In a CSM piece on the brouhaha over Douglas MacArthur’s statue in Incheon, Korea’s National Human Rights Commission is credited with issuing a statement in support of pulling down the statue of the U.S. general:
“General MacArthur is a maniac for war,” says one professor, Kang Jeong Ku, whose comments are handed out in fliers at demonstrations.
That remark has the full support of the quasi-governmental National Human Rights Commission, which fueled the protest with a statement condemning MacArthur as “a war criminal who massacred numerous civilians.”
Indeed, the commission adds, “To induce or force children to respect such a person by erecting a statue of him and teaching them that he is a great figure is a national disgrace and greatly injures the dignity of our people.”
Lots of negative things can be said about the NHRC, but a quick search of the Korean news has turned up nada about the commission making such a statement. And I’m certain that the nation’s three largest papers (and others) would have simultaneously issued editorials blasting such a statement had it been made. This leads me to believe that something got mixed up with the CSM piece. Ordinarily, I wouldn’t get overexcited about it, but given how the NHRC is a government body, it could cause problems if the commission is mistakenly credited with a statement of that nature. Anyway, if I’m mistaken and the NHRC did make the statement, props to the CSM for pointing it out. If my gut instinct is right and there was a mistake made, I hope a correction is made right away before U.S. lawmakers get a hold of it and bilateral ties unnecessarily sink lower than they already are.
12 Comments
I’ve invited the HRC to “check the facts.” When they oblige, I’ll print their response.
Of course, Don Kirk didn’t show up in Korea yesterday. Other than suggesting that the absence of evidence equals evidence of absence, what other basis do you have to question the veracity of his report? The lack of a formal statement could just as well indicate political divisions in the HRC, or its understandable desire not to publicize this until it gets some idea of the reaction in the US. We will know soon enough, because dozens of US dailies are now carrying the story. Nor would this be the HRC’s first wild veer leftward of matters within the scope of its core mission.
I tried my hand at a search too. Let me tell you I’m very good at such searches.
Anyone with any understanding of how South Korean society knows there would be a major super duper $h!+storm if the HRC were to make such a statement. It would be just so utterly not possible for the HRC to say something like that without all the daily papers dedicating editorials to the subject, with most of them quoting (for example) Park Geun Hye and what she has to say about it, and please note that she has not said anything. The groups that wave American flags to express their Korean patriotism at Seoul city hall plaza would be at it again. It just simply isn’t possible for a government body to say such things about MacArthur without it being a major scandal. It is so obvious that one American I know who voted for Bush and isn’t fond of Roh has his doubts because he knows how it works, so take that into consideration too.
I also know Don Kirk wouldn’t lie, and even if that were somehow even a possibility he’s not so stupid that he would waste away his reputation. What seems possible to me is that he was lied to by an informant/interpreter/somebody since I do not believe he reads Korean himself and since GNP right-wing types have been known to mislead the foreign press, or that someone in the HRC did actually say something along the lines of those quotes in CSM. As Joshua notes above there might be “divisions” in the HRC, and if I recall it would not be the first time that individuals working there have been found to have “problematic” ideas or pasts. If that was what happened it would mean something went wrong with the story itself, perhaps at CSM’s end. I guess the only other possibility I can think of is that some sort of “official” statement eneded up in his hands without being circulated to the Korean media, and as much as I do doubt the HRC would ever say such things officially, it would mean that hell will indeed break loose when the Korean press catches up with the story. (Many may recall how the National Election Commission sent different reports of its findings on Roh’s alleged election law violation to Roh on the one hand and then the National Assembly on the other. It told Roh he didn’t do anything wrong and the NA that it did, so when Roh said he had nothing to apologize for the NA majority found that much more reason to impeach.)
At a typical demonstration last month, hundreds of Korean riot police were there both to protect the statue and defend the leftists against the veterans, who threatened to beat them.
My, how things have changed … First Paik Sun Yup gets hit by a water cannon while protesting against President Roh. Then riot police show up to protect a bunch of leftists from their grandparents. What’s next?
I did find this reference from boston.com, which suggests that inflammatory quote did not originate from the HRC:
http://www.boston.com/news/wor.....a_protest/
“MacArthur is a war criminal who massacred numerous civilians at the time of the Korean War,” anti-U.S. groups said in a plea submitted to South Korea’s National Human Rights Commission last month.
“To induce or force children to respect such a person by erecting a statue of him and teaching them that he is a great figure is a national disgrace and greatly injures the dignity of our people,” they said.
I have now contacted both Don Kirk and the HRC, and will post complete responses when I get them. So we’ll see.
I guess I’m just stupid when it comes to the power of symbolism.
I didn’t even react to the first MacArthur stories with a yawn. I read the headlines and moved on. A read an article or 2 once the blogging community started covering it more. I still didn’t see it as a key item in the anti-US-SK thing. What is going on in Pyongtaek is way more interesting and a meaty issue to examine. But, now the US press is picking up on statue…
In 2002, a GI gets held captive and forced to participate in an anti-USFK rally as well as beaten with his two GI buddies who managed to escape, and the American media runs two stories on it — 2.
2002 - I know of 3 or 4 pre-blogger Korea expats set up websites specifically to get the word out - because after having peppered the US media with links, images, news clippings, links to the videos of the protests, begging, pleading, crying, knashing teeth and pulling out hair, for weeks going on to months!! —- I mean, we eventually got together a list of emails to the international desks of over a dozen major US print and television news orgs and passed around links and articles to each other and other expats so we could hit them over the head with them from a variety of emailers
Considering human rights and the willingness of many in both Koreas to ignore them, there is this article in the NYT: Christian Groups Press Bush About North Korea
Per the article:
“God has picked us to be their voice,” Deborah Fikes, executive director of the Midland Ministerial Alliance and the main organizer of the Korean display, told a cluster of children gawking at the gas chamber figures. “Christ commands us to be their voice.”
Last month, Ms. Fikes joined dozens of other people from the National Association of Evangelicals, the Southern Baptist Convention and groups like the Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism for a meeting in Washington, where they signed a declaration of principles that laid out their goals.
Their aim is to goad the administration to block trade or unrestricted aid to North Korea until it opens its borders and begins to reform human rights, no matter how much that demand might complicate the talks to stop Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program or irk China or American allies like South Korea that favor a less confrontational approach. Although Japan has raised the question of the North Korean abduction of several Japanese decades ago, a broader discussion of North Korean human rights has not been a part of the talks.
Considering the news I read, it really makes one wonder if Korea shall only ever be united in suffering and folly because what I read does not give me hope.
I read all three major Korean Newspapers, Chosun, Donga and JoongAng. There was no story like the one covered by CSM.
CSM’d better pull the story before it is too late. If this thing gets out of hand, Rho himself will ask CSM to leave Korea.
If memory servers than this organization is a “cover” for the NHRC. I went to a “peace discussion” meeting there once and all members were part of the HRC.
I’m tempted to go back and simply ask them if they made the statement.
FWIW I’ve yet to see any mention of a MacArthur statue story on any US TV network. And they’ve been fairly regularly mentioning the six-party talks.
Not a comprehensive sample by any means but I usually have at least one cable all news channel on. Mostly FOX, but last night PBS News Hour devoted one of their in depth segments to an interval with US Ambassador Hill, whom I found quite impressive.
Well, it seems that the NHRC has made the news for something else
“Having received the report it commissioned, the NHRC said it would be used as internal reference material and there were no plans to publish it as in any way reflecting the views of the commission. Apparently, the NHRC worries that its publication would invite the displeasure of Pyongyang and complicate inter-Korean relations.”
The online edition of the article has now been corrected. The relevant paragraph now reads:
“A complaint filed with the quasi-governmental National Human Rights Commission, which is reviewing the statue controversy, condemns MacArthur as “a war criminal who massacred numerous civilians.” The complaint adds, “To induce or force children to respect such a person by erecting a statue of him and teaching them that he is a great figure is a national disgrace and greatly injures the dignity of our people.” [Editor's note: The original version mistakenly had the MacArthur quote coming from the commission instead of from a complaint filed with the commission.]”
However, Mr. Kirk or the editors at the CSM should have deleted the next paragraph as well–though this was most likely an editorial oversight:
“The question is whether the view of the commission reflects the outlook of the government of President Roh Moo Hyun, whose soft-line policy on North Korea has often conflicted with the relatively tough line of the Bush administration.”