Well, this is kind of interesting:
Among Uri Party lawmakers who won seats in the 17th National Assembly, 63 percent said that Korea should keep in closer contact with China in terms of diplomacy and trade instead of the United States.
The survey was conducted by the party’s policy committee during the Uri Party’s workshop for successful candidates, held in Yangyang, Gangwon Province from April 26 to 28. Among 130 respondents, an overwhelming 63 percent said that China should be Korea’s most important diplomatic and trading partner. Only 26 percent responded that the United States should be.
Relating to this, Uri Party floor leader Kim Keun-tae asked people to keep in mind that the survey question was given on the assumption that Korea attaches importance to its traditional alliance with the United States.
I have no problem with Korea tossing aside its relationship with the U.S. in favor of forging a closer relationship with the PRC if that’s what Korea’s national interests dictate (I don’t think they do, but that’s another story). Then again, however, I’m a conservative, hence by nature more willing to forgive a lot of ethically questionable stuff if the nation in question happens to be geopolitically useful. Heck, Kissinger taught us that. What surprises me, however, is that the “progressive” Uri Party is so willing to look pass things like this and this, let alone things like Tibet or Tiananmen Square. I mean, here we have a party composed of a large number of student activists looking for friendship with the heirs of those who gunned down hundreds, if not thousands, of fellow student democracy activists in 1989. And, of course, there’s no need to mention that the regime in Beijing is remarkably similar in nature to the South Korean “development dictatorships” that Korean progressives profess to have hated. Like I said, I’m not condemning getting buddy-buddy with China. I’m just curious as to how Uri Party lawmakers, given their lineage, could possibly call for such a foreign policy. For those who feel that this predicts huge shifts in Korea’s relationships with the PRC and the U.S., don’t place your bets just yet. This strikes me as just knee-jerk anti-Americanism and pro-Chinese romanticism that should quickly dissipate once this highly inexperienced group of lawmakers is confronted with something approximating the real world. For what it’s worth, I can’t imagine the much talked-about Democratic Labor Party will be too keen on China, given all the factory jobs that are migrating across the Yellow Sea and the potential for ugliness as Beijing becomes more assertive in demanding that Seoul liberalize its agricultural markets. Uri Party lawmakers, too, will be forced to deal with these issues and more as they learn on the job. I’m sure the above piece, which is the headline piece in today’s Chosun Ilbo, will grab a lot of attention in the States, but I’m not sure if it’s all that significant. Not yet, anyway.
13 Comments
I wrote more on my blog about this.
I can only decide Korea’s infatuation with the “soon to be #1 superpower replacing the US” is based on race(ism).
I remember well when it dawned on me — after listening to so many adult students talk about divided Korea and the US role in it as well as often talking about the Russians —- that I never heard Koreans talking about China’s role in keeping Korea divided.
I realized that although I heard Koreans say bad things from time to time about Chinese people, I never heard them complain much about China. Well, except to complain about traditional Korea being “a slave” to ancient China - but that came mostly from Korean university students.
I have yet to find one single Korean adult who brought up the future greatness of China who could tell me why they thought such a development would be better for Korea than its current situation with the US.
“I can only decide Korea’s infatuation with the “soon to be #1 superpower replacing the US” is based on race(ism).”
That’s what I’ve also thought too. Really silly to me. Uri Party-reading about them and their comments sometimes I feel like yelling to them “Wake up and Smell the Coffee, folks!”
Racism? Hm… Perhaps, jut a bit - but if this is the major reason, what about the Koreans’ approach to Japan?
More likely, they are tired of the US presence and related problems, while China, being kicked out from Korea 109 years ago has not managed to create the same problems. And, of course, there is an enormous culural prestige of China in entire region.
And about Uri - if they (some of them, at lest) are ready to love the Dear Leader, what would you expect?
Have the Uri Party also forgotten that the Chinese killed many tens of thousands of their fellow South Koreans in an attempt to communize the peninsula?
I know Noh forgot, when he told the Chinese that the Chinese politician he most admired was Mao Tse-tung.
T: I know Noh forgot, when he told the Chinese that the Chinese politician he most admired was Mao Tse-tung.
He could have said Deng Xiaoping, and none of the Chinese would have given him a hard time. But he had to say Moose Dung. I suspect Noh was speaking from the heart. Will the Korean peninsula be reunified under the Dear Leader in Noh’s lifetime?
passerby: China, being kicked out from Korea 109 years ago has not managed to create the same problems.
Actually, the Chinese killed hundreds of thousands of Koreans while acting to prevent the reunification of Korea. For some reason, South Koreans can’t seem to connect the dots.
Some of your statements seem self-contradictory if you don’t mind my pointing this out. First, it is not strictly true that conservatives are as ethically flexible when faced with geostrategic realities like Henry Kissinger’s choices in the past. Kissinger is regarded by many as guilty of criminal decisions like in the bombing of Cambodia which led to the eventual genocide of the Khmer Rouge. And don’t raise the shit about communist atrocities because it is more complex then that. Given the success of the PRC economically since Tiananmen it is equally possible to say that this was a reasonable decision by the party hierarchy. An indication of this is the lead story in the April 26, 2004 Financial Times with the heading “Washington in call for close G7 links with China.” Why would the Uri party want to continue with the arms-length policy vis a vis China when Washington is seeking to draw closer to same with its new found (flexible?) stance.
Hurrah for Sato. I agree on the complexities of China. I just want to make sure that the “reasonable” decision of June 4th was reasonable only for the party hierarchy, not for the people who got shot. While China has gone well since then, we have to remember that the events of 1989 are unacceptable, regardless of any resulting stability. But the Chinese gov do seem to have got what they wanted with no long-lasting ill effects.
No direct elections in Hong Kong (one of the “this” links)? Well, the British did run it (and run it very well) for a long time without elections, and then Patten throws a cat amongst the pigeons just as the Brits are getting out. Even some Brit civil servants thought that was a bad idea. And people vote in Singapore and I am less than convinced that that means anything.
I expect that Uri saying nice things about China is just another way of saying bad things about the US. It is probably more of an anti-US thing than a pro-China thing.
In 1991, there was no “Hwang-Sa” in Seoul. That disgusting yellow dirt wind from China.
This is a result of irresponsible industrialization by the Chinese.
Take a deep breath, Uri party members.
And WAKE UP!
It’s not in China’s interest to see a strong Korea nor a united Korea.
Meaning, China wants North Korea to stay there and China wants to pass South Korea in terms of economics.
Enjoy the bolts and pieces of metal inside your fish and crabs.
And the tofu made of unhatched goose eggs.
It’s quite simple. Kim Il Sung fled to China for help, and the Chinese kept North Korea alive with an infusion of low tech infantry men who died in horrendous numbers.
There is that ridiculous theory that when China becomes strong and more prosperous or as rich as the US, Korea will naturally be rich as a middle man. I don’t see that.
Especially if Korea is divided and railways from China don’t connect to Pusan.
And guess what? China wants North Korea to stay there forever.
I am Korean, but I think Koreans are dumb. Always looking for a master nation.
The Chinese, the Japanese, or the Americans. If I was in charge, I would always, always choose the Americans.
Uri’s people should dig up their ancestors and ask just how much they used to pay the Chinese kingdoms for tributary funds in the past.
To my understanding, Korean kingdoms shoveled rice and other goods to China even if their own people were starving to death.
Koreans are enjoying the best living standards and the most rapid pace of economic development under American influence. It’s just that simple.
and what happenned when North Korea tried to open up a free trade zone with a Chinese business man in charge?
Oh, my.
Very interestingly, the Chinese government jailed that business man on charges of corruption and accepting bribes.
The classic political BS criminal charge that destroy anyone who has crossed the interests of the state. Corruption and bribery.
LOL.
Not only does China want North Korea to stay there forever, but it also wants North Korea to stay poor.
Fools, fools.
To WJK,
I am less than convinced that China wants NK to stay there forever. NK is now an embarrassment to the Chinese gov. What China wants more than anything else is stability - with certain non-negotiable issues. Just look at all the decisions made by the Chinese gov recently.
And China wants to surpass Korea economically? That IS going to happen, regardless of events on the peninsula.
While a re-unified (and thus stronger in the longer term) Korea would be more of a challenge to the Chinese gov politically and economically, maybe they would be supportive of the idea if it got rid of that embarrassing guy in the jumpsuit and the starving millions.
Chinese troops in Korea, dying in horerndous numbers, etc? Hey, ever heard of the Cold War? There were reasons for these things.
“Irresponsible industrialization” by China? Well, they have joined the club. Show me a country with “responsible” industrialization. Oh, and what happened to the Kyoto treaty? Who torpedoed that, hmmm?
“I am less than convinced that China wants NK to stay there forever. NK is now an embarrassment to the Chinese gov.”
The way I see it is…this is the case only because of more interaction/pressure with/from Western countries, namely the U.S.