl survivors were exposed to. But short of moving to the countryside, what can city dwellers do? Quite a lot, actually.
10 tips on how to breathe more easily.
Take a deep breath. If you live in an urban environment - which four out of five of us now do - then you are exposing yourself to a cocktail of airborne pollutants that could be seriously damaging your health. According to a study published this week, if you live in a "major city" then the air pollution you suck into your lungs each day could be shortening your life expectancy even more than the radiation exposure suffered by survivors of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The idea that city air is bad for you is hardly new, but it is an area scientists are only just beginning to get a real grip on. Last month the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent body set up in 1970 to advise the British government, confirmed what many of city dwellers instinctively knew: that urban living should carry a large health warning. In a major report entitled The Urban Environment, it detailed what impact urban air pollution is having on our health. The headline conclusion was that air pollution reduces "life expectancy in the UK by an average of eight months".
Meanwhile the World Health Organisation reports that transport-related air pollution - which now causes the vast majority of urban air pollution - causes a wide range of health problems including "cancer, adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and lowering of male fertility". In 2004, a report said that a pedestrian walking down Marylebone Road in London would draw in the equivalent pollution of one cigarette in just 48 minutes.
But other than moving to the countryside, what practical steps can city dwellers take to reduce their exposure to urban air pollution? Quite a lot, it turns out.
1 Watch where you walk
One of the best ways to reduce your exposure to air pollution, says Dr Roy Colvile, a senior lecturer in air-quality management at Imperial College London, is to avoid walking along busy streets and thoroughfares, instead choosing side streets and parks. Carefully choosing your route has a "dramatic" effect, he says, because pollution levels can fall by a factor of 10 just by moving a few metres away from the main source of the pollution - exhaust fumes. "Just by being one block away makes a massive difference as the high pollution levels are generally restricted to fairly small areas within a city," he says. Also, try to avoid walking down "street canyons" (where tall buildings hug tightly to the sides of streets, creating valleys in which pollutants build up), don't walk behind smokers, and walk on the windward side of the street where exposure to pollutants can be 50% less than on the leeward side.
2 Pavement sense
When you're crossing a road, stand well back from the kerb while you wait for the lights to change or for a gap in the traffic. Every metre really does count when you are in close proximity to traffic, according to Colvile. "Do all you can to avoid getting stuck for too long on a central reservation," he adds. As the traffic moves off from a standstill, the fumes can dissipate in just a few seconds, particularly if the wind is up, which means holding your breath during this momentary period can make a difference, silly as that might sound. Also, don't dawdle: cross the road as quickly as possible. And once you're over, continue along the pavement as far away from the kerb as possible.
3 Avoid pollution spikes
Predictably, there are large spikes in pollution during times of high traffic congestion - ie, the morning and late-afternoon rush hours. Pollution levels generally fall during the night-time. The time of year can also make a big difference. Pollution levels tend to be at their lowest during the spring and autumn when winds are at their "freshest"; the trapping effect of extreme cold and hot spells tend to exacerbate the build-up of pollutants.
Venturing outside when there is less pollution obviously makes sense, but of course that's not always realistic. In fact, the hottest part of a summer's day - the time when most office workers go outside during their lunchbreak - is a particularly bad time to head out, according to Noel Nelson, one of the authors of the Royal Commission report. Walking in the rain, conversely, is a good way of avoiding the worse excesses of air pollution, he adds, as the rain "cleans" the air both by washing out the pollutants and bringing with it fresher air.
4 Wear a mask
Masks can be a good thing, but they only make a difference if they fit tightly and are cleaned regularly. Even the slightest gap to allow you to breathe more easily will cancel out any benefits. Worse, if you fail to clean or change the mask regularly there is a danger of allowing oily organic compounds to build up on the filter. Build-up can make the air you breathe dirtier rather than cleaner. As for looking like Michael Jackson while you go about your daily business . . . only you can decide how high a price you're willing to pay for clean lungs.
5 Pushchairs
According to the Royal Commission report, several recent studies indicate that "children living close to busy roads have an approximate 50% increased risk of experiencing respiratory illness, including asthma". Children are smaller than adults and therefore that much closer to the source of pollution when walking besides roads. They also have a faster metabolic rate and breathe more rapidly, and tend to inhale more pollution, proportionate to their size, than adults. One small step that can be taken is not to push them along in a buggy too close to traffic. Colvile advises positioning the buggy alongside you, instead of in front of you, when waiting to cross the road.
6 Beware of exercising in traffic
Cycling or jogging disproportionately expose you to air pollution - you inhale three times as much as if you were walking, according to Colvile - for the simple reason that your lungs are gasping for more air than the people you're speeding past on the pavement. The best times of day to exercise, thus avoiding the worst excesses of air pollution, are early morning or in the evening. Alternatively, exercise indoors or in a park. Cyclists - for whom the exhaust of a car should be seen as being as much of a hazard as the front bumper - should stick to side-roads where possible.
7 Where to sit on the bus
Buses are cleaner in terms of their emissions than even just a decade ago, particularly London's fleet, but they still emit pollutants worth avoiding. Intriguingly, Colvile says that his own research shows that sitting on the driver's side of a bus can increase your exposure by 10% compared with sitting on the side nearest to the pavement. And sitting upstairs on a double-decker can reduce your exposure too. He says it's difficult to say whether travelling on an undergound train, if you have that option, is better or worse than taking the buses, but he does say that the air pollution on underground trains tends to be less toxic by weight than that found at street level because the pollution is principally made up of minute iron particles thrown up by the wheels travelling along the rails as opposed to the mixture of pollutants found in diesel and petrol fumes.
8 Protect yourself indoors too
We spend about 90% of our time indoors, on average, and two-thirds of that time is spent at home; more perhaps for some of the most vulnerable groups such as the elderly and children. And indoor pollution can actually be more of an issue than that found outdoors, it seems: studies by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that pollution levels can be two to five times higher indoors than out - and this can rapidly rise depending on what activity you are doing at home. It tends to be a different soup of chemical pollutants from the ones we encounter outside, and if anything, less is known about how they affect us. Our centrally-heated, carpeted, airtight homes only act to aggravate the situation.
Ventilating your home is therefore an important step to take in reducing risk - hopefully with air that's not full of air pollutants from the outside - as is using a good doormat to help prevent outdoor pollutants from the pavement being walked into your home. (The EPA has raised doubts about the claims made by some "ozone generating" indoor air purifiers, by the way.)
Feeling smug about the fact that you live high up in a flat away from outside air pollution? Well, unless you live in a penthouse at the top of a very tall skyscraper, then height doesn't seem to offer significant sanctuary. A study by Hong Kong's City University used laser measurements to show that pollution levels in the city remain constant up to heights of 700m. Living in the suburbs, away from major roads, seems the best way to avoid the worse excesses of urban air pollution. But that then means you are statistically far more likely to be a car owner and are therefore only exacerbating the situation.
9 Don't drive
The best thing you can do, both for yourself and for your fellow citizens, is to get out of the car. Fuel choice is also important: diesel may produce less carbon dioxide compared with petrol, which is good news in terms of climate change, but it produces more ground-level pollutants. While urban air-pollution levels today, compared with the "pea-soupers" of the mid-20th century, could be said to be vastly improved - healthy young men don't tend to drop down dead in the street now from air pollution as they did then, says Colvile - we are now exposed to a form of pollution that can much more readily enter our bloodstream. A particle of pollution today tends to be 100 times smaller than a particle of coal soot and therefore it can pass into the blood stream via the lungs as opposed to being caught in the bronchial passage. The full health implications of this shift in pollution type have yet to become fully apparent.
10 Get out of town
As long as you go by public transport so as not to create yet more pollution, lifting yourself up and out of the urban mire offers at least a temporary escape. But don't head to the south-east corner of England. Colvile speaks of a "sheet of pollution from Europe", thick with sulphates, nitrates and ozone, that now regularly reaches across the Channel and can affect the counties south of London. For example, the air over the idyllically rural South Downs is only two to three times cleaner compared with the air over central London. Better instead to head to the nation's extremities, preferably facing into the winds blowing off the Atlantic.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
A report published this week has suggested that air pollution in our big cities could be as damaging to our health as the radiation Chernobyl survivors were exposed to. But short of moving to the countryside, what can city dwellers do? Quite a lot, actually.
10 tips on how to breathe more easily.
Take a deep breath. If you live in an urban environment - which four out of five of us now do - then you are exposing yourself to a cocktail of airborne pollutants that could be seriously damaging your health. According to a study published this week, if you live in a "major city" then the air pollution you suck into your lungs each day could be shortening your life expectancy even more than the radiation exposure suffered by survivors of the Chernobyl disaster in 1986.
The idea that city air is bad for you is hardly new, but it is an area scientists are only just beginning to get a real grip on. Last month the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, an independent body set up in 1970 to advise the British government, confirmed what many of city dwellers instinctively knew: that urban living should carry a large health warning. In a major report entitled The Urban Environment, it detailed what impact urban air pollution is having on our health. The headline conclusion was that air pollution reduces "life expectancy in the UK by an average of eight months".
Meanwhile the World Health Organisation reports that transport-related air pollution - which now causes the vast majority of urban air pollution - causes a wide range of health problems including "cancer, adverse pregnancy and birth outcomes, and lowering of male fertility". In 2004, a report said that a pedestrian walking down Marylebone Road in London would draw in the equivalent pollution of one cigarette in just 48 minutes.
But other than moving to the countryside, what practical steps can city dwellers take to reduce their exposure to urban air pollution? Quite a lot, it turns out.
1 Watch where you walk
One of the best ways to reduce your exposure to air pollution, says Dr Roy Colvile, a senior lecturer in air-quality management at Imperial College London, is to avoid walking along busy streets and thoroughfares, instead choosing side streets and parks. Carefully choosing your route has a "dramatic" effect, he says, because pollution levels can fall by a factor of 10 just by moving a few metres away from the main source of the pollution - exhaust fumes. "Just by being one block away makes a massive difference as the high pollution levels are generally restricted to fairly small areas within a city," he says. Also, try to avoid walking down "street canyons" (where tall buildings hug tightly to the sides of streets, creating valleys in which pollutants build up), don't walk behind smokers, and walk on the windward side of the street where exposure to pollutants can be 50% less than on the leeward side.
2 Pavement sense
When you're crossing a road, stand well back from the kerb while you wait for the lights to change or for a gap in the traffic. Every metre really does count when you are in close proximity to traffic, according to Colvile. "Do all you can to avoid getting stuck for too long on a central reservation," he adds. As the traffic moves off from a standstill, the fumes can dissipate in just a few seconds, particularly if the wind is up, which means holding your breath during this momentary period can make a difference, silly as that might sound. Also, don't dawdle: cross the road as quickly as possible. And once you're over, continue along the pavement as far away from the kerb as possible.
3 Avoid pollution spikes
Predictably, there are large spikes in pollution during times of high traffic congestion - ie, the morning and late-afternoon rush hours. Pollution levels generally fall during the night-time. The time of year can also make a big difference. Pollution levels tend to be at their lowest during the spring and autumn when winds are at their "freshest"; the trapping effect of extreme cold and hot spells tend to exacerbate the build-up of pollutants.
Venturing outside when there is less pollution obviously makes sense, but of course that's not always realistic. In fact, the hottest part of a summer's day - the time when most office workers go outside during their lunchbreak - is a particularly bad time to head out, according to Noel Nelson, one of the authors of the Royal Commission report. Walking in the rain, conversely, is a good way of avoiding the worse excesses of air pollution, he adds, as the rain "cleans" the air both by washing out the pollutants and bringing with it fresher air.
4 Wear a mask
Masks can be a good thing, but they only make a difference if they fit tightly and are cleaned regularly. Even the slightest gap to allow you to breathe more easily will cancel out any benefits. Worse, if you fail to clean or change the mask regularly there is a danger of allowing oily organic compounds to build up on the filter. Build-up can make the air you breathe dirtier rather than cleaner. As for looking like Michael Jackson while you go about your daily business . . . only you can decide how high a price you're willing to pay for clean lungs.
5 Pushchairs
According to the Royal Commission report, several recent studies indicate that "children living close to busy roads have an approximate 50% increased risk of experiencing respiratory illness, including asthma". Children are smaller than adults and therefore that much closer to the source of pollution when walking besides roads. They also have a faster metabolic rate and breathe more rapidly, and tend to inhale more pollution, proportionate to their size, than adults. One small step that can be taken is not to push them along in a buggy too close to traffic. Colvile advises positioning the buggy alongside you, instead of in front of you, when waiting to cross the road.
6 Beware of exercising in traffic
Cycling or jogging disproportionately expose you to air pollution - you inhale three times as much as if you were walking, according to Colvile - for the simple reason that your lungs are gasping for more air than the people you're speeding past on the pavement. The best times of day to exercise, thus avoiding the worst excesses of air pollution, are early morning or in the evening. Alternatively, exercise indoors or in a park. Cyclists - for whom the exhaust of a car should be seen as being as much of a hazard as the front bumper - should stick to side-roads where possible.
7 Where to sit on the bus
Buses are cleaner in terms of their emissions than even just a decade ago, particularly London's fleet, but they still emit pollutants worth avoiding. Intriguingly, Colvile says that his own research shows that sitting on the driver's side of a bus can increase your exposure by 10% compared with sitting on the side nearest to the pavement. And sitting upstairs on a double-decker can reduce your exposure too. He says it's difficult to say whether travelling on an undergound train, if you have that option, is better or worse than taking the buses, but he does say that the air pollution on underground trains tends to be less toxic by weight than that found at street level because the pollution is principally made up of minute iron particles thrown up by the wheels travelling along the rails as opposed to the mixture of pollutants found in diesel and petrol fumes.
8 Protect yourself indoors too
We spend about 90% of our time indoors, on average, and two-thirds of that time is spent at home; more perhaps for some of the most vulnerable groups such as the elderly and children. And indoor pollution can actually be more of an issue than that found outdoors, it seems: studies by the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) suggests that pollution levels can be two to five times higher indoors than out - and this can rapidly rise depending on what activity you are doing at home. It tends to be a different soup of chemical pollutants from the ones we encounter outside, and if anything, less is known about how they affect us. Our centrally-heated, carpeted, airtight homes only act to aggravate the situation.
Ventilating your home is therefore an important step to take in reducing risk - hopefully with air that's not full of air pollutants from the outside - as is using a good doormat to help prevent outdoor pollutants from the pavement being walked into your home. (The EPA has raised doubts about the claims made by some "ozone generating" indoor air purifiers, by the way.)
Feeling smug about the fact that you live high up in a flat away from outside air pollution? Well, unless you live in a penthouse at the top of a very tall skyscraper, then height doesn't seem to offer significant sanctuary. A study by Hong Kong's City University used laser measurements to show that pollution levels in the city remain constant up to heights of 700m. Living in the suburbs, away from major roads, seems the best way to avoid the worse excesses of urban air pollution. But that then means you are statistically far more likely to be a car owner and are therefore only exacerbating the situation.
9 Don't drive
The best thing you can do, both for yourself and for your fellow citizens, is to get out of the car. Fuel choice is also important: diesel may produce less carbon dioxide compared with petrol, which is good news in terms of climate change, but it produces more ground-level pollutants. While urban air-pollution levels today, compared with the "pea-soupers" of the mid-20th century, could be said to be vastly improved - healthy young men don't tend to drop down dead in the street now from air pollution as they did then, says Colvile - we are now exposed to a form of pollution that can much more readily enter our bloodstream. A particle of pollution today tends to be 100 times smaller than a particle of coal soot and therefore it can pass into the blood stream via the lungs as opposed to being caught in the bronchial passage. The full health implications of this shift in pollution type have yet to become fully apparent.
10 Get out of town
As long as you go by public transport so as not to create yet more pollution, lifting yourself up and out of the urban mire offers at least a temporary escape. But don't head to the south-east corner of England. Colvile speaks of a "sheet of pollution from Europe", thick with sulphates, nitrates and ozone, that now regularly reaches across the Channel and can affect the counties south of London. For example, the air over the idyllically rural South Downs is only two to three times cleaner compared with the air over central London. Better instead to head to the nation's extremities, preferably facing into the winds blowing off the Atlantic.
Guardian Unlimited © Guardian News and Media Limited 2007
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)