Firstly, thanks a lot to the guys who sent me copies of that WSJ piece. Anyway, I’ll copy it below, although let me just say that while I generally agree with its conclusion — that U.S. troops need to be removed from South Korea, and sooner rather than later — I think Gittings characterization of the current political climate in South Korea and the levels of anti-Americanism are, well, a little over the top. His treatment of the Korean Workers Party: South Korea Branch Teachers’ and Educational Workers Union is a case and point; I’ll be the last person on the planet to say anything positive about the KTU, its members, or its activities. But let’s hold off on the madressa comparisons; as bad as the KTU is, the union represents only 94,000 of the country’s 360,000 public-school teachers. The other sizable teacher’s organization, the Korean Federation of Teachers’ Association, has 182,822 members and is conservative as hell.
Anyway, I’ll let you read the piece below — draw your own conclusions.
South Koreans Cuddle Up To The North
By Danny Gittings
SEOUL–If you’re in power here, how do you undermine an alliance with the U.S. that has kept South Korea free from Pyongyang’s clutches for more than half a century? One way is to let loose a teachers’ union renowned for its pro-North Korean sympathies, and say nothing as it promotes anti-Americanism in the country’s classrooms, distributing multiple-choice tests on the “terror” inflicted on the Iraqi people by the U.S. and Britain. Then you ignore the predictable effects of this propaganda, reminiscent of the way Islamic madrassa foster hatred in the Muslim world.
A 1991 Gallup poll found that anti-Americanism rises with each year of schooling in South Korea. There’s every reason to believe things have gotten even worse since the Korean Teachers’ and Educational Workers Union was legalized five years ago under an amnesty for pro-Pyongyang groups, as part of the South Korean government’s “sunshine policy” of fostering friendly ties with Kim Jong Il’s brutal regime.
That sunshine policy is, of course, another factor in the strategy of undermining the alliance. It strikes at the heart of the rationale for the stationing of 31,460 U.S. servicemen in South Korea, which is based on a shared perception of the threat from the North. Dilute that perception, and you take away the main reason for the alliance in the eyes of many ordinary South Koreans.
It’s a tactic the South Korean government has been pursuing for several years, first under former President Kim Dae Jung and now under his successor, Roh Moo Hyun, who was elected in December 2002 after vowing never to “kowtow” to Washington.Earlier this month, South Korea’s National Security Council announced that Pyongyang was no longer the “main enemy,” due to changes in the “security situation.” That’s right, North Korea’s recent withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, and its efforts to build more nuclear bombs apparently make it less of a threat than before. No wonder veteran South Korean diplomats, desperate to preserve the U.S. alliance, have been likening President Roh’s NSC and its radical young aides to the Taliban. Cho Hyun-dong, one of those most highly regarded in Washington, was purged in January for raising the alarm.
The sunshiners know they can’t openly attack the alliance — not when opinion polls show that an overwhelming majority of South Koreans still recognize the need for a U.S. presence. Their strategy is far smarter. On one front, do the bare minimum to avoid being blamed for the relationship’s collapse. Witness President Roh’s disavowal of his earlier call to pull U.S. “troops out,” and his (reluctant) decision to send 3,000 South Korean troops to Iraq.
On another front, they continue to chip away at the underlying rationale for the alliance. Sadly, the Seoul government’s steady diet of propaganda about Pyongyang’s “peaceful intentions,” and how the North has supposedly “changed,” seems to be yielding results. Only a minority of South Koreans now think Kim Jong Il’s nuclear weapons pose a threat to them. The rest apparently believe they’ll be aimed elsewhere.
Nor is there much prospect of South Korea’s opposition political parties bringing the nation back to reality. Once a bastion of common sense about the North’s true intentions, the opposition parties are now chasing the sunshiners down the path to Pyongyang. On March 23, the conservative Grand National Party elected Park Geun Hye as its new leader. The daughter of a former South Korean president, she was feted by Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang two years ago, and came back complaining that the party was too skeptical of North Korea’s intentions.
And it’s about to get worse. A bizarre debacle is playing out in Seoul, where President Roh has been impeached — but not because he’s put South Korea’s security at risk by downplaying the threat from the North. Instead, he was accused of a technical breach of election laws, by voicing support for the radical Uri Party, which supports him.
South Korea’s Constitutional Court will probably overturn the impeachment. Yet in the meantime, public anger at the opposition’s abuse of the process is expected to translate into a huge swing in next month’s parliamentary polls toward the Uri Party, many of whose members have pro-Pyongyang sympathies that make President Roh look like a neo-con by comparison.
Not surprisingly, North Korea is rubbing its hands with glee at these developments. Even before the impeachment, an internal lecture to Kim Jong Il’s cadres late last year hailed the, “Big changes occurring in South Korea.” “Anticommunist conservative forces that formed the mainstream of society have been pushed aside,” it proclaimed.
Just for once, Pyongyang probably has it right. It’s already possible to detect the corrosive effects in South Korea of the increasingly pervasive illusion that the North — nukes and all — no longer poses a serious threat. While attitudes toward the U.S. have recovered from their low two years ago — following a traffic accident in which two Korean schoolgirls were crushed by a U.S. military vehicle — they still remain far short of the favorable attitudes recorded before then.
How to respond to all this? Bringing the U.S. troops home would mean abandoning the fight that cost 33,000 U.S. servicemen their lives in the Korean war. And it’s not in our interest to see South Korea fall into Pyongyang’s sphere of influence, as it assuredly would if it were deprived of the U.S. security umbrella.
But why keep American lives at risk in a country in denial about the nature of the enemy? And why is it in our strategic interest to stay, if that cripples our options? If Kim Jong Il were caught peddling plutonium to al Qaeda, President Roh would probably find some excuse to do nothing. A pullback of U.S. forces to Guam, by contrast, would free us from South Korean shackles in responding to such proliferation.
We may not have come to that yet. But here in Seoul, the dismantling of the half-century-old alliance is no longer as unthinkable as it was a few years ago. If the South Korean government continues to teach its people that the North no longer poses a threat, there may come a time to take them at their word, and leave them to defend themselves on their own.
Mr. Gittings is The Asian Wall Street Journal’s deputy editorial page editor.
12 Comments
I couldn’t find M’s link either. I’ve got the hard copy here in front of me, though.
“If you’re in power here [Seoul], how do you undermine an alliance with the US that has kept [ROK] free from Pyongyang’s clutches for more than half a century? One way is to let loose a teacher’s union renowned for its pro-[NorK] sympathies, and say nothing as it promotes anti-Americanism in the country’s classrooms, distributing multiple choice tests on the “terror” inflicted on the Iraqi people by the US and Britain. Then you ignore the predictable effects of this propaganda, reminiscent of the way Islamic “madrassa” foster hatred in the Muslim world.”
(opening paragraph of the article)
So what does an exact translation of this particular test actually say, anyone? Does M’s point about the KTEWU teacher’s union being only [approx] 1/4 of the number of public school teachers mean that the “test” mentioned was only given in 1/4 of the country’s classrooms?
Your point is moot M, as far as the article goes, if the “test” cited was given throughout all Korean classrooms, with the consent (reluctant or enthusiastic) of the “conservative” teacher’s union members — or so it would seem to me anyway.
But I admit I know nothing other than what I read, and calmly await celestial enlightenment from those in the Hermit Kingdom who can read and speak Korean and therefore confirm, or further dispute, Gittings’ point. I am curious…
The Anti-Americanism only has to control the government long enough to kick our troops out and invite the Dear Spawn’s troops in… It won’t have to worry about being impeached as it hands the keys off to KJI’s representative…
I did not see any anti-American action while I was there (10-21 March). Of the thousands of people I met, passed on the street, or shared a bus with in Korea, only three were negative towards me (making a big deal about me being overweight)… better than ‘98 when there were five…
While I don’t want the communists to control the future of South Korea, it’s not my damned country. So I don’t “have a say”. And as much as I hate to admit it, it’s sorta like trying to correct someone else’s kids at the supermarket. It doesn’t work and it irritates those around you.
I just wish we had some sort of tonic to rub into the scalps of our own college crop that would allow them the ability to recognize the difference between common sense and “bovine scatology”.
There is no US Hegemony. The Jews don’t rule the world. And Oswald was the Lone Gunman. Well, at least on this planet…
Unless I’m going completely blind, you didn’t post the article (yet).
Seems that the article is available here online, without registration.
Sorry about that — the post wasn’t supposed to go up last night. Meant to save it as a draft. Damn, that’s embarrassing.
Anyway, the “test” — it wasn’t even a “test.” Some members of the KTU decided to make up some supplimentary material for their classes. It was not given in all schools, nor was the “test” translated by the LA Times and others the only one produced. And, if I may say so, the translated sections that appeared in the American press weren’t even the most offensive sections. Should the KTU have been allowed to turn their classrooms into propoganda centers? No. Should the Roh administration have cracked down on the KTU for its activities? A resounding yes. But before we go overboard with the madressa comparisons, we need to understand what the problem because the exagerations aren’t helpful.
Well I hope someone from the ROK’s US embassy, or from the KFTA, writes to the WSJ and provides a detailed rebuttal letter or even better an article. It’s my impression that usually the WSJ will publish a good rebuttal.
Maybe Mr. Cho Hyun-Dong, the South Korean diplomat in favor of the alliance, and whom the article mentioned as being “purged”, could write it. I imagine his signature on such a letter or article would be the most effective (assuming of course that he is inclined to do so).
why are the north koreans building nuclear weapons? is it because they fear an attack by south korea? or, are they planning to invade south korea after blowing it to smithereens? or perhaps, it’s building nuclear bombs as a deterrent against the united states. is that not plausible? well, yes, it is quite plausible.
for all of you who go through the day with a rain cloud over your head, try watching ‘untold scandal’. very nice and visually stunning.
Shin — I don’t think it’s plausible, but that’s not what I want to discuss. What I find strange is that you brought up “Untold Scandal,” but only because I finished a translation on Jeon Do-hyeon for Chosun.com about five minutes ago.
Great actress, BTW, even if you doesn’t have Jun Ji-hyun’s ass.
Paul — the Cho Hyun-Dong’s the last guy you want making statements. While I’m sure ideological consideration were at play, ultimately, the foreign ministry got purged not because it was too “pro-American” but because it was making statements about the boss (in this case, President Roh) that would have gotten anyway fired, regardless of organization. Gittings neglected to mention that, too.
I’m going to blog about this and have short time right now, but I wouldn’t push the article away because of some exaggeration about the power of the teacher’s union. It isn’t the main focus of the piece but more an illustrative example of a clear trend in Korean society. From what I’ve read, and I think the LA Times stole my own translation of some of the test questions, the teachers union is just like the usual anti-US civic groups —- a more vocal and slightly more extreme version of what the average Korean thinks, (but a fair representation of those thoughts).
I see it like this — the average Korean agrees with the more radicals in wanting to see USFK out of Korea — for the good of the Korean people — but they disagree on the timetable. The radicals want it now. While the average Korean sees the “bad” alliance with the US and its military as a “necessary evil.”
What they do agree on, however, is the “evil” part.
Except perhaps for those above 65.
What I don’t like about the article is how it does the too common thing of arguing that this attitude in Korea is “new.”
It isn’t. I noticed it easily in my first months in Korea back in 1994 (or was it 95?).
Necessary evil………that was the message loud and clear ever since I arrived.
I didn’t hear it much from the kids. Nothing like how much they openly claim to hate the Japanese. But…………I guarantee you if I had asked my kid students what they thought about the US, many of them would have gotten around to checking off the list of events used to justify the anti-US attitude — like the division of Korea, Nogun-ri, and such.
It simply fits. You can’t have 75% of the educated Koreans under the age of 65 believing the US is “bad for Korea” and not have it filter down to their children……
Well, USinKorea, Mr Shin’s comment above says it all. We Americans like nothing better than forcing the South Koreans to keep USFK there, while we gleefully plot nuclear attacks on their northern brothers.
Maybe it’s sort of a “reverse projection” of the old “scheming oriental” stereotype. Steve Canyon had the “Dragon Lady”; modern Korea has the cackling, malevolent Uncle Sam, rubbing his hands together, while the fins of nuke bombs project from his ample pockets.
At one time I would have modified the proper noun “Korea”, in the previous paragraph, with the adjective “North”. Not any more.
Well, we did interrupt the “unification” process underway in June-Sept 1950, in a rather traumatic way. If we get out now, and properly apologize, maybe we can avoid an extensive reparations bill later.
(Sarcasm aside, I regretted the axis of evil speech even when I heard it –knew it would set the fox loose amongst the chickens. I’ve read that it did just that, and now the above comment reinforces it vividly).
(And I do realize that of course Mr. Shin ignores the fact that the NorK nuke program grew teeth shortly after we withdrew all our nukes from the peninsula–but never mind, perceptions have probably gone too far to override reality by this point).
(We should have been withdrawing our ground forces even before you arrived there, USinK. Well, better late than never).
M, thanks for the notes of correction. As time goes on I’ll try to search back for links thru your blog & others, so I can “lift and shift” off Gittings article. I’ve had a bad feeling about developments on the peninsula for years, and I don’t think it’s going to get better, regardless of what happens in our November election.
All I really noticed 2 weeks ago was that my nieces (approximately ages 6 and 7) kept calling, “Uncle, Uncle” and insisting I walk around the park near their apartment so they could show me how nice it was, their school photo albums, their homework, “here-have some chocolate”, “look at this”, “see how well I play the piano”, etc…
If the communists take over and they’re still there… I’m going to be terribly sad… And then I’m going to get angry enough to do something…
JTB,
I have some percentage (not close to 50%) of me that worries about the future of Korea -USFK for my wife’s mom and sister and the many nice and many wonderful students I have had over the years.
But, I can’t justify the potential for bloodshed with NK (especially if it begins to collapse) and I can’t justify the costs (in real dollars and the amount of resources our military wastes defending Korea) — resources that could be more directly useful to the US elsewhere.
My wife regrettably agrees too.
I just wish more of the American people could understand the situation so we could have an informed vote about whether we want to remain in Korea or not.
Because it has been easy for me to see firsthand since the early to mid 1990s - contrary to part of the article - that Korea loves to dislike/hate USFK and the US-SK relationship, but they will NOT vote their feelings and demand the US leave…………until it is not in their economic or security interests to keep them…..