By SHELTON BUMGARNER
Marmot’s Hole Guest Blogger
One of the side issues of the most recent round of the six-way talks is the notion that a peace treaty ending the Korean War might be signed at some point in the near future.
Although the issues that would have to be resolved between now and the actual signing ceremony are daunting to say the least, according to The JoongAng Daily.
First, establishing trust between the two Koreas is essential ?? particularly between the militaries. Whatever North Korean threats might trigger another war would have to be removed.
Only then, experts say, would it be possible to shut down the United Nations Command, which is in charge of maintaining the terms of the armistice.
North Korean mechanized units, long-range artillery and fighter aircraft, which are near the border and pose the constant threat of a surprise attack on the South, would need to be moved to the rear. The reduction of guardposts along the inter-Korean border would also be necessary.
In order to begin establishing trust between the Korean militaries, officers would need to exchange visits, and reciprocal observation of training exercises would be needed.
The Korea Times goes for understatement at the end of its piece on the matter:
The U.S. has kept tens of thousands of soldiers on the southern part of the peninsula in the past decades to help South Korea protect itself from any possible invasion from the Stalinist North. Pundits say a peace treaty would have a significant impact on the status of the forces.
44 Comments
Paul, I think you are misunderstanding me here. I am NOT against a peace treaty. I think it’s a good idea because it should remove some tension and pretext for flare-ups. Those were just musings when I asked what it would mean regarding the North’s behavior.
But I think you misinterpret what a peace treaty would mean. The North would still be a potential threat, as would China. A peace treaty would not make USFK withdrawal much more likely, although the force could be pared down. Japan is not at war with anyone, but the US defends them on their soil, against the same potential belligerents. US forces in Northeast Asia hem in the Chinese and keep the Japanese and the Chinese away from each other, which leads to stability and promotes American values and economic interests. That is not going to change with a peace treaty.
Come to think of it, though, I don’t think a peace treaty will happen, and that is because of the disputed waters. South Korea controls waters based on the Northern Limit Line (NLL), but this is not a maritime border the DPRK agreed to. It’s highly doubtful that they would agree to it, and they would insist on getting their waters back as part of any peace agreement. The ROK would not be willing to give that up, and this would likely scuttle any chance of a peace agreement.
[In my opinion, however, this is one issue where the DPRK may perhaps be in the right. The ROK government made the NLL line in the Yellow Sea based on pre-war territory later lost to the DPRK, and in the East Sea (Sea of Japan) based on territory gained from the DPRK in the war. Quite a bit of water would be lost if they chose either pre- or post-war territory as the basis, and some islands under Inchon metropolitan administration would be very, very vulnerable if it is the post-war basis for the waters.]
As for my comments about American lip service on human rights, I would love to see the U.S. government do exactly what I suggested. I don’t think they will (and this is not a partisan comment, since most Repubs and Dems alike probably lack the background to put action behind the words).
One other thing, around the world, or at least in Asia, the U.S. does suffer indignities. People in Okinawa are not particuarly fond of our presence there. Even some of our own countrymen in Puerto Rico and Guam have issues with the U.S. military presence.
Roh is immensely unpopular right now. His 40-points-range plurality in 2002 has been cut in half. Papers like the Chosun Ilbo make clear that his gaffes are to blame for the deterioration of US-ROK relations that are only now starting to mend. His reaction? He is trying to force a law that will limit the Chosun Ilbo’s market share. Please, Paul, don’t believe the hype. There are a lot of people who like the U.S. here, and not just the older generation. Things are far from perfect, and all sides need to watch what they say and do, but it’s quite different from what you think. Seriously, if you ever do make it over here, I’d love to host you on a trip to the War Memorial, the DMZ, Kanghwa-do, a few other locations, and a beer at the Navy Club.
Baduk wrote:The case in point; Professor Kang(one of the f***ups), who insisted the Korean War was a unification effort and thereby justified, is being kicked out of DongKuk university.Really? Do you have a link? Oh, that makes me so, so, so, so, so happy.
Just one thing…will the North Korean police honor my SOFA status when I run over one of their peasants?
If that “professor” Kang is being kicked out of Dongkuk, then it is good to know that there are some consequences for ignorance in Seoul. I only wish more people would get sacked for the lousy state of education in the current system.
It seems that one hallmark of institutionalized ignorance in Korea (and elsewhere) is that if one does something that is wrong, consistently and long enough, their dilegence shall turn their vice into a virtue!
If that ??professor?? Kang is being kicked out of Dongkuk, then it is good to know that there are some consequences for ignorance in Seoul.There are consequences for ignorance: they’re called elections.I only wish more people would get sacked for the lousy state of education in the current system.People who actively spread such nonsense need to be put in check. Despite my earlier comment, I am always more than just a little concerned when there are calls for people to resign or get forced out because of an unpopular view (the Korea University professor’s allegedly “pro-Japanese” views serve as an example), but this guy truly deserved it.It seems that one hallmark of institutionalized ignorance in Korea (and elsewhere) is that if one does something that is wrong, consistently and long enough, their dilegence shall turn their vice into a virtue!Hardly just the hallmark of Korea.
Just one thing???will the North Korean police honor my SOFA status when I run over one of their peasants?Hmm… China will try to block any reunification unless USFK is not anywhere in the former DPRK (or at least not north of Pyongyang and Wonsan). You probably needn’t worry about it.
“North Korean mechanized units, long-range artillery and fighter aircraft, which are near the border and pose the constant threat of a surprise attack on the South, would need to be moved to the rear.”
Dream on. NK’s sole purpose of existence is to subjugate the SK by brutal force and unite the peninsula under Kim’s family rule. Their total education system is set up to breed soldiers who will die under Kim’s command.
If NK were a normal country run by its citizens, it would have opened its borders long time ago. But, as the longest running tyrant family in the human history, Kim IlSung and Kim Jongil prevented even the minimum rights given to its citizens.
They deserve the worst punishment dealt out by entire world. Their regime needs to be utterly destroyed to set the example for the future tyrants.
And, any f***up in SK who aids KJI in the name of unification should meet the same fate as the Great Leader.
“There is a hungry rabid wolf waiting to eat us at our door. Humm, maybe if we treat him real nice and let him in, he will sit down be nice to us.”
WAKE UP! The 2030 generation will drone on and on about Dokdo and completely forget about the psycho sitting on thier doorstep. Where is angry Cold War odeshi when you need him?
Baduk, for most of my life I’ve agreed with you about the inherent evil of the DPRK. For that matter, still do.
I take it you’re of Korean extraction? If you’ve got any Korean language skills left as a result of your heritage, I suggest you get over to Korean language blogs and make your arguments there.
However, I’ve got a suggestion: threats against ROK voters (along the lines of your last remark) probably won’t go over well, indeed will backfire. You need to try “another persuasive technique”.
It’s the young voters of the ROK who need convincing that the DPRK should not be propped up in any way. The DPRK is ultimately their problem, not the US’s.
It’s hard to be more catholic than the Pope; I think the US is rapidly growing weary of making the theological argument. I admit a certain degree of US responsibility for the current strains in the alliance: the totality of the 8 years of Clinton administration policy toward the DPRK, followed by Bush and his intemperate remarks, must have given ROK voters a violent case of whiplash.
But go to onefreekorea web site for his current entry. I guess many many ROK voters must still be absolutely convinced that the US alliance is “infinitely kickable” like a football, though I will grant you that ROK anti-US demonstrations have fallen off significantly since Rumsfeld announced the withdrawl and the repositioning plans.
If I were the US administration I’d be making life equally politically difficult for the various ROK political parties as they make it for the US. How? By publicly putting, enormous emphasis on DPRK human rights violations and the ROK’s rank hypocrisy in this matter.
Every time ROK authorities call for a trial of an US military vehicle driver who clearly only accidentally killed a Korean pedestrian, they ought to have their noses rubbed in the actuality of what they are not doing (ie calling with equal fervor for trials of DPRK human rights violaters).
Also by publicly calling for the ROK to hold a national referendum on the continued presence of the USFK. These are some examples of the political techniques that IMO need to be employed by staunch ROK anti-Communists (not insults accompanied by the rhetorical display of the “gleaming edge” of a bayonet).
The 2030 generation will drone on and on about DokdoExcept for the Tokto-in-watermelon artwork (another form of ?????????), almost all the people I hear mentioning Tokto lately are non-Korean bloggers. Tokto enthusiasm is, for many, a reactive issue.
Paul H. wrote, to Baduk:If you???ve got any Korean language skills left as a result of your heritage, I suggest you get over to Korean language blogs and make your arguments there.I think that would be a disaster. His sounder statements about the North Korean threat would be offset when he mentions Hwang being a liar and cloning being a big scam, or Schwarzenegger being paid off by Toyota, etc. People will start associating the North-is-a-threat view as crazed rants.However, I??ve got a suggestion: threats against ROK voters (along the lines of your last remark) probably won??t go over well, indeed will backfire. You need to try ??another persuasive technique??.I think you’re right. I think they would backfire big time.
This is something I always wondered if there were peace treaty. Right now, in a state of war where incidents do occasionally happen and there is an Armistice Commission that is tasked with dealing with it swiftly, things have not boiled over.
But what if the the same types of events (shooting incidents after crossing the murky maritime border) were to occur in a post-peace treaty world? These would be acts of war! Could they lead to a wider war more easily than now? Could they lead to the possibly disastrous war that decides which side unifies the peninsula? Would nothing happen? If nothing happened, would an outraged electorate vote out the current government?
Maybe it’s not fair to assume that North Korea would do these things post-treaty when they haven’t yet. Maybe a peace treaty would make them actually behave. Maybe.
The idea that ROK forces could or should be removed from the DMZ-turned-border is criminally naive.
It??s the young voters of the ROK who need convincing that the DPRK should not be propped up in any way. The DPRK is ultimately their problem, not the US??s.I don’t think that’s quite the view some of the voters have. It’s more like give the North a lifeline and get them stronger in order to make reunification far less painful.
Correctly or not, many Koreans don’t feel that giving or yanking South Korean aid will slow down or speed up the North’s demise. In my opinion, it’s ultimately China that decides that. Some South Koreans, though, don’t think about it that far, and they do just want to push reunification off into the distance, as you state.It??s hard to be more catholic than the Pope; I think the US is rapidly growing weary of making the theological argument.There are plenty in the pulpits listening and shouting “Hallelujah!” The Chosun Ilbo, Korea’s most widely read newspaper (?) supports most (?) of the U.S.’s views on North Korea.I admit a certain degree of US responsibility for the current strains in the alliance: the totality of the 8 years of Clinton administration policy toward the DPRK, followed by Bush and his intemperate remarks, must have given ROK voters a violent case of whiplash.I think it is also the Iraq War that had something to do with that; many people really thought Bush might likely invade the North. I think that now that Bush has had his people sit down with Pyongyang, that worries about Bush are subsidizing.But go to onefreekorea web site for his current entry. I guess many many ROK voters must still be absolutely convinced that the US alliance is ??infinitely kickable?? like a football, though I will grant you that ROK anti-US demonstrations have fallen off significantly since Rumsfeld announced the withdrawl and the repositioning plans.It’s important to put this into context. There are far-left, often pro-North groups (some getting their cues from Pyongyang directly) that are hell-bent on agitating the US military. They will always be there, kicking the USFK football. It’s one way they get recognition for their wider viewpoint.
Then there will always be people who, despite generally accepting or appreciating the USKF presence, get upset over certain incidents, like the rash of stupidity we saw last month. In cases like that, if we don’t want to see USFK kicked around like a football, then people should act smarter than pigskin.If I were the US administration I??d be making life equally politically difficult for the various ROK political parties as they make it for the US. How? By publicly putting, enormous emphasis on DPRK human rights violations and the ROK??s rank hypocrisy in this matter.That’s not going to happen, because it would actually require substantial deeds on the part of the U.S. Will it take in North Korean refugees (like it did with the Hmong)? Will it use its economic influence with China to get China to stop hunting down and repatriating North Korean refugees? Will it spend some of its resources to build refugee camps in Mongolia?
It’s very easy to criticize a compassion-fatigued South Korea, but it’s only South Korea that’s taking in North Korean refugees, setting them up in apartments and giving them stipends. The South Korean and Japanese NGOs and religious groups (and American groups) that get North Koreans out of China and the DPRK send them to the ROK. Will that change?
The U.S. (along with Japan and South Korea) is a major provider of food aid (I interviewed the head of the World Food Program early last year and he went out of his way to commend these three for keeping up food aid despite the North’s behavior). But for your suggestion to work, the U.S. government would have to produce far more than food shipments. On human rights, it only produces sound waves in air.
Criticism of South Korea is easy, but it is only South Korea that is taking them in. Sure, these people are, by ROK law, eligible for resettlement in the South, but not all of the refugees want to go there. Some want to go to the U.S. Why don’t we let them?
I guess my point is that, on issues such as dealing with the North, we have a series of bad choices. The only real way to end the regime would be to deflate it, with a mass exodus, and it’s not even clear tht would work. But trying it would cost billions, not just to South Korea, but to other participants. Are they ready to step up and not just talk about the human rights issue?Every time ROK authorities call for a trial of an US military vehicle driver who clearly only accidentally killed a Korean pedestrian,Are you talking about the recent incident, or are you talking about the 2002 incident? There hasn’t been a lot of call for trying the driver in the recent incident (although if he were a Korean national, he would be facing some legal and financial difficulties; it’s something that needs to be changed about the traffic law system in Korea. I should write an editorial.)
The 2002 incident did, according to people I talked to, go beyond a mere accident. There was wilful neglect, but the people responsible weren’t the ones on trial.they ought to have their noses rubbed in the actuality of what they are not doing (ie calling with equal fervor for trials of DPRK human rights violaters). You mean ROK citizens who do this (there are some, arguably) or DPRK people who do this? If you mean the latter, I think it would be interesting, but perhaps counterproductive. The close-up-shop deal to end the DPRK regime might involve a promise to allow passage to a fat and happy exile somewhere, putting the prevention of future injustice ahead of the need to punish for past injustice.
Or did you mean China? Maybe the US should also call for trials of PRC citizens who violate DPRK human rights. That would be utterly non-hypocritical.Also by publicly calling for the ROK to hold a national referendum on the continued presence of the USFK. These are some examples of the political techniques that IMO need to be employed by staunch ROK anti-Communists (not insults accompanied by the rhetorical display of the ??gleaming edge?? of a bayonet).Has such a referendum been done in other countries? How aobut in the United States? There are certain matters of national security that are not to be left up to manipulable popularity contests.
“But what if the the same types of events (shooting incidents after crossing the murky maritime border) were to occur in a post-peace treaty world? These would be acts of war!…”
It’s an act of war whether it’s an armistice violation or a peace treaty violation. If you don’t respond forcefully to the first, why are you worried about some “theoretical” need to respond forcefuly to the second? Both should be taken equally “seriously” as a matter of war, politics, and diplomacy.
A rhetorical question, I’ll tell you why you’re worried. If it was still a “real” armistice, and the US and the ROK were still in concert on these matters, they would have responded jointly to provocations by genuine retaliatory measures.
DMZ shooting incidents, unobserved by an independent third party (International Control Commission) or undocumented by videotape are always going to be subject to dispute over who “started” them.
But when North Korea “escalated” such incidents in the past by inciting ones outside the DMZ (ie, a North Korean patrol boat makes an unprovoked attack on an ROK patrol boat in disputed waters, or a North Korean midget sub lands a suicidal commando force on ROK territory, or North korean agents use a bomb to blow up an ROK airliner, and one of the agents gets caught and confesses)– and such things weren’t forcefully retaliated against — that’s when the
“armistice” became a farce (or a diplomatic fiction, if you want to use a more polite term).
If it was still a real “armistice”, such things ought to be met with joint US/ROK military counter-escalation. Such as an announced US/ROK blockade on North Korean ports of origin for these attacking vessels; or air attacks on North Korean naval vessels that venture out to sea; or selective airstrikes on selected North Korean military targets.
The very idea of such things would produce gasps of dismay among modern South Koreans, and so are not even remotely politically feasible (nor have they been for many years). So — if the North is free to clearly violate the “armistice” in this way, and the US and ROK feel constrained not to retaliate, then as far as I’m concerned a de facto “peace treaty” has already been concluded. It’s completely phony not to recognize this state of affairs by signing an actual one.
For a potential peace treaty, the US and ROK could currently insist on including all the current various forms of aid and subsidy to the North as part of the conditions for no further “misconduct”.
Then agree that all other matters should be left to joint talks between the two Koreas, and then pull the US troops out.
Maybe there’s a chance that the North will refrain from further incidents of this sort, as well as actually negotiate with the ROK (but if not, what difference would it make anyway? DPRK doesn’t have the resources to mount a 1950-style invasion anymore, the PRC won’t help them to do this, indeed the PRC could be made a party to the peace treaty and agree to use their “good offices” to assist along the lines of the 1882 Chemulpo treaty (US interpretation).
So what if there’s not an armistice commission, so much the better as far as I’m concerned, it gets the US out of the middle and neither side in the Korean “civil war” is able to any longer use the US as a convenient “football”, in order to postpone indefinitely the need to deal with the other side politically on a realistic basis — something that has been totally frozen for 55 years now.
And that’s your real problem with the idea of a peace treaty, Kushibo, it’s the fact that current “armistice” arrangement forces the US to provide “stability” in the DPRK-ROK relationship. This has costed (and continues to cost) the US considerable resources in time and money, not to mention an increasing amount of humiliation (in the past from the DPRK but now also increasingly from the ROK).
This is a price you are willing to pay; I no longer am. That’s the difference between us; if you were willing to go along with me to strain at an analogy, one could even call our argument a 54- year “extension” of the Truman-MacArthur dispute (with the important proviso that I will shut up about it here if ordered to do so by the POTUS, in fact I wouldn’t be here shooting my mouth off now if I were still on active duty).
A certain amount of diplomatic and political “pretense” is useful but ultimately reality has to assert itself. There’s probably nothing quite like the current Korean peninsula situation anywhere in the history of the world; no other power besides the post-WWII US would have endured the indignities of the current situation quite so long.
But at some point reality will have to be acknowledged;, new bandaids can only be reapplied over a festering sore for so long. I favor forcing the issue of such recognition now, before conditions deteriorate further and the US is forced to make “concessions” under terms more unfavorable than already exist (ie a war appears imminent, either in Korea or elsewhere in Asia, and an ROK admininstration finds itself caught between the desires of its ally the US and its own voters’s wishes — to a much greater extent than currently already exists).
I’ll try to comment more on some of your other points later…
There are only 10% f***ups in Korea. 90% of Koreans are definitely not pro-KJI.
Paul H., you and other ex-patriots assumed wrong. Most Koreans are still Anti-communist and pro-American. The case in point; Professor Kang(one of the f***ups), who insisted the Korean War was a unification effort and thereby justified, is being kicked out of DongKuk university.
He should never have been given the professorship. DongKuk university is the third rate school, with no scholars to speak of. Just a mundane factory to produce idiots.
10% is still way too much. 1% is still way too much.
Baduk: I’d be truly hurt if I thought you were deliberately calling me an “ex-patriot” (the US deserter Jenkins was an extreme example of this).
I’m resident in the US currently, so am not an
“expatriate” (commonly spelled “expat” on this board as slang shorthand (one who lives in a foreign land, not necessarily by reason of having renounced his country though this is evidently one meaning).
Same Latin root, so your English error is a very slight one. I offer the correction here only to assist, not to rebuke.
Expatriate
Pronunciation: ek-’spA-trE-”At
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): -at?ed; -at?ing
Etymology: Medieval Latin expatriatus, past participle of expatriare to leave one’s own country, from Latin ex- + patria native country, from feminine of patrius of a father, from patr-, pater father ??more at FATHER
Date: 1784
transitive senses
1 : to withdraw (oneself) from residence in or allegiance to one’s native country
2 : BANISH, EXILE
intransitive senses
: to leave one’s native country to live elsewhere; also : to renounce allegiance to one’s native country
- ex?pa?tri?ate /-”At, -t/ noun
- ex?pa?tri?a?tion /(”)ek-”spA-trE-’A-shn/ noun
Baduk: I??d be truly hurt if I thought you were deliberately calling me an ??ex-patriot?? (the US deserter Jenkins was an extreme example of this).Ha ha. I was going to point that out, too.
This also means that the hyphenated “ex-pat” is also wrong.
There once was a list called “Kexpat” for Korea expats.
Kushibo,
I always back up my claims. http://www.donga.com/fbin/outp.....0508040283
I should’ve wrote “on the way out”. The recall action is not complete yet.
Paul H.,
I have used the word in lieu of “foreigners”. All foreign-born citizens(??????) residing in Korea, “to leave one??s native country to live elsewhere”. Does this word always imply the second meaning of “denouncing allegiance to one??s native country”?
Baduk wrote:I always back up my claims.Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!
– sniff! –
Oh, wait. You’re serious.
Kang Jeong-gu doesn’t seem to be going anywhere. In Baduk’s link to Donga, “Being kicked out of Dongguk” turns out to be a suggestion by some students to form a committee for sacking Kang and pledges to start actions for his removal him in case the school doesn’t do anything. And I don’t see any recent news of Dongguk reacting.
If the students are behind it, that’s something big. I find that very, very, very encouraging that the students are upset about it and doing something about it, since the non-leftists aren’t particularly well organized. That means that his remarks have struck quite a nerve even with the young people there.
I’m not sure what you mean by titling this bit “Peace in Our Time”. Perhaps nothing, since you don’t seem to do anything with such a provocative invocation of the slogan of the arch-appeaser of the late ’30s. But if you mean to imply that there is some further large act of appeasement coming from Roh Co., that will hardly be a surprise given the slippery slope they’ve been on since taking office. What’s clear, though, is that in that event the US will be going its own way - perhaps followed by Japan, while China and Russia stand by - unless the NORKS make “the strategic decision” either to abandon all nuclear programs or submit to a regimen of extremely intrusive inspections to ensure that any peaceful uses of nuclear energy they are permitted cannot under any circumstances be used for military purposes. Some commentators have raised the spectre of another “package deal” - a la the 1994 Agreed Framework - implying thereby a kind of capitulation by the US and its allies. But it should be obvious from Amb. Hill’s remarks throughout the talks that no such arrangement is in the cards this go round. The only package that’s on offer is official peace, recognition, security and aid in exchange for complete, verifiable and sustained enforcement of nuclear disenfranchisement. The only concession the US is likely to tolerate is the continuation of some development of nuclear technology for energy purposes under very strict and intrusive supervision - perhaps even under complete international control. [After all, contra the NORK spokesman's claims they did lose the Korean War (if you consider what the respective war aims of the parties were (at least in the case of the NORKS and US - maybe the South did lose, since once attacked its aim was to conquer the North not just restore the status quo ante)) and they are a criminal regime -- but, bless him, Hill didn;t rise to that bit of bait.]
Baduk, the enjoyable part of learning English is the context of meanings and how they change over time. However, for many Americans this type of thing makes them roll their eyes.
Fortunately, we have a more literate bunch here, not surprising since many are Korean-language literate. My hat is off to any Westerners who apply themselves and achieve any level of skill in an Asian language, much less live in Korea and have a working fluency in it. Likewise to those Koreans who diligently learn English, which I gather is the most complex Western language.
I would say that if you used the word “expatriate” currently, most people would take its meaning as a “neutral” one. I.e., it simply means “one who resides in a foreign country” for whatever reason.
When I looked it up, I too was surprised to see the alternate meaning “one who lives in a foreign land [as a result of] renounc[ing] allegiance to one??s native country”.
If someone were writing a story about Jenkins and called him an “expatriate” while describing his 40 years in North Korea, IMO that would be a tip-off that the writer is inclined to be sympathetic to the North Korean regime. Calling someone like Jenkins person an “expatriate” would be so excessively polite as to be a fiction, as compared to stronger words like “deserter” or “traitor”.
However, now that Jenkins has returned to US custody and received his punishment, and is living in Japan with his Japanese family, it’s acceptable IMO to now refer to him as an “expatriate” as he’s simply now living “legally” in a foreign country of his choice. But in the eyes of Americans like me he’s not a “patriot” again (and never will be).
I think the use of this particular word (expatriate) will be slightly more common amongst UK speakers of English than with Americans. The spelling “ex-patriot” is grammatically correct but is not a standard usage.
Expat is clearly part of an “overseas” subset of English slang, so Americans resident in Korea have picked it up and use it here. But if you used it (or the whole word “expatriate”) to the average “American in the street”, many wouldn’t understand.
Similarly, there is no such spelling as “patriate”, only “expatriate”. Why the spelling difference, since both obviously come from the same Latin root? Don’t know, it’s just another English irregularity I guess.
As much as I hate to say it, I don’t think Kang Jeong-gu should get canned.
I think that keeping non-violent nut jobs like Kang around is ultimately beneficial to a free society. They are like gentic mutations; 99.9999999999% of the time they are failures but that other .0000000001% of the time they help advance society. In short, I don’t want to keep Kang around for his sake but for ours.
On a practical note, keeping Kang around helps discredit the left; kind of like a Korean Micheal Moore.
BTW, I also think that pro-Japanese professor who lost his job a while ago should be reinstated.
Also, active US military assigned to Korea are under orders to go there and so are not “expatriates” as I would use the term (even though I suppose they meet the standards of the dictionary definition).
Versus US civilians who voluntarily go to Korea to reside, study, and work there, they are “expatriates” in the neutral sense.
I’m with Andy. Just as we in the USA let Chomsky blather on, Kang should be left alone to issue offal from all portals. Korea (gov’t, faculty, or both) is showing an authoritarian streak when it fires Kang for his political views. (Distinguish from Ward Churchill, who had done more than his share of content-neutral lying, fraud, harassment, and plagiarism.) A vibrant free society almost always includes a healthy lunatic fringe. It’s a package deal, unfortunately.
What’s more significant to me is that according to the Christian Science Monitor, South Korea’s human rights commission is now taking Kang’s side. There’s almost too much irony in their pronouncement to fathom.
Most Koreans are still Anti-communist and pro-American.
Actually, numerous surveys suggest the opposite. Now, you can question these results and point to some contradictions in the data, as Won Joon-Choe did in his thoughtful response. No doubt there are many species of anti-Americanism in Korea. Most Koreans don’t want the U.S. troops to leave (yet); on the other hand, most hoped for more Iraqi resistance at Baghdad, a high percentage would side with North Korea against the United States, and an alarmingly low number (comparable to Middle Eastern levels) share our political values about personal and political freedoms. Draw your own conclusions. Wanting the troops to stay on the DMZ while despising them and the political entity they defend seems to manifest self-interest, not pro-American sentiment.
Thanks Joshua for the CSM link, as depressing as it was to read. There’s a lot of denial here–look at how the media will portray the nation’s independence day, with nary a mention of the country that actually liberated them. Slavish expressions of gratitude are not neccessary, but an acknowledgement of reality would be refreshing….
Joshua wrote:Wanting the troops to stay on the DMZ while despising them and the political entity they defend seems to manifest self-interest, not pro-American sentiment.
I completely agree. It isn’t pro-Americanism when Koreans simply support a continuation of a policy on strategic or economic grounds - it’s pragmatism. It’s a decision to use the resources of another country to defend one’s own, but not more. It’s pro-status-quo strategic thinking aimed at self-preservation, and saying that Koreans are ‘in favor’ of the US is an over-characterization of that thought.
There’s a lot of denial? There’s also a lot of selective reading of data. Joshua says “a high percentage would side with North Korea against the United States.” That high percentage? 20%, outnumbered by others 4-to-1.
While 20% of South Koreans think the U.S. is the biggest threat to them, widely seen as a sign of anti-Americanism, the same stat is 11% in Japan, not all the much lower if you think about it: for both countries, people with an opposite view number in the 80-percent range.
The spike in anti-Americanism outlined is inextricably tied to Bush’s war and rhetoric (not just in South Korea but in Japan, too). With Bush’s people sitting down instead of trash-talking, the anxiety about war is disappearing and the spike is on the way down. USFK changes are helping that, too.look at how the media will portray the nation??s independence day, with nary a mention of the country that actually liberated them.They should do what the U.S. does and enthusiastically thank France every July 4. Maybe even temporarily refer to them potato thingees as French fries, at least for the day.
Frankly, I would like to see more acknowledgement toward the Americans, Brits, Australians, Chinese, etc., who fought the Japanese, but acknowledgement of the Americans tends to be reserved, though far more subdued than I would care for, for 6.25 memorials. It’s not the same, of course, but Liberation Day is about exorcising the ghosts of occupation.
I think Korean leftists have ruined that for a while. When the U.S.-supported dictatorships were finally pushed off, so many things taken for granted then were called into question, including what was perceived as USFK personnel having run of the place, and the cozy relationship between Seoul and Washington. Koreans, at heart, are still fond of America, but it’s not the unconditional love it once was.
I completely agree. It isn??t pro-Americanism when Koreans simply support a continuation of a policy on strategic or economic grounds - it??s pragmatism. It??s a decision to use the resources of another country to defend one??s own, but not more. It??s pro-status-quo strategic thinking aimed at self-preservation, and saying that Koreans are ??in favor?? of the US is an over-characterization of that thought. Americans are the preferred teachers in hagwons and universities, America is the preferred place to emigrate, America is the preferred place to study, the American market is the ideal place to sell one’s product, American movies are the largest box-office draw, despite visa-free travel America is the preferred place for travel, American-style English is the Korean standard in the Korean education, etc., etc. Bush’s unpopularity in Korea notwithstanding, Korea as a country loves America and the resentment stems largely from feeling not loved back.
Kush, I tend to go with Joshua in that Korea’s relationship with the U.S. is pragmatic–just as the U.S. seems to view Korea. There’s no great love here, face it, and that’s fine. It’s just the absurdities like the country’s so-called human rights commission condemning MacArthur while remaining mute on N. Korea that gets tiring. The anti-Americanism here is mostly half-baked leftism. Korea emulates America in almost every way (and Japan for the remainder), but you’re mistaking that too for “love” when it’s just ambition. And I’ll remember to raise a toast to Louis XVI next July 4.
The anti-Americanism here is mostly half-baked leftism.And certainly not shared by a high percentage of the population.Korea emulates America in almost every way (and Japan for the remainder), but you??re mistaking that too for ??love?? when it??s just ambitionAnd this attitude is different from the Japanese how?And I??ll remember to raise a toast to Louis XVI next July 4.Wave a French flag on the Fourth in some places I’ve lived, and you’ll be watching fireworks from the hospital window.
If groups like AmCham succeed in getting visa-free status for Korea, watch anti-Americanism take a nose-dive. It’s about being loved and respected.
Joshua:What??s more significant to me is that according to the Christian Science Monitor, South Korea??s human rights commission is now taking Kang??s side. There??s almost too much irony in their pronouncement to fathom.
I’ve browsed now for a moment for info that the Human Rights Commission had made such a statement, but all I’ve found is that organizations demanding the removal of the MacArthur statue had filed a petition to the Commission demanding the removal. My hunch is that Donald Kirk (the writer of the CSM article) has got it wrong. In case the Commission had given a statement, the repercussions would have been at least as big as now after Kang Jeong-gu.
Group hug! Hey, what’s “And this attitude is different from the Japanese how?” about? I don’t think I wrote, “as opposed to Japan, which is unique in every way….”
“Some places I’ve lived…” In L.A. on the 4th the cops near South-Central (where I lived) stay indoors so they don’t get hit from falling bullets. Quien es muy malo?
Kushibo, all of what you write speaks of pragmatism, not love. Come, now - ‘the American market is the ideal place to sell one’s products’? Surely this is related to profit, and not amity. American-style English is not taught here out of love, but out of a sober, reasoned choice made long ago to use the de-facto international language of commerce, and pragmatism continues its practice. And, love them or not, American movies do not draw the crowds here as they used to, yet for pragmatic reasons, Korean filmmakers do desire a screen quota.
I won’t continue, for I’m going to bed, but love would seem to have little to do with it.
Foreigner (#34), I brought up the Japanese because I’m so sick of hearing all this griping about Korea’s anti-Americanism based on some things (like the stat about what percent believes the U.S. is the greatest threat to security) that are not all the different from Japan, which is touted as very pro-American. It’s a selective reading, or a misunderstanding, of both countries.
Kush, I think Korea’s anti-Americanism is fundamentally its insecurity over its self-determination, and quite different from a few lefties in Japan who don’t like Bush or whatever. I’ll grant you that it might seem more feverish these days than it “actually” is because of the current government (in Korea).
Let me second Antti’s comment (#33) — I have yet to find anything indicating the Human Rights Commission issued such an opinion on the MacArthur statue, and if it had, I’m 100 percent certain every major conservative paper in the country would have run editorials denouncing it. The apparent lack of said editorials leads me to believe that an error was made in the CSM piece.
You guys are probably correct–that’s one less idiotic pronouncement the commission has made.
Kushibo, Do you have any statistical data or other evidence to back your assertion that Koreans are pro-American?
Antti, I have written to the HRC inviting them to correct the record if Don Kirk’s report is wrong. I’ll publish their response in full if I get one, but Don Kirk is a very seasoned Korea reporter, and I have no basis for believing that he got this one wrong.
Just for moral clarity’s sake, I also asked them to opine on statues of Kim Il Sung.
Joshua,
Visit Hongik U. in Seoul. Koreans are pro-American. The 2003 anti-American wave is over. Koreans are going GaGa over American movies, American culture, American look(plastic surgery) and especially over Starbucks.
I have recently visited Korea. Kangnam area had a hiphop club called “Brooklyn” near the Kangnam subway station which was blazing HipHop music and many foreigners walking around with Korean girlfriends. Nobody said nothing. Actually, many Koreans were welcoming these foreigners.
Everybody was smiling. That stupid incident about school girls were long forgotten. Now it is passe to be pro-North. Only losers support NK regime.
Korean people are changing fast. Two years are like a decade in the States. They are becoming more pragmatic. The U.S. military presence is necessary, but Koreans are not going to beg for the U.S. forces to stay. Americans are welcome to do as they please.
This should be the way. The U.S. should not play a “princess”. Koreans want to meet Americans in equal footing. This is cool for Americans. True Americans want to play equal partners, not manipulators.
That 60Minute segment on “Anti-Americanism in Korea” about two years ago was so one-sided. The reporters came and only covered anti-American activists. (10% of Koreans. F***ups).
And, that stupid general (Gen. Campbell) cried on the live TV. A army general crying in live TV. What was he thinking?
Talk about media manipulation!
And, speaking about Starbucks,
link
I guess 1,000 Starbucks he has yet to visit are all in Korea. I saw a Starbuck in every block while I was in Seoul.