North Koreans watch from their neighborhood on the outskirts of Pyongyang as buses carrying the New York Philharmonic orchestra and the media pass by Monday, Feb. 25, 2008. The New York Philharmonic began a two day tour of North Korea. (AP Photo/David Guttenfelder)
by Bay Fang
PYONGYANG, North Korea -- The man from the foreign ministry in the standard-issue black wool coat and Kim Il-Sung pin, assigned to guard one busload of journalists, glanced at me curiously as I boarded. "Have you been to Pyongyang before?" he asked me.
I told him I had, when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright came to meet North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il in October 2000. He nodded knowingly and said he remembered me.
"What has changed the most since that time?" I asked him.
"Take a look and you tell me," he replied. "Seeing is believing."
It has been nearly eight years, but on first impression, not much has changed in Pyongyang. The frosty white landscape, with orderly squares drawn like a tic-tac-toe board outlining villages, showed few signs of life. The only vehicles on the streets were a few military trucks, some minivans, and our bevy of buses.
Workers in dark, shapeless clothes trudged along the sides of the road, or pushed their bicycles on icy paths. The broad, clean boulevards were lined with Stalinist buildings, with colorful murals shouting such slogans as, "Let us be armed with socialist ideals!"
Residents said that just like the last time there was a major American delegation in town, the city was dark up until yesterday, but as soon as the planes were expected, buildings and streets were lit up. In fact, as our buses sped on the traffic-free streets on the road from the airport, street lights were extinguished as soon as the convoy passed.
On the way to the hotel, we passed Kim Il-Sung Memorial Palace, Kim Il-Sung University, and Kim Il-Sung Square, all named for the Great Leader and eternal president of the country.
Our government escort, Lee Jun Chol, informed us that unluckily for the group, the festival for the Kim Jongilia flower had just finished, while the Kim Il Sungia festival does not begin until April.
Lee studied literature at Kim Il Sung University, and said his favorite novelist was a North Korean who wrote about the Japanese occupation of the country. When asked if he had read any American authors, he replied, "Yes, but I don’t like anything American – except for you!"
But although these English-speaking "guides" were still in charge of shepherding foreign journalists around, and politely preventing them from speaking with other North Koreans, guests were generally free to photograph anything they wanted. And repeat visitors were surprised by the access granted – that could also have simply been a factor of the overwhelming size of the delegation.
Just like during Albright’s 2-day stop, the capital has put its best foot forward for the visit of the New York Philharmonic.
Dancers in flowing robes and perfectly synchronized movements, against backdrops of pastel cherry blossoms and waterfalls, gave a special dance performance for the delegation and other invited guests in the luxurious, brightly-lit Site of Immortality Art Theater.
Though most of the pieces were devoid of overt political content, instead merely extolling the virtuous peasant – with such pieces as "the fan dance" and "the water jar dance" - the last ensemble piece starred a dancer in traditional heroic Communist garb, waving a red scarf in representation of a guerrilla fighter battling the Japanese occupation.
"I thought all the pieces were strong, with the exception of the last one," said Lady Yoko Nagae Ceschina, the Japanese-born Contessa underwriting the visit, as she stepped out of the concert hall into the iced-over courtyard.
"It seemed more Russian than traditional Korean. But when they kept to real Korean music, they were very strong – it showed that in the future, they will be a strong country."
The Philharmonic will give its highly anticipated, 90-minute concert Tuesday evening. But on Monday, the official KCNA news agency had on its Web site an article discussing the superiority of traditional North Korean music to western music, extolling such native pieces as the piano concerto "Song Devoted to Comrade Kim Jong Il."
"Particularly the achievements and experience made in thoroughly subordinating Western music and musical instruments to the Korean music with the main stress put on the national music and musical instruments are a clear proof of the validity and vitality of the Workers’ Party of Korea’s unique idea of literature and art," the article read.
• 
• 
• 
Comments
A reel homcoming for the communist Frank James! He's buddy's with the guy! he's sorry he missed the festival. What more do you need, hey John D; Liebune reports.
I'm with you.
Posted by: Bushman | February 25, 2008 5:52 PM
It's prime time, and NOTHING is posting.
Why are we here?
Posted by: TheComplainer | February 25, 2008 6:26 PM
Off subject, but, here are some real fundies. What's wrong with these people?
http://www.upi.com/NewsTrack/Top_News/2008/02/18/anti-gay_group_to_protest_niu_funerals/2383/
Posted by: TheLeninSisters | February 25, 2008 6:40 PM
I see Information Minister Frank James won't print my thoghts!
Posted by: Bushman | February 25, 2008 8:38 PM
Or - what America would like after a 4 year Obama or Clinton presidency.
As another person has tstaed - "Socialism you can believe in!!!"
Posted by: Terry | February 25, 2008 8:39 PM
It hought Crawford TX was the land where time stands still. Well if it ain't it will be soon.
Posted by: Bush Family Value$ | February 25, 2008 9:11 PM
Terry,
With the mortgage crisis. . .we will look like that soon. You need not worry about Obama and Clinton.
Posted by: Lou | February 25, 2008 10:47 PM
Terry, you are on the mark.
Bushman, er John E., isn't it time you found your way back home to the Elgin Center for the Mentally Ill?
Posted by: John D | February 26, 2008 12:10 AM
I see Information Minister Frank James won't print my thoghts!
Posted by: Bushman | February 25, 2008 8:38 PM
What are your thoughts exactly bright boy???
Posted by: Bush/Cheney/Impeach/Imprison | February 26, 2008 12:18 AM
Or - what America would like after a 4 year Obama or Clinton presidency.
As another person has tstaed - "Socialism you can believe in!!!"
Posted by: Terry | February 25, 2008 8:39 PM
More like America after the McCain Administration. All money for the military, none for any other purpose.
Bankruptcy and Decay - McCain 08!
Posted by: Michael | February 26, 2008 7:52 AM
I fear Bay Fang has just signed a man's death warrant with this report.
Talking to foreigners in this way is strictly forbidden under North Korean law. It's off to the frozen tundra for you, Mr. Guard.
Posted by: Bud McFarlin | February 26, 2008 7:57 AM
I think the North Korea situation is far to grave for imbulciles from either side to play stupid "your party would do this to us jokes". We need to figure out a way to support the people of North Korea and get them out from under this dreadful, barbaric regime.
Posted by: Steve S | February 26, 2008 11:05 AM
[quote]
Bushman, er John E., isn't it time you found your way back home to the Elgin Center for the Mentally Ill?
Posted by: John D | February 26, 2008 12:10 AM
[/quote]
Geographically Ignorant Dumb Dumb Little JOhnnie Dyslin, "the Joseph Stalin of Streamwood", why are so concerned? Afraid that they will give you a new roommate?
Posted by: BC | February 26, 2008 3:57 PM
No John D, I'm you man my political freind and alley. I back up up all the way! They don't show all my ideas! I can't help that.
Posted by: Bushman | February 26, 2008 6:16 PM
Michael - the federal gov't is supposed to provide for the "common defense" not for "the other purposes"
Posted by: Terry | February 26, 2008 7:27 PM
See Terry admits that the North Korean Government is the McCain model for his administration.
By the way Terry, read the WHOLE preamble next time (I know it's a lot of words for you, more than your typical Republican sound bite). There are lots of other things the government is supposed to do. Namely to:
form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.
The US government isn't the military only, nor was it ever supposed to be, no matter how much you and the Senator may desire that.
Posted by: Michael | February 26, 2008 10:33 PM
Mikey - not quite oh moron boy. The federal gov't should provide for the common defense and leave other stuff to local gov't and the individual. North Korea takes has the "womb-to-the-tomb" mentality" with things like gov't provided health care.
The federal gov't did very well for over a hundred years without the Dept of Education, for example. The American people can take care of themselves if the gov't would just get out of the way.
Posted by: Terry | February 26, 2008 11:36 PM
Terry Militarist-
The federal government shouldn't establish justice or promote the general welfare? Well then why did they include that in the preamble?
You know what the founders were scared to death of Terry Militarist? A standing army calling the shots, which you appear to support. Read a history book some time, you'll learn something.
We also did very well for a hundred years withoiut the national security appartus and Military/Industrial complex we have now.
"In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence agst. foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people."
James Madison
"... to keep within the requisite limits a standing military force, always remembering that an armed and trained militia is the firmest bulwark of republics--that without standing armies their liberty can never be in danger, nor with large ones safe; "
James Madison.
It's too bad you have so little respect for the wisdom of the Founding Fathers. I guess Kim Jong-Il is more your kind of guy, a militarist to the core.
Posted by: Michael | February 27, 2008 12:18 PM
Mikey,
Define 'General welfare" - ask 100 people, you will get 100 different definitions - a lot of big gov't socialism from you.
Why didn't the framers establish social security, medicare, medicade, dept of education, etc... whne they were defining "general welfare".
We did well without the military-induistrial complex up until 100 years ago, I guess we could still be fighting wars on horses?
Wasn't it FDR/Truman that got the "big standing army" going. It was dismantled by Bill Clinton in the 90's and now you see the results.
I guess you are a big 2nd amendment fan also.
Kim-Jong is more of a big gov't socialist, sort of fits the dems pictures.
Posted by: Terry | February 27, 2008 5:32 PM
Terry- Define "common defense". Ask 100 people and 75 of them will tell you occupying Iraq doesn't come under their definition of that term.
Terry Militarist, while you've been busy playing with your toy soldiers all your life, apparently you missed out on the fact that their weren't really any doctors as we know the profession at the time of the founders, so no need for medicare, medicaid etc. most people never got old enough to be unable to wotk, so no need for social security. Time marches on in the social sphere, just as in the military sphere.
Your "big government militarism" would fit in pperfectly in North Korea, as would your lack of understanding of the needs of the common people.
Posted by: Michael | February 28, 2008 6:55 PM
Michael,
"Ocuppying" Iraq. I think not. The invasion of Iraq was with Congress' consent. Remember the December, 1998 bombing of Iraq - didn't hear too many peeps from the left about that.
We spend as a nation under 4% of our GDP on national defense - not much at all, unlike your socialist utopia North Korea.
Posted by: Terry | February 28, 2008 8:55 PM
Terry-
We're not occupying Iraq? You are as delusional as Kim Il-Jong!
By the way, your "not much at all" is more than the rest of the world combined.
I think the lead from your toy soldiers has damaged you Terry Militarist.
Posted by: Michael | February 28, 2008 10:32 PM
Michael,
I guess we are "occupying" South Korea, Germany, etc...also?
That is a sad thing that the rest of the world doesn't step up and do its part in this, but once again, Europe has gone soft.
Posted by: Terry | February 29, 2008 6:57 AM
Terry-
When was the last time the US army shot a German or a South Korean? (and your video games don't count!) When was the last time the US army was responsible for the internal security of portions of either of those countries?
Turn off the TV and read a book.
Posted by: Michael | February 29, 2008 12:05 PM
Michael,
You forgot, our troops are occupying Afghanistan, should we pull out of there also?
BTW, neither Obama nor Clinton are pulling all the troops out of Iraq, they both plan on leaving behind 10's of 1000's of US troops in Iraq over the next four years - I guess both of them are militarists also?
Posted by: Terry | February 29, 2008 2:14 PM
Terry-
I disagree with the idea that we need to maintain our current policies in Iraq, whether they come from Obama or Clinton. I have not surrendered my thought processes to blind partisanship as you have.
That said, at least they both wish to get the US involvement in Iraq down to a situation more similar to that in germany and South Korea, where the responsibility for internal security falls on the host nation, as it should, and that we are not combatting internal enemies of the host gocvernment.
As to Afghanistan, I believe we should limit ourselves to fighting AQ, the organization that has actually attacked us. The Afghani internal issues should be left to them to sort out, since that is the ONLY way a sustainable solution can be found.
Try to think beyond sound bites. I know it will stress your pitifully atrophied powers of reason to get beyond what your political leaders feed you.
Maybe you could even mature enough to realize that the military isn't always right, and that war is rarely the best answer to any situation.
Posted by: Michael | February 29, 2008 2:37 PM
Michael Deep thoughts,
The internal issues within Iraq and Afghanisatn is al Qaeda.
As far as limiting "our fighting to al Qaeda" - what do you expect our soliders to do - look at their military uniforms? check IDs?
"...that war is rarely the best answer to any situation"
- Revolutionary War - negotiations with the King would have been a good idea?
- Civil War - I guess we should have just apologized to the slaves when negotiations failed.
- WW2 - I guess we should have negotiated with Japan after they bombed Pearl Harbor or would you suggest the Clinton/Kerry/Obama(?) mehos that this was a law enforcement issue and we should have went and arrested the Japanese pilots?
As far as al Qaeda and Iraq - Saddam was blowing of the UN for a decade and OBL isn't the most rational individual.
Posted by: Terry | February 29, 2008 4:18 PM
As I've said Terry, you are a militarist through and through, just like Kim Il-Jong, Your latest post is just further proof. War is the best answer in your twisted childish mind. War isn't a movie Terry, It's not a game.
Damn right it would have been best if ALL of those situations could have been solved short of war. Every war represents a failure. The lives lost in those wars weren't your little toys Terry.
Posted by: Michael | February 29, 2008 4:53 PM
Michael, you are socialist just like Kim Jong.
I agree that if these issues could have been resolved peacefully it would have been better, but sorry in reality (which you obviously don't live in), war is sometimes a necessity.
Every war does not represent a failure, it represents a cost. One hopes that the benefits achieved by it outweigh the cost over time - as it did with the few examples I stated.
Posted by: Terry | February 29, 2008 10:15 PM