Kimbob was kind enough to link to this Asia Times piece by Jim Lobe that suggest that while differences exist, the world views held by Americans and South Koreans are more alike than CNN highlight footage might suggest. Just a little snippet:
Despite recent changes in the bilateral security relationship, South Koreans remain generally remarkably positive about Washington’s role on the peninsula. One of the most surprising findings of the South Korean poll was that, while 31% of Koreans believe relations have gotten worse since Roh Moo-hyun became president in 2002, a majority of 54% believe there has been no change, and 15% say ties have improved.
South Koreans see the US as having an extraordinary level of influence on South Korean policy, rating Washington ahead of President Roh, their National Assembly, and the general public itself.
Moreover, the survey found that the South Koreans do not appear to want a change in the relationship. Asked to describe the most desirable bilateral policy on a scale of 0 to 10, with 0 meaning total independence and 5 the status quo, the mean response was 5. Moreover, a majority of 59% said they wanted to retain or strengthen the alliance with the US after reunification of the peninsula.
Nearly four out of five South Koreans view the US as either “significantly” or “a bit” beneficial to South Korea’s security, compared to 12% who see Washington as either “a bit” or “significantly” threatening.
Read the rest on your own. I haven’t really had time to digest the findings fully, and I didn’t see mentioned either the survey sample or how the survey was administered (and it also doesn’t help that the piece was printed in the Asia Times, which is in no way a knock on Mr. Lobe). That being said, the results would suggest that the Korea-U.S. relationship rests on firm ground of shared interest perception, even if perceptions diverge in spots. One might also imagine that as South Korea’s role in the world increases and its defense posture grows increasingly independent of the United States, the world views of the two nations might converge to an even greater extent.
8 Comments
From my situation in the US, I would offer that the bill was passed more as prod to the stripe-pants types in the state department who seem all too quick to embrace crazed leaders who kill large numbers of their citizens. The state department on occasion needs a law to remind them that freedom and not cocktail parties with the Communist party elite should be the goal of diplomacy.
Whats wrong with the Asia Times? Sure there are the occassional bumblefuck articles that come out from it once in a while. However, on the whole, they are generally more knowledgeable about Asian issues than generalist English news sources like the NYT or WaPo.
Marmot, here are the scientific methologies used for this study. I trust hell of a lot more this study than some sensationalist Korean media headlines that translate “polls” into “60% of Koreans don’t like America and think they are the worst dangerous enemy etc etc” or something like that.
http://www.ccfr.org/globalview.....report.pdf
The entire links of the report is found here
http://www.ccfr.org/globalviews2004/sub/usakor.htm
I’d have to second that comment about Asia Times. The page is editorial in content, but manages to gather together in one site a variety of information on Asia, the Urals, and the Middle East. Spengler, Scofield, and Foster-Carter (when he writes) are a few of my favorites. If you’re not reading AT Online, you’re missing out. (And no, I’m not employed by the website.)
I think, there’re some lunatic writers at AT, but my guess is, that Marmot doesn’t like the overcritical amd somewhile radical dissent of the majority of AT-contributors with America’s foreign policy like SPENGLER and other guys… who knows, Mr. Marmot is working for the Chosun Ilbo, sigh!
Sugar Shin — it’s not that I object to the paper’s editorial slant, or its critical take on U.S. foreign policy. If I were to stick with media I “agreed” with, it wouldn’t leave me much outside the National Review and WSJ. And yes, the Asia Times does have a lot of smart Asianists writing for them, it’s got some good (and generally fun to read) analysis, and it does provide a valuable service by putting a lot of Asia-related stuff together on one site. That being said, its content is editorial, so I’m a bit leary of what I read on it. Take the above piece, for example. I’m not saying that it’s full of shit, and in the main, I happen to agree with it. It was written by IPS’ Jim Lobe, however, who is a guy with a particular focus (which isn’t Asia, BTW), so I immediately I start wondering. Again, that’s not to say that either the Asia Times (or Jim Lobe, for that matter) sucks. You have to be careful with anything you read, regardless of whether its this blog or the NYT. It’s just a question of degree. I happened to love OhMyNews (left) and the [Korean] Independent (right), my criticism of the former in the FEER not withstanding, but if I read poll data coming from them, I’m going to be suspicious. Same goes for the Asia Times.
I generally share your suspicion towards polls and their presentation on media outlets - there’s always the danger of twists and manipulations of the questions, results, numbers and societal structure of survey participants (esp. in Korean newspapers)- my comment above was a kind of Marmot-baiting. You’re reading Tognip Shinmun - ah, sigh, sigh ,sigh
Bet they only interviewed “Han nara dang” memebers…