"Our Nation's Path" by Park Chung Hee

In Foreword of the book wrote in February, 1962, the former President of South Korea pondered, "is there no way for national regeneration?  Is there no way to mend our decayed national character and build a sound and democratic welfare state?  Is there not some way to accomplish a "human revolution," so that our people may stop telling lies, cast away the habits of sycophancy and indolence, and make a new start as industrious workers, carry out social reform, and build a country without paupers, a country of prosperity and affluence?"

He then came up with three solutions for problems SK faced at the time:

(1) "First, we must reflect upon the evil legacies of our past history...."
(2) "Second, we must liberate ourselves from poverty."
(3) "Third, we must rebuild a sound democracy."

"After all, "human revolution" means a change in the national elite of leadership,"  he wrote and argued about making "the right choice" as "the most crucial test" of their national destiny" at that time.  And Mr. Park concluded confidently that "[T]here is bound to be a way" for his nation - "a wide and open highway."

A worth reading during the new year holiday!

Reference:
Park Chung Hee, Our Nation's Path, Seoul, Korea: Hollym Corporation: Publishers, 2nd edition, 1970

International Legal Universality of Human Rights and the Vietnamese Constitution 1992

Financial Times recently posted an article regarding the Chinese Prime Minister Wen Jiabao's calling for a political reform in China; basically, Mr. Wen suggested that the Chinese Communist party should act “in accordance with the constitution and the law,” and “[F]reedom of speech is indispensable for any country” and “the people’s wishes and needs for democracy and freedom are irresistible.”

I thought of the Vietnamese Constitution 1992 and did a quick check on Chapter V regarding Basic Rights and Obligations of Citizens, and it turns out that the Vietnamese Constitution 1992 is less open than the Chinese document as well as not well comply with its international obligations.

Why?  Well, because of the affirmation and reaffirmation of "international legal universality of human rights" under the International Bill of Rights, starting fully and legally in the two Covenants: International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR), which Vietnam is one of States Parties.  Both Covenant affirmed and provided that "[T]he States Parties to the present Covenant, [C]onsidering the obligation of States under the Charter of the United Nations to promote universal respect for, and observance of, human rights and freedom," and the commitments of Vietnam (as a State Party) under the CCPR are including, but not limited to the right to freedom of thought, the right to hold opinion without interference, the right to freedom of expression, the right to freedom of assiociation with others (Article 18 to 22).  Those rights provided in the CCPR are indeed broader than the delivery of the State of Vietnam to its citizens under the Vietnamese Constitution 1992.  In other words, Vietnam as a State Party of the two Covenants has not yet fulfilled its commitments to its own citizens as well as to the international community.  It is also true to state that the Vietnamese Constitution 1992 is an evidence to show that the State of Vietnam as a State Party of the two Covenants has not done enough to carry its international obligations as required by the two Covenants.  Be prepared Vietnam, perhaps in the next session of the UPR of the Human Rights Council, other States Parties will question you on the topic, and maybe more to come ....

Agree that univeral human rights is questionable, but regarding the nature of universality.  It is very important to note that the international legal universality of human rights is not.  Since 1976, by adopting and ratifying the two Covenants, States Parties fully agreed and accepted the concept of "universal human rights" as a legal language (said in both preamble of two Covenants, also in other relevant treaties later).  Thus, at least, all rights stated in the two Covenants are "universal human rights" because the law provides so.

P/s: under international law, it does not matter which political philosophy or ideology you are labelling and promoting (your choice or your peoples' choice); however, it will be a matter/problem if you as a State Party of a treaty agreed to carry an obligation and then not do it or not do enough.  Because you, a State Party, violate international law.  You may argue that international law is not enforceable - wrong argument, absolutely wrong, re-read the argument of Harold Koh, and then if you still want to live with your abosulte sovereignity, fine, but please get out of the world of inter-being-independent States and its cycle of globalisation and development, want that? :D

Law to implement Article 4 of the Vietnamese Constitution 1992

"Chính vị trí cầm quyền của Đảng đòi hỏi sự lãnh đạo của Đảng phải được thể chế hóa thành pháp luật. Làm trái đi là xúc phạm đến sự lãnh đạo của Đảng và thể chế của nhà nước - nguyên Bộ trưởng Tư pháp Nguyễn Đình Lộc." - VNN

This is the right thing and the right time to do.  Well, of course, if "the man in power" would like to build up a country with/by the rule of law and justice; let's hope that the quotation of Fred on Time Magazine April 2006 might be no longer true, because Vietnamese wake up and stop being "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity."  Hope so!

NW: a debate: Internet & democracy

Joshua Kurlantzick argued on the NW that The Web Doesn't Spread Freedom, because "[T]he revolution wasn't digitized—because autocrats found ways to control the internet, rather than be controlled by it."  He has a point, which said that "[T]hose supposedly beneficent Internet companies, dedicated to open networks and free expression, also have turned out to be, well, companies—interested first and foremost in the bottom line. ...  Turns out, these companies didn't want a free and uncensored Web that badly."

Indeed, the matter is not about the Web, but all about Internet firms and the laws to govern its operation.  And because Internet firms (most) are "western" firms, so a "legal reform" should first start from where "the size of the room" for freedom and democracy is bigger.  Does it work?

To think: V # C

Need a research:

(1) "Socialism with Chinese characteristics" was first introduced by Deng Xiaoping to rebuilt the CPC after the Cultural Revolution and to bring all state apparatuses back under the rule of the CPC; and "Doi Moi" (Đổi Mới = "renewal") is the name given to the economic reforms initiated in VN by (...) in the beginning of 1980s, and then was officially launched in 1986 by the CPV towards a "socialist-oriented market economy";

(2) After 1949, most Chinese overseas were "products of immigration"; but after 1975, most Vnese overseas were "products of political asylum".

Obama Administration and International Law

terrific talks - Harold Koh and John Bellinger spoke about the Obama administration's foreign policy goals and international law.  Watch here

few thoughts of the charter cities model

Forget aid, Paul Romer said and suggested the model of charter cities (read the article at the UK Prospect Magazine this month).  "How would such a city work? Imagine that a government in a poor country set aside a piece of uninhabited land. It invites a developed country to enter into a new type of partnership, in which the developed country sets up and enforces rules specified in a charter. Citizens from the poorer country, and the rest of the world, would be free to live and work in the city that emerges. It could create economic opportunities and encourage foreign investment, and by using uninhabited land it would ensure everyone living there would have chosen to do so with full knowledge of the rules. Roughly 3bn people, mostly the working poor, will move to cities over the next few decades. To my mind the choice is not whether the world will urbanise, but where and under which rules. Instead of expanding the slums in existing urban centres, new charter cities could provide safe, low-income housing and jobs that the world will need to accommodate this shift. Even more important, these cities could give poor people a chance to choose the rules they want to live and work under.

Basically in order to create a charter city, there are five following reforms need to take place:

(1) land and ownership reform: "a government in a poor country set aside a piece of uninhabited land";
(2) freedom to move/an international right to migration: "citizens from the poorer country, and the rest of the world, would be free to live and work in the city that emerges";
(3) freedom to do business/right to do business: "it could create economic opportunities and encourage foreign investment, and by using uninhabited land it would ensure everyone living there would have chosen to do so with full knowledge of the rules";
(4) the rule of law towards economic development, but also social securities: "instead of expanding the slums in existing urban centres, new charter cities could provide safe, low-income housing and jobs that the world will need to accommodate this shift";
(5) even more important, free election: "these cities could give poor people a chance to choose the rules they want to live and work under".

And now you are asking, why not for the whole country? - this is the key point: the government of a poor country will "invite a developed country to enter into a new type of partnership, in which the developed country sets up and enforces rules specified in a charter."

Let accept the idea of Paul Romer, take its original good intention towards a world without poverty, set aside an argument that Romer's idea is pedding a new colonialism, and focus on the two following possible scenarios:

(1) If a government of a poor country is aware of its problems and wants to drive their country thriving.  Would it show a commitment to the charter city model, would it want to share the (unique) power with a developed country, would it sign the partnership agreement as Romer suggested?  I do not think so, simply because the government of that poor country will learn and know that there are a pool of talents out there, just treat and pay them well you will have right persons for a right direction, who need and why turn to be a "hollow" government?  If so, perhaps law professors should re-exam philosophy of law!

(2) Look, if a government of a poor country pretents to see its problems, how the international community could do, force them to enter the charter city partnership agreement.  Oops, it will be invalid (or develop a new theory for contract law!).  So, what would the international community do? - Again, why we not turn around and ask governments of developed countries to stop feeding corrupted governements of poor countries and give an end to the cycle of corrupted aids.  Change their strategy and practice towards building partnership with people of poor countries, not corrupted governments and its crony commies (that is MDG8 about).  The first thing on the list, would governments of developed countries please eliminate the two/third price systems in getting education, protect and encourge the pursuit of knowledge by students, researchers and scholars from poor countries?  It will help more.