On Sunday February 20, Morocco experienced its first encounter with the wave of democratic change that has been sweeping across the Arab world. In each of several major cities, tens of thousands of Moroccans demonstrated for the same kinds of demands that we have seen elsewhere: to replace arbitrary and absolute uses of power with real, open democracy, to end the corruption and clientalism that stifles economic life, and to assert the rights of citizens to be treated with dignity and respect and to have a decent life for themselves and their families. Like these other demonstrations, those in Morocco also give us a glimpse of a new kind of movement -- one that brings together disaffected youth, impoverished working people, Islamists, traditional political dissidents, human rights groups, and others, in a kind of "leaderless" movement without a fixed ideological agenda. Unlike some other movements, the Moroccan demonstrations were predominately oriented toward reform, not overthrow; they did not attack the person of the King or the institution of the monarchy, and - what is most likely to keep them on that path - they were not met with brutal repression.

It would be possible for the regime to ignore what this means - there, after all, is no occupation of a central square to contend with. It would be better, however, for everyone to heed what it means - there is, clearly, a widespread, persistent discontent, affecting a broad swath of the populace. We have only seen the beginning of a process through which that discontent will manifest itself and find its political expression. How things develop from here is not known or predictable, and will depend on how the different forces react and interact going forward, but, in the present context, it is unlikely that expressions of that discontent will simply disappear. 

The welcome lack of bloody conflict has produced a curious uncertainty on both sides, a kind of double-double-bind situation that seems good for everyone: for the movement, the lack of fierce confrontation and overly radical demands helps legitimize the protest, and may make more people comfortable with and in it; but it may also be perceived as a sign of weakness. For the regime, the avoidance of brutal repression redounds to its credit, but it may also embolden the movement and help it grow. Neither side should underestimate the complexity of the pas de deux in which they are now engaged. For the regime, especially, to react with complacency and condescension - treating this movement as something that can either be ignored or absorbed in the usual ways, would be a very risky bet.

Much more productive, and much smarter, would be to heed the message of this movement - which, right now, is nothing else than to recapture the spirit of the new reign of Mohammed VI that the country had twelve years ago, to restart a hopeful process that so many feel has been rudely interrupted and replaced with disappointing new versions of business-as-usual. We started with the Justice and Reconciliation Authority (IER) and a promise of a new era of justice and accountability, and have arrived instead, post-16 May, with new waves of mass arrests, anti-"Islamist" fear-mongering, torture, and rendition [sous-traitance]. We started with a new era of freedom of the press, and have arrived at a state of censorship and legal harassment that has closed much of the independent press, and silenced or driven into exile many of its strongest voices. We began with a promise of economic transparency, and have ended in a state of economic predation, conducted by lobbies and vested interests in the name of the monarchy. We began with alternance, welcoming opposition parties and political dissidents into a new era of open democracy, and have passed through technocratic fixes to arrive at a return to "political normalcy," only to be undermined by ad-hoc commissions. The latest "new" political stratagem is a frankly royalist party, which may accrue more power to the monarchy in the short term, but, by bringing it further down into the arena of day-to-day political infighting, undermines the legitimacy it was recently accorded by all actors.

In short, many feel that the hopes and promises - the very spirit -- of the new reign have been abandoned. This is because they were not subject to a participatory process of constitutionalization and institutionalization, which is the only way that would have become permanent and irreversible. They were instead, once again, left discretionary. The monarchy has not submitted to a new, viable contract with the people. What the movement of February 20 is telling us is that these hopes and promises -- these rights -- can't be discretionary anymore. We have to return to them, and quickly begin a process that people can see is making them fixed and irrevocable. We have, that is, to revive and recast the spirit of the new reign with new urgency -- because there are new actors on the political stage who won't go away. Our nation has been put on notice: Change must and will come, and it will not be top-down anymore.  The commander [commandant de bord] now has a co-pilot, the Moroccan people, who will not fall asleep at the wheel.

U.S. Ambassador to the Republic of Korea (ROK) Kathleen Stephens presented the talk "U.S.-Korea Relations: Where We've Been, Where We're Going" on March 2 at the Walter H. Shorenstein Asia-Pacific Research Center. In a post-event interview with Yonhap News, Ambassador Stephens discussed key points in the U.S.-ROK relationship, and spoke to her experience as an ambassador and as a Peace Corps volunteer in the ROK.

Q. While the ROK-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will come into force on July 1, the ROK-U.S. FTA is still awaiting approval from the U.S. Congress. Could you tell us about the prospects for Congressional approval of the deal?

"It was such a significant issue that even President Barack Obama mentioned the trade deal during his State of the Union address in January, and he also called on Congress to ratify it ‘as soon as possible.' Therefore, you will likely see in the coming weeks the submission of the legislation to Congress, and I expect that it will pass through both the House and the Senate after a robust discussion of it. I think that with the Administration and many stakeholders in the United States from business to workers to individual states and communities saying how important this is for the American economy and for Korea-U.S. relations, I'm very optimistic about the ratification process."

Q. The Six-Party Talks aimed at resolving the North Korean nuclear issue have been at a stalemate for more than two years. Some officials, such as Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry, argue that the United States should have bilateral dialogue with the North to smooth the way for the resumption of the [Six-Party] Talks. What do you think we need now to resume the stalled Six-Party Talks?

"U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs Kurt Campbell and U.S. Special Representative for North Korea Policy Stephen Bosworth already mentioned this issue in details at a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on the North Korean issue yesterday (March 1). We all agree that it is very important to improve inter-Korean relations, and we also understand that when we verify that the North truly wants to see a tangible improvement in its relations with the ROK, we should be ready to accept bilateral and multilateral dialogue."

Q. Regarding Mr. Bosworth's mention about food aid to the North, some observers speculate that there will be some change in the stalled U.S.-North Korea relations.

"(Shaking her head) The U.S. approach on the provision of humanitarian assistance including food assistance internationally has always been a principled one based upon an assessment of the need and the ability to monitor in an appropriate way to ensure the assistance gets to those who are most needy. We are applying those same principles to any consideration of humanitarian assistance to North Korea, and therefore, he [Amb. Bosworth] did not indicate any particular change."

Q. The "Jasmine Revolution" is sweeping the Middle East. Considering the lack of social networking services and a different type of regime in North Korea, it may be difficult to draw a direct comparison [between the Middle East and North Korea,] but do you think that the pro-democracy movements in the Middle East could affect North Korea?

"To be honest with you, I do not know. It is difficult to speculate on it because North Korea is certainly one of the most isolated places in the world when it comes to the availability of news about the outside world."

Q. While the ROK-EU Free Trade Agreement (FTA) will come into force on July 1, the ROK-U.S. FTA is still awaiting approval from the U.S. Congress. Could you tell us about the prospects for Congressional approval of the deal?

"It was such a significant issue that even President Barack Obama mentioned the trade deal during his State of the Union address in January, and he also called on Congress to ratify it ‘as soon as possible.' Therefore, you will likely see in the coming weeks the submission of the legislation to Congress, and I expect that it will pass through both the House and the Senate after a robust discussion of it. I think that with the Administration and many stakeholders in the United States from business to workers to individual states and communities saying how important this is for the American economy and for Korea-U.S. relations, I'm very optimistic about the ratification process."

Q. Recently, the issue of redeploying U.S. tactical nuclear weapons to the ROK in the event of a contingency on the Korean Peninsula stirred up some controversy. Some observers also point out that it is possible for the United States to assist the ROK with tactical nuclear weapons as part of its extended deterrence. If the ROK wants, is there a possibility that the United States will redeploy its tactical nuclear weapons to USFK?

"Our position is very clear on this, and we reaffirmed it at a Senate hearing yesterday (March 1). We want to see the complete denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. That means no nuclear weapons in North Korea. There are no nuclear weapons right now in South Korea. In terms of the ROK, it's our assessment that the reintroduction of these weapons is neither desirable nor needed."

Q. President Obama, in his speeches, praised the ROK especially for its education. In the ROK, however, many people point out that the education problem is very serious. What is your take on this?

"So many Koreans talked about it. Those who are currently living in the ROK or those who have been watching the ROK's education system may know that education is such an important issue for Koreans. Personally, I am also well aware of (Koreans') education fervor as well as the stress incurred by children and families due to excessive [education-related] competition.

President Obama seems to think that every education system has some problems, and he appears to want to introduce Korea's education fervor and parents' active interest in education to the United States. In my opinion, President Obama believes that in this aspect, the ROK is a good model.

However, as everybody knows it, there is no such thing as a perfect education system. Therefore, while the United States learns education fervor from the ROK's education system, the ROK could learn a wider variety of teaching methods from the United States."

Q. Would you raise your child in a Korean-style education system?

"Since my son has already grown up, I can only give you a hypothetical answer. The biggest challenge would be language, but I can say 'Yes.' This is because I know that the ROK also has many good schools and teachers. However, when it comes to sending my child to ‘hagwon,' a private institute, I would need to discuss with Korean parents, teachers and friends."

Q.  Could you tell us about U.S.-ROK relations and public sentiments in both countries now and at the time of your assignment to the ROK? When you arrived in the ROK, U.S. beef imports were a "big issue."

"The ROK and the United States have a very friendly alliance, and they are deepening and expanding it day by day. In addition, I think that I am lucky that I have served in the ROK at a time when I can contribute to creating the best and strongest relationship in the world.

When I arrived in the ROK in September, 2008, I received a truly warm welcome from the ROK—although it is a Korean tradition. When I went out on the streets, many people, who had concerns or expectations about ROK-U.S. relations, recognized and approached me and said that they wanted to see an improvement in ROK-U.S. relations. This is a message showing that the ROK-U.S. relations are very important, and we are actually working together to maintain a good relationship. 

Even President Obama said that (the bilateral relationship) ‘has never been better than it is today.' (A fluent Korean speaker, Stephens repeated the same phrase in Korean.)"

Q. Unlike other U.S. Ambassadors to the ROK, you travel across the ROK to reach out to Koreans, even gaining the nickname "Star Ambassador." Is there any special reason?

"Thank you very much for appreciating my efforts. Whenever I am assigned to a certain nation, I think that I must understand the nation and its people because that is what a diplomat and an Ambassador is supposed to do. To me, Korea this may have been a little easier than it was for my predecessors. This is because I lived in the ROK before, I speak Korean, and I feel comfortable with Korean culture.

I visited the ROK in 1975 for the first time, and I wanted to know how much the ROK and Koreans' thought have changed ever since, and I watched actual changes with interest.   

Q.  This might be a little premature, but you are going to leave office in six months. Do you have any future plans? Are you going to continue to work to strengthen ROK-U.S. relations?

"(Laughter) This is my third time to live in the ROK. It is a great honor to serve as the U.S. Ambassador to the ROK. In my third year in office, I still have many things to do, including the ROK-U.S. FTA, but after leaving office, I hope to continue to make contributions to this great (U.S.-Korea) relationship for the rest of my life. In fact, I do not know what to do after leaving office, but I will always carry a huge interest in and commitment to this relationship."

Q. This year marks the 50th anniversary of the foundation of the Peace Corps. You actually worked as a Peace Corps volunteer in the ROK. What does the Peace Corps mean for you? How did your service in the ROK affect you today?

"Thank you for asking that question. The Peace Corps is still engaging in various activities around the world, and I think that it is the best program ever from the United States Government. I can say that this program has inspired the United States and people around the world throughout many generations.

It is true that while serving in the ROK as a Peace Corps member, I underwent a series of difficulties which I had never experienced before. It was not easy for a young woman to adapt to living and working in a nation which she hardly knew.

At that time, I needed to completely assimilate into a Korean organization. I serve in many countries as a diplomat, but it is about working at a U.S. Embassy, a U.S. institution.  Therefore, it is difficult to compare it with Peace Corps activities. I think that at that time, I had experience which was totally new mentally, physically, and emotionally. However, any Peace Corps member has such experience.

[Through such experience,] I witnessed the strength and various talents of Koreans in person, and that has had an enormous impact on my life.  

Translation by Yonhap News. Republished with permission.

In light of the recent ousting of the presidents of Egypt and Tunisia, Donald K. Emmerson, director of the Southeast Asia Forum, steps back from the continually evolving regional turbulence to consider what it may say about the future. In a February 22 Asia Times op-ed, while noting that each country's situation is unique, Emmerson argues that social networking as an aspect of globalization could trigger further transnational spread effects in years to come. Nevertheless, he warns, authoritarians will try to adapt the technology to their own purposes. Finally, noting the basically secular character of the demonstrations, he argues that the power and promise of political Islam should not be overdrawn.