Warning: Rant-esque material. Reader discretion is advised.
Over at Interested Participant, which is an excellent blog, BTW, if you haven’t already put on your links list, a commenter going by the handle of “Hunter” was apparently upset with my last post. He was kind enough to leave a rather lengthy comment, which I feel deserves the courtesy of a response (and frankly, it gives me the opportunity to vent). I don’t know where I should begin, so I guess I should just take it point by point:
Koehlers piece was notable only in the fact that he’s woefully uninformed concerning politics re South Korea. His main points being he doesn’t like the use of our flag as a base to the protest, nor the burning of the NK standards. For his information WE planted our flag on their soil 50 years ago, and they embraced its promise like few other emancipated American protectorates have.
Firstly, he’s right on the first point. I probably am woefully uninformed concerning South Korean politics. You’d think having lived as a political junkie in South Korea for eight years and majored in Northeast Asian politics at a South Korean grad school, not to mention the fact that I make my living translating for a major South Korean newspaper, I’d be more conversant than I am. But hey, I guess I just ain’t all that bright. For this, I sincerely apologize.
As for the flag business, well, I thought I made it clear in my post that I dislike the burning of any standard, although I did point out that if I had to burn a flag, it would probably be North Korea’s. I did object to having to having our flag used as a base to the protest, given that the protest’s theme was the protection of an anachronistic law that was frequently invoked to repress pro-democracy forces in the past and even now provides ample opportunity for the state to abuse its power.
As for “WE planted our flag on their soil 50 years ago” or the “emancipated American protectorate” bits, I don’t know quite what to say other than I’m generally horrified by the colonial implications, and paternalistic attitudes such as those do not make it any easier when USFK or the U.S. State Department tries to explain that South Korea is not, has not been, and never will be a U.S. colony. Frankly, you couldn’t write any better bulletin board material for Hanchongnyon.
- The vast majority of SK people out-conservative even the most ardent of Americans on the right. Perhaps Robert should try living 25 miles from a megalomaniac with his hand in the atomic soup for the last 10 or 15 years before he pontificates so judgmentally. Since I have lived in, married, speak the language, and been involved in all things Korean for over 45 years I consider myself somewhat of a minor expert in the topic….
Great, yet another expert. Is it just me, or does it seem like anyone who has lived in Korea fancies him or herself an expert? I mean, heck, a lot of Koreans have lived in the U.S. and can read the New York Times. Does that make them U.S. experts, minor, major, or otherwise? Just because I can read the Chosun Ilbo in the vernacular doesn’t make me an expert, now does it? Anyway, I’ll grant that my place of abode is not 25 miles from the magalomaniac in question. I do live right across the street from Yongsan Garrison, however, which I’d have to figure ranks right up there with the U.S. Air Force base at Osan as a prime target for a North Korean nuclear strike, being the site of the headquarters of 8th U.S. Army and all. I did live just outside of Uijeongbu for two years, too, just in case Seoul is a little too far removed from North Korean batteries for Hunter’s respect. I also lived in Gwangju before coming to Seoul, which might give one something of a different impression of that supposedly vast, ultra-conservative majority (which strangely enough voted in Roh Moo-hyon in 2002 and an Uri Party majority in the 2004 general election).
- I’m not defending flag burning, emulating the loathsome tactics of the Marxist left in this country, but I can certainly cut the SK citizens some slack if their zeal is a bit over the top at times, given the circumstances they live under every day of their lives.
One wonders if Hunter is willing to cut anti-American leftists the same kind of slack for U.S. involvement in Jeju 4.3, Suncheon-Yeosu, Gwangju 1980, or generous U.S. support for autocrats and military dictators between 1948 and 1987 (or 1992, depending on how you consider Roh Tae-woo). The circumstances in which S. Koreans have had to live have indeed been difficult at times, but that hasn’t always been because of the North Korean threat, per say. It wasn’t the North Koreans, after all, who slaughtered pro-democracy activist in Gwangju. Nor was it the North Koreans who rounded up, jailed, and even executed dissidents throughout much of the 60s, 70s, and 80s under a law that thousands of U.S.-flag waving demonstrators converged on Seoul City Hall to support on Monday. And yes, it pisses me off to see my flag used that way — the U.S. does not support the National Security Law, and waiving it around like that smacks just a little too much of the time when South Korea’s past military dictators (whom a number of Monday’s more prominent figures used to work for) used to invoke the U.S. to justify misdeeds the U.S. had nothing to do with.
Now, I’m sure a lot of the demonstrators were there not necessarily because they enjoy torturing dissidents, which thankfully enough doesn’t happen (as far as I know) nowadays, but it was a demonstration convened with the express purpose of opposing the abolition of the National Security Law, and a lot of the guys present — including the so-called national elders — were people who never said a word when the government was heavily involved in the torturing dissidents racket. I should also point out that a lot of the people clamoring against the abolition of the NSL — including a good portion of the opposition Grand National Party and, unfortunately, certain segments of the South Korean media establishment — are more concerned with protecting their own vested interests in a far-from-perfect system that would look decidedly less pleasant if it didn’t have the distinct advantage of having the North Koreans around to make it look good. The “vast majority” of South Koreans recognize this fact and want change. And you’re right, Hunter, in that the South Korean electorate is fairly conservative. Yet it did vote in a bunch of amateur, ideologically confused nitwits in 2002 and 2004 despite the fact that the conservative Grand National Party had the open support of S. Korea’s three largest newspapers and conglomerate-donated slush funds larger than North Korea’s gross domestic product. Heck, if the GNP hadn’t been blessed with a comfortable regional support base, it might have ceased to play a significant role in Korean politics, period. The biggest threat to the Korean right isn’t the North Koreans, South Korean student radicals, OhMyNews, Uri or Democratic Labor parties, or Japanese collaborator investigations. The biggest threat to the right is itself. Had the Korean electorate had an alternative in 2002 and 2004 that was both rational and not stuck in 1961, the political picture in South Korea today would be much different. The fact that the left has gained power in South Korea speaks not of the political skill or competence of either President Roh or the Uri Party; it speaks bushels of the disaster the Korean right has become, including many of the clowns wrapping themselves in the U.S. flag who staged Monday’s protest.
- Watching the thousands of kidnaping’s for ransom, killings, and political assassination attempts over the years by NK murder teams, what’s really surprising is that the SK citizenry show such reserve.
I in no way, shape, or form intend to justify either North Korea’s shenanigans or the pathetic handling of the abduction issue by either the current or previous South Korean administration, but do you think that reserve might have something to do with the fact that the very same citizenry has had to watch thousands of kidnappings, killings, and political assassinations by murder teams dispatched by their own government? Or the fact that previous South Korean administrations were not adverse to engineering “incidents” to further their own domestic political agendas?
- Its easy to see why people, not familiar with the extreme tenseness just beneath the surface, can be confused and misread the normalcy they see. That has more to do with the toughness and adaptability of the SK people more than the any political reality. Robert should either ask a lot more questions first or stick to things he knows about….I don’t generally take bloggers to task but felt compelled to counter this one….
I’ll be the last one to downplay either the toughness or adaptability of the South Korean people. Nor would I deny that there is extreme tension just beneath the surface of the serenity. And I probably do need to ask more questions, because the second option is simply not feasible if I’d like to continue blogging, as I really don’t know much about anything. That being said, if a know-nothing like myself might be so bold as to offer a suggestion to a Korean-literate expert like yourself, I’d encourage you to perhaps dig deeper into that tension — and there is a lot of it — in order to find its sources (this is not to suggest that I have found them, of course). The North-South, left-right conflicts aren’t the only games in town. The issues are complex — much more complex than the incoherent rant I have posted above would suggest — and while there is a tendency to view things in South Korea through the glasses of the intra-Korean and ideological divide (partly because certain groups constantly try to make it look so), the sources of tension are much more diverse. And while it might give one a warm, fuzzy feeling to see Old Glory being waived around at a mass demonstration (beats the hell out of seeing it burnt), a look at the figures and groups involved might make one think twice about whether seeing the symbols of the U.S. invoked at an occasion like Monday’s is such a great thing.
18 Comments
“Be careful who you call clowns. They represent over 60% of the populace and they are finally standing up for those of us who are sick to death of ?橫progressive?? ignorance.”
I think the patience is running thin in Korea. The “progressives” (LOL) was given a benefit of the doubt for a while because it was thought that they would bring real meaningful changes since they were once the oppressed democracy fighters. But now look at the latest polls of Roh with sinking approval ratings and voter opinion ratings sharply swinging toward the GNP. Inexperienced Uri party wants to make sudden wanton changes overnight without thought nor careful planning. Their actions are causing upheaval and confusion instead, destabilizing the entire country. The public want changes, but they also value stability. GNP made a huge mistake when they tried to impeach Roh back in spring. They should have waited for the opportune moment which I’m sure would have been afforded by Roh’s government shooting itself in the foot.
Liked your comment about experts. Just because you can read a newspaper in a foreign language doesn’t mean you’re an expert!
As a true expert myself, I have to warn people that even though the talking heads on TV might seem to have authority when they speak, since they sound smart and have the “expert” label at the bottom of the screen, in real life people have to persuade with actually logical arguments.
As a total layman to Korean politics I found your first post on this subject clear and understandable.
David Hackworth (the US Army retired full colonel; he has his own web site, where he enjoys sticking his thumb in the eye of the Pentagon as much as possible) once said on TV that the Koreans are the “Irishmen” of Asia (referring to the old pugilistic stereotype, not the modern one of pacifism and neutrality). I let that serve as my one rule for Korean politics while slowly absorbing who’s who over there.
The more I read you and other Korean bloggers the more I’m convinced (like you) that we must withdraw our ground forces and let ROK pull its own weight in this arena. If the ROK needs such ground based weapons sytems as the MLRS to counter NorK artillery (your previous topic immediately below), they are perfectly capable of doing it themselves. We can provide air/naval support in support of the alliance as long as they want it.
Being totally involved in the civil wars and politics of one Third World country is one too many. Such a withdrawal would serve to get our flag out of the middle of South Korean politics, in a symbolic (as compared with your literal) way.
The problem of North Korea is one for the local major powers to take the lead in solving, and we need to get it off our back and onto theirs.
I’m curious why the Marmot is willing to talk about what a disaster the Korean right is without mentioning how disasterous the US right-wing has become.
The GOP, after all, is now full of people who lionize a president who has wracked up massive debts, pushed a useless constitutional amendment, rushed to war on false intelligence and then argued for its necessity on humanitarian grounds, intervened in the market to prop up the steel industry, blocked scientific research, and is dealing with America’s most serious foreign threat - North Korea - by handing the reins over to China.
If the GNP looks hypocritical and confused, take a look at the GOP.
‘korea is third world.’ paul h
korea’s third world? yet another sign underlying paul’s ignorance
of south korea. one would wonder if he might try and learn a bit about
the place before he writes about it.
south korea is no third world country, paul.
***
everybody knows you’re smart, mr marmot. you know
your shit when it comes the yemaek(what’s that, paul?).
Marmot, I suggest you put your “rant warning” in bigger letters because I ended up reading it, anyway.
I like your more meatier posts, not the defensive ones sprinkled with snide remarks and unsupported allegations of inappropriate US behavior. For example, if you are going to suggest that the anti-US left have a right to be upset with the US for her involvement in the Jeju, Suncheon/Yeosu, and Gwangju massacres, then maybe you should take the time to explain exactly how she was involved since your comments may lead some to jump to conclusions you did not intend. I am especially interested to know why you think the anti-US left have a right to be upset with the role of the US in the Gwangju massacre?
Almost any law can be abused in the wrong hands, but don’t you think that Korean democracy may have developed to a stage where the National Security Law (NSL) can be used without being abused or maybe used with only a few amendments?
If South Korea were Canada, then I would probably agree with you that the NSL is “anachronistic,” but South Korea is not Canada. She has North Korea on her border, not the US.
Also, by suggesting that the people at the rally waving US flags in support of the NSL have questionable affiliations or backgrounds and should, therefore, be ignored, you seem to be ignoring the fact that more than 60 percent of South Korea’s population also want to keep the NSL.
“The biggest threat to the Korean right isn??t the North Koreans, South Korean student radicals, OhMyNews, Uri or Democratic Labor parties, or Japanese collaborator investigations. The biggest threat to the right is itself.”
Um…is there a polite way to say “wrong”?
Uri Party IS the biggest organized threat to Korea’s future today. Their policies may be summarized as ” wishful thinking” - ignoring the national defence, alienating their US allies, coddling special interests, opposing business are all undermining Korea’s national interests.
“Had the Korean electorate had an alternative in 2002 and 2004 that was both rational and not stuck in 1961, the political picture in South Korea today would be much different.”
Yes, Korea is stuck in 1961, so how would it be possible to have a “choice”? We are a polarized, self-divided people.
“The fact that the left has gained power in South Korea speaks not of the political skill or competence of either President Roh or the Uri Party”
Lol, of course not. It speaks of the stupidity of the public.
“it speaks bushels of the disaster the Korean right has become”
No, it speaks of the fact that there is no middle ground. That is Korea. Get used to it.
“including many of the clowns wrapping themselves in the U.S. flag who staged Monday??s protest.”
Be careful who you call clowns. They represent over 60% of the populace and they are finally standing up for those of us who are sick to death of “progressive” ignorance.
Thanks Kimbob for the most objective and insightful comment I’ve read in a long time.
ROK = bona fide member of First World (functioning democracy, advanced economy, etc)
DPRK = definitely a Third World denizen of the heart of darkness
I suppose I put them both together and took the lowest common denominator. Sorry not to be more specific, but I was taking seriously the grand vision of Korean unification. Or is that only reserved for Koreans? Once our ground forces are gone and out of the middle I’ll be happy to “butt out” and leave the issue for the inhabitants of the peninsula to solve at their leisure.
Sorry to appear so “ignorant”, nulji, but I’ll try to look on the bright side — after all, I did give you a chance to sneer at another “ignorant” American.
Reference U.S. involvement in Cheju-do. If my history book is correct, there were 500 U.S. advisors in KMAG then, some of whom were accompanying ROK units engaged in counterinsurgency operations. The nature of such advisory duties are that you accompany the unit, render advice when asked, and generally report back to your commander how the unit functions on operations. Your counterpart, of course, reports his view of things up through his chain of command. You have no authority to give any advice, except through the power of whatever personal relationship you have developed with your counterpart. If that relationship is based upon respect and trust, he will listen to you politely. That does NOT guarantee that he will take it. You might get a little extra leverage if you have the power to steer improved weapons, radios, or other equipment his way. Otherwise, he simply does what he intended to do in the first place and damn your opinions, you can keep them to yourself. Advisory duties are among the most frustrating military assignments. You get the blame from your chain of command for everything they think is wrong with your counterpart’s.
By the way, we were advising the Greeks in their civil war during the same time frame, and the general in charge of that operation was none other than James Van Fleet.
So, the U.S. was advising the ROK, much as the Russians were advising the NORKs. Not only in the military, but in the civil sphere. We were to get out of that on 15 AUg 48 when the ROK was declared. Sounds to me like the Koreans were responsible for whatever they did to other Koreans. The U.S. were mere interested by-standers, they did not call the shots.
As for “third world”, while I greatly admire Koreans and what they’ve done with Korea, I would venture the opinion that “third world” refers to more than a country’s infrastructure. I have heard it used to describe mental attitudes more in tune with underdeveloped countries. Latin friends used to cite Puerto Rico as an example of a country with a first world infrastructure (thanks to 13 billion a year in U.S. federal subsidies), and a third world mentality, particularly on the left. Everything wrong with the country was always the fault of someone else, usually the damned Yankees who had so shamefully exploited the country by pushing all that federal largesse down its throat to keep in in servitude. Everything right with the country (such as the modern infrastructure) was, of course, through their own hard work and efforts. A much better explanation can be found in a small book entitled “The Manual of the Perfect Latin American Idiot”, authored by a Peruvian, a Cuban, and a Colombian, all of whom confess to having once been strident, anti-yanqui, leftists.
‘third world mentalities usually try to blame someone else for
their problems.’
yeah, and the right in america usaully tries to blame clinton for
all of america’s woes. the right also tries to blame the entire world for
the worldwide hatred felt for america under bush. perhaps we’re becoming
a third world nation too.
‘compare south korea to latin america’
any latin american country on par with south korea? sorry, puerto
rico no cut no mustard compared to the good people of koguryo, baekche,
and shilla. try again.
btw, another good book for someone like you with your first wold mentality is
‘Mein Kampf’
********
well, paul, i don’t attack my fellow americans without cause. your comment
about sk needing a ‘khan type’ realy floored me. how can you comment about things
you know nothing about? it’s folks like you who get us into messes like iraq and vietnam.
you don’t do your homework
Robert - a.k.a. Marmot
Actually I don’t really understand the back-lash. You merely gave your own opinion that basically the protestors should not have been waving the Stars and Stripes because this is purely an internal affair and the United States has no “real” stake in the issue. I don’t think they should be waving our flag around for something like this for the same reasons you gave. This gives those who hate the United States just another thing to point out that the United States supposedly supports and meddles in. The other incidents are outside of my field (Cheju, Kwangju..etc., but I have always felt that the United States is just a handy scape goat for when ever we want to lay blame at someone’s feet.
Kwangju - we know that it was a horrible event, a massacre, yet where are the trials for the number of murders that were committed by the South Korean soldiers? Everyone points at the United States, but from the way I remember it - the Americans weren’t shooting the South Koreans - they were covering the DMZ.
Obviously out of my field so I apologize for the run-on. Contact me Marmot - I have been waiting for your call or e-mail. I know we went out drinking that night but to the best of my knowledge nothing happened so why are you treating me like a cheap one night lay? ^^ Just kidding - I think
Dude, you’re on my MSN messenger list… once you add me to your contacts we should be good to go.
what a know-it-all, self important, blowhard. you should have just ignored him robert.
as for gwanju… jimuh “peanut man” carter was president when that happened. he had the power to stop it and didn?t so if the left gets mad at the US it should also get mad at itself.
re: third world comment, having lived in korea for several years makes me a bonafide expert on korea?s economy. but since i like facts and figures.. you can compare for yourselves the economies of korea and brazil (maybe this is subjective but i consider brasil a banana republic) and decide for yourself whether korea is a third world country.
i personally side with paul in this matter. korea has benifitted from it?s relationship with the US more than any other country and left to it?s own devices would not have come close to achieving the amount of success in it?s economy. pre-war korea was a mess and was primarily an agriculture market (blame the japs if you want) but it wasn?t until after the war and massive US capital inflows that korea?s economy grew and by any stretch of the imagination, korea hasn?t even come close to achieving the success that japan has post war and we gave them pennies to the dollar that we gave korea.
Commentors above have said everything I want to say. Superlative post, Marmot, this is exactly the kind of thing I and I think a lot of people come looking for.
“well, paul, i don??t attack my fellow americans without cause. your comment
about sk needing a ??khan type?? realy floored me.”
You must be adept at being floored by your own imagination, Nulji (since this reference is totally imaginary). I’ve never said anything of the kind.
“it??s folks like you who get us into messes like iraq and vietnam.
you don??t do your homework”.
I’ve done enough homework to know that ROK is a functioning democracy (unlike the two examples you cite). South Koreans are enjoying some of the rewards of this, and my only point is that it’s time for them to assume some of the burdens as well, by being responsible for their own ground defense (while we applaud and support — from a distance).
paul, you did write about the possibility of sk needing a khan
type to build a nuclear bomb. of course, you were corrected by the posters
on this board but the statement just underlined another statement you
made indicating you knew little about korea.
you seem to have an interest in the place, is this interest based entirely on the negative?
is all you know about young punks burning the american flag? the koreans are old and have an interesting culture and history. why not learn about it?
Eyes on Korea: 2004-10-26
Eberstadt’s article; China plans annexation?; NK defectors making “big push”; Chinese humanitarianism; Reactions to the NK Human Rights Act; The information war; NK prison camps; Various diplomatic military strategies; ROK in Iraq; Anti-Americanis…