With Prime Minister Lee Hae-chan warning protestors yesterday against illegally giving Gen. Douglas MacArthur the Saddaam treatment, President Roh told Korean Americans in New York on Wednesday that he’s against pulling down the statue of the U.S. general in Incheon’s Freedom Park:
“We should not manage the South Korea-U.S. relationship in such a way by pulling down the statue,” he said. “We should not damage and insult people’s minds just because we have different perceptions and evaluations of history.”
He also said (found in the Korean-language Yonhap report):
MacArthur’s Incheon Landing, the U.S. military’s Incheon Landing and the MacArthur statue are part of our history.
He added:
We should leave the statue as it is and respect it as history, and remember the bad as bad and the good as good. The important thing is from now to take all responsibility as an independent nation and say what we must say, and it’s most important to cooperate while showing mutual respect.
He also said some interesting comments about the Korea-U.S. relationship that are worth reading.
It should be noted that this is not the first time President Roh has questioned the wisdom of pulling down the statue of the man behind the Incheon Landing. Last month, he said:
Doing something like removing the statue would be very harmful diplomatically. It could wound the pride and worsen the view of Korea of not just the U.S. government, but the American people.
GI Korea points out more of the government/civic group responses to Sunday’s festivities — give his post a read.
37 Comments
The loudest ringing endorsement of the SK-US Alliance I’ve heard in years……
I hope he didn’t hurt himself getting that out……
Weak. Weak. Weak.
Please note that Roh said nothing along the lines of ‘MacArthur helped save us from being cogs in Kim Il-sung’s murderous commie machine.’ What he said (at least as quoted in this post) was not a defense of MacArthur or the even the fight for the existance of the Republic of Korea.
I agree with others, Roh’s responses unsatisfactory. This gets me:
As for Chang Yong Dal, by no means is he speaking for Koreans. He has been heavily criticized in Korea for his speech. Many have accused him of being a communist stooge and he blasted back with this denying that he is a communist:
??? ???????? ?????? ????¨???????? ?³???°??Ό???????€?³Ό ????????? ?²??΄?³? ??¨ ?????????΄??Ό??° ?????? ?? ???????Ά??? ?????Ό ???Ή?³??‘ ???³? ?° ?ͺ¨?§? ?³???Έ??? ?????° ?³???°??Ό???????‘ ?§?€??€?³? ????§?§ ??±?³?????§ ?ͺ??????€???³? ????Ά??????€.
Judging by this comment, it looks like this is not the first time he has been accused of being a communist. Just because the past government of Park Chung Hee was a dictatorship, it doesn’t mean they weren’t always wrong when it came to picking out who were communists. Now all these lefties who had been in trouble before, are in charge of the country.
Sorry, the above should have been written:
This gets me:
????Έ???§Ή?³Ό ?΄??¨, ? Έ ?????Ή?? “?²??? ?°Έ???????Ά ?€??΄??°??? ??, ????Έ???§Ή??? ?΄??΄ ?§???΄ ?±±???????§?§ ????Έ?΄?³??? ?§?Έ? ?????€”??° “??°????° ?§?Έ? ??΄????????? ?€??????§?§ 10? ? ???, 5? ?????³Ό ?Ή??????΄?? ??΄????² ?????Ό??Έ ?°??????, ?????Ό??Έ ?°?? ?°??????΄ ?€???????° ????°¨ ?????Έ?????Έ ??????΄?³??‘ ?³???΄ ?°?³? ?????€”?³? ?§??????€.
? Έ ?????Ή?? ??΄??΄ “??±?Έ????² ??€??? ??Ή??? ?°?ΎΈ????? ?²???? ???????³? ???°???? ?°??³? ?³??????? ??Έ???? ????Έ?°???? ?????Έ ?‘΄?€?????΄?? ?Έ΄?°??? ?????????? ?΄?³??‘, ??΄???³΄??€ ??°??? ????Ό??? ???????³Ό ??Έ??? ?²?????Ό?‘ ?°??Ό ??? ?²?”??΄??Ό?³? ?§??????€.
Sounds like Roh is saying this is not the time to piss off the Americans, we should bide our time. He said nothing about freedom for Korea because of the US and Gen.MacArthur and that we should be thankful so the statue should stay right where it is. He seems to be saying, I know you guys want to tear it down and I agree we should, but this is not the time right now. This guy is no better than those who are there in Inchon waving the metal pipes to express their hatred.
Marmot (or someone else saavy to posting here):
Before I put any time into a post, could you please tell me why I am “French”? I’m an American, currently living in Seoul. I don’t recall ever listing my nationality as French in the registration, but in my first post last night, I noticed my “flag” is French.
I promise, I’ve never eaten foie gras or snails in my entire life!
Yes, I’m a noob at posting here, but love the site and have lurked for months.
Thanks!
Zahnarzt
The statement is better than him saying nothing. Now we need to see if his words turn into any action, such as starting to arrest some of these idiots causing the violence and giving them stiff fines. I’m all for people being able to protest, but they shouldn’t be allowed to assault people especially policemen and destroy property with bamboo sticks and metal poles.
Read the arm chair intellectuals analyizing MacArthur. Korean intellectuals have gone wacko too. They are the worst propagators of leftism in Korea right now.
http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/S.....150013.asp
This gets me:
“Conservative groups admire him, saying he protected South Korea from becoming a communist nation. But, progressives say his aggressive push up the peninsula caused chronic war casualties and fueled the ultimate separation between North and South.”
We’re conveniently forgetting that Seungman Rhee would not have wanted another way but for the UN troops to go all the way up to the China border. Most of Koreans would have wanted Korea united, communists destroyed. If MacArthur didn’t do what he did and he stopped at the current DMZ, this day, he and the USA would have been criticized for not unifying Korea. He and the U.S would have been accused of not caring about Korea so they stopped to avoid American casualties. Damned if you do, damned if you don’t.
“starting to arrest some of these idiots causing the violence and giving them stiff fines”
Are you kidding? Why would he try to eliminate his voters?
In support of post #9 (Kimbob):
If you like history, it’s fascinating (as Mr Spock used to say) to go back and read Korean war history and compare/contrast to current events.
From http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/korea/truce/ch20.htm:
CHAPTER XX
Leader of the Opposition
“During the hectic final four months before the cease-fire in Korea,” General Clark commented in his memoirs, “the U.N. Command was confronted almost literally with a crisis a day. Never, it seemed to me, was it more thoroughly demonstrated that winning a satisfactory peace, even a temporary one, is more difficult than winning a war.”
It was perhaps ironic that the majority of the problems to which the U.N. commander referred emanated from the actions of the ROK Government and its shrewd chief, Syngman Rhee, rather than from the machinations of the enemy. But such was the case. Although none of the political, economic, and military questions that were at the bottom of the ROK agitation were arising for the first time, there was a new sense of urgency on the scene. With the UNC and the Communists on the verge of composing their differences, the ROK Government felt it had to find the answers to the problems considered vital to the future of the nation before the war ended or its bargaining powers would be materially lessened.
Conceivably the UNC could sign a military armistice without the concurrence of the ROK, but how long would it last? If the Rhee Government decided to fight on alone or to create a succession of provocative or embarrassing incidents, a paper truce would be of little value. The United States had too much at stake in Korea to abandon its investment lightly. On the other hand, the Republic of Korea depended and would continue to depend heavily upon economic, financial, and military assistance from the United States for its existence as a nation. It was clear that each needed the other. The uncertainty centered on whether Rhee would come to terms or refuse to accept the conditions of the armistice. If he chose the former course the price for his acquiescence might come high in financial and economic aid. If he elected to carry on the war on his own, the cost in UNC casualties and prestige might be even less palatable. This was a turning point for the Republic of Korea; a wise or a hasty decision might make or break its future.
A Sense of Insecurity
The roots of ROK resistance to the armistice rested in a bed of insecurity and frustration. As the United States and its U.N. allies had shown less and less interest in the active prosecution of the war, President Rhee and his advisors had seen their hopes for a Korea unified by force become more and more un-
attainable. They had no way of knowing what role the United States would assume in Far East affairs during the years ahead; it was quite possible that the United States might again decide that Korea lay outside its area of strategic concern and abandon the ROK after the truce was arranged.2 Of course, there was still the political conference stipulated in the truce agreement, but, in the light of past experience with the Communists, few realists expected that such a meeting would produce results of any importance.
On the bright side, the ROK was receiving from the United States financial and economic help that enabled the country to fight the tide of inflation and to begin the task of reconstruction. The ROK Army was expanding and was better trained and equipped than it had ever been before. But the inescapable fact remained to plague the ROK leaders-all of this depended upon the United States and they had no guarantee of the future policy of the United States in the postwar period. During the spring of 1953, the ROK search for security formed the backdrop to the action taking place on stage.
There were evidences of ROK feelings of doubt and uncertainty even earlier. In February General Clark heard that the ROK Government wanted to move its seat back to the capital city of Seoul. During the two-and-a-half years of war the government had spent most of its time in Pusan. The instability of the battle situation had argued against the re-establishment of the administrative and legislative functions so close to the lines, and the U.N. Command had opposed placing such a tempting target within reach of a Communist offensive again. Besides, as Clark had pointed out in his request for U.S. support to block a move to Seoul, if the ROK Government returned, it would mean that thousands of people would flow into the capital and dozens of buildings would have to be rehabilitated…”
There’s more at the link if interested.
Take note of the flurry of alarmist bells about defense spending in the Korean press and politicians today…..
M, I really like that phrase — “giving Gen MacArthur the Saddam treatment”. As much as I try to stand up for old Mac here, I have to smile.
This utterance of President Roh certainly has a plaintive quality to it. Sort of reminiscent of when Bush 41 said “Message: I care”.
I can tell commenters here that I have the cable news channels on (here in the US) most of the day and if it was up to them (and the US newspapers) you wouldn’t have heard a word about this story.
Mr. President Roh: For pity’s sake, if this is the way you really feel, just send the cranes around in the dead of night and remove the statue to an honorable storage status somewhere on a “temporary” basis. Then explain forthrightly to your people that you’re doing this to quiet the uproar over the issue.
After all, it’s a piece of Korean property, not in any way a matter for official US government oversight. Better this should happen than have to start guarding it 24/7 for the next several years, lest somebody plant an explosive charge on it in the dead of night. Then the US would wake up to a headless statue of MacArthur on its TV screens one morning; that might really cause an uproar (imagine endless video footage showing a comparison to the Saddam statue destruction).
My guess is that this way you could get the issue off the radar screen quietly, now while the Americans are focused on their own problems (hurricance relief, Iraq, Supreme Court).
Still, it’s a risk all right. You just never know what those unpredictable Americans are going to get upset over.
Re-reading some of the quotes, he almost sounds like a German refering to Auschwitz.
Marmot, Yangban, or anyone else…have you been following this story? The chairwoman of Hyundai Group, Hyun Jeong-eun, posted a statement on Hyundai’s website criticizing the current situation between Hyundai Asan and the NK government. (Sorry, I can’t find the original article offhand, because Hyundai’s websites have about as transparent an organization as, well, a chaebol!)
I haven’t been following the story at all, but the Chosun has been making hay of it. I have no idea how significant this one incident is in the overall scheme of thingsor whether she was making general comments, or simply complaining about specific points in this particular issue. But this story is, I think, a notable counterexample to what appears to be a prevailing view on this blog that South Koreans are willingly acquiescent to the North’s demands, based on a lot of the news stories coming out of the South these days.
Story (”Hyundai Chairwoman Speaks Out on N. Korea Projects”): http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....20028.html
Follow-up (”Seoul ‘Urged Hyundai to Give in to N. Korean Demand’”): http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....40028.html
Editorial (”It Was High Time Someone Stood Up to North Korea”):
http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....30035.html
Some background: This issue erupted after Ms. Hyun fired the vice chairman of Hyundai Asai, Kim Yoon-Kyu (sorry, don’t know the story there without doing further digging). He had been the company’s main negotiator with Pyongyang. In response, NK halved the tourist quota for Kumgangsan, and demanded he be reinstated. She said no.
This story also helps to reinforce Kushibo’s point that despite the image of 4,000 true believers wielding bamboo sticks at MacArthur’s statue in Incheon, one of the leading papers in SK continues to be staunchly conservativeand its readership wouldn’t be reading it if it didn’t share similar views.
Funny how the newspaper that is criticized by some for being a mouthpiece for former dictatorships has now become the country’s dissident voice of moral conscience….
Roh sounds a lot like he did during the sending troops to Iraq debate.
Well….we don’t like it(sending troops to Iraq) but we have to for diplomatic reasons and getting something in return from the U.S.
Well….we see history differently and we don’t really like MacArthur, but for diplomatic reasons we have to endure it.
Curious — I’m going to post about this eventually, but I’m not particularly clear on what is actually transpiring. As for the Chosun piece, note that the source is unidentified. This is not to say that Chung didn’t say what he is said to have said, but I’ll wait until I get more info, preferably from another source, before deciding.
That being said, while part of me feels bad for Hyundai, and its certainly disappointing to see things go down like they are, another part of me is like, well, fuck ‘em. When you make business deals with gangsters, you can’t really be all-together surprised when your partners act the part. Who I feel bad for is the South Korean tax payers who have been footing a good chunk of the bill in bribes, sorry, “unification costs” and Hyundai’s stock holders who will eventually pay the price for the company’s political adventures. And, in a way, I can’t really fault North Korea for trying to diversify its business partners in the South, although the manner in which they are doing it should serve notice to firms looking to move into the country.
Well, sure, fundamentally, she still wants to do business with the North, and wouldn’t be complaining if the current developments weren’t threatening the bottom line. I guess it was just more the idea of somebody’s publicly complaining about treatment by the North….
Curious,
I don’t have the Korean skills nor have put in the attention span on this kind issue, but with that disclaimer noted, this was how I took the Hyundai story —
whatever the sincerity of the statement, it either hand in mind or will move toward accomplishing — getting more relief for Hyundai from the ROK government.
I agree along the lines Marmot put out, but I would add, and what jumped to mind when I read the story, was how the Hyundai founder did more than go to bed with gangsters up North, it went to bed with the ROK government as well. It was the conduit for much of what the government wanted to touch base on with the North early on and since then.
And even if it had a cash cow image for the future with being the first and biggest into North Korea, it also was willing to accept a huge weight on its shoulders financially and in other ways.
And over the years, we’ve heard it chafe under the weight publically from time to time, and eventually the ROK government has stepped in to address its concerns in the name of Unification and good relations.
That is either why the woman said what she did and/or this is where it is going to head.
I believe the message is meant for the South Korean government more than the North, because Hyundai also knows it has a better chance of influencing them, and it also knows the South Korea government can put more weight into trying to influence Pyongyang than it can.
So, my initial reaction to this is that it is an airing of dirty laundry between the SK-Hyundai-NK triangular relationship somewhat along the lines of, say, a star NFL widereciever trying to get more money and respect….
Leave it in a museum. That would be enough.
I mean not the statue but photos and records these kinds of stuff.
Roh:?We should not manage the South Korea-U.S. relationship in such a way by pulling down the statue,?? he said. ?We should not damage and insult people?s minds just because we have different perceptions and evaluations of history.??
Yes, please do not “manage” the relationship by pulling down the statue. And please do not “damage my mind” or “insult it” because my mind would be very angry.
Sometimes you don’t realize how goofy the Korean is until it is translated. And it is not the fault of the Korean language, by the way. I hate translating goofy Korean.
Sperwer–excellent post, esp. about Americans’ sense of honesty, decency and fair play, concepts that often seem alien on the peninsula. Also, any thinking person should be ashamed of this “deep ethnic purity” bullshit, it’s scientifically bogus and morally offensive.
GBevers–I used to think the spew that comes out of Roh’s mouth was just poorly translated; now I know it’s just poorly thought out.
Zahnarzt–you using a proxy? That might explain the flag, you cheese-eating…
I think we need to put the statue in a big crate and bring it home. I also think we should take the troops off the ROK and park them on Guam. Look, this nation can stand on its own two feet. I don’t think the US should be around when the Dokdo hairdo blows up.
No, MacArthur statue must stay. He contributed a lot to the Korean War. It is also very expensive to build so why try it away. Better melt it down if it needs to be taken down.
What Koreans need to do is to build ANOTHER statue, preferbably that of a Korean Infrantry man staring MacArthur in the face. This is needed to make sure that MacArthur does not misbehave or disobey orders from Truman. MacArthur has over the years tried to overstep his authority and a Korean infantryman standing guard over him to ensure his loyalty and SANITY is most appropriate.
Actually, “mahathir_fan”, you may be interested to know that is not how MacArthur is viewed by most reasonable Koreans, rather, they feel that President Truman did not let MacArthur kick the Chinese out of Korea and unify Korea. Truman is considered the real villan in their eyes since it was he that allowed the partition to happen — so I’m told. This is a different way of looking at Truman, a way that most Americans have never considered and, I’m sure, would be a bit surprised.
Others who know more of this please feel free to ad to this.
Bumiputrid.
R. Elgin, you are right about how (at least) older generation conservative South Koreans view MacArthur. A hero. Truman. Pansy. Gutless worm. From the American viewpoint, MacArthur was dismissed because he overstepped his boundaries. From the South Korean viewpoint, MacArthur could have made all of Korea free. Truman didn’t have the guts to do it, and he was jealous of MacArthur, who didn’t think much of Truman. In a word, Truman is (or was) the most hated US President ever, as far as the South Koreans are concerned. If I am allowed to and won’t be punished for it, I’d like to vandalize Mao’s portrait in Tienmen Square. That’s how I feel about Mao, but I’m sure the Chinese will execute me for it.
“If I am allowed to and wonβt be punished for it, Iβd like to vandalize Maoβs portrait in Tienmen Square.”
What would be uncalculated and childish. Remember the Tiananmen Incident in 89? The pragamatic reformers within the Communist party already had the upper hand controlling many branches of the governmnent. Zhao ZiYang was even the premier.
But the student uprising, here I call them the radical reformers created a civil disorder. The hardliners within the Communist Party capitalized on this civil disorder to discredit the pragmatic reformers within the CCP. When it was clear that the radical reformers were no match to create a revolution, the pragmatic reformers were forced to play hard ball to keep their legitimacy. Zhao ZiYang was sacrificed as the scape goat in order for pragmatic reformers to appear “tough” in the eyes of the hardliners. He was put under house arrest and for the next few years, the Communist pragmatic reformers had to play “tough guy” in order to fend off accusations of being “soft” by the Communist hardliners.
i wonder what these “nationlist” South Koreans would do with Kim Il Sung’s statues?
Part of the reason why Kim Il Sung was able to pull off his divine crap, was that the Koreans were used to thinking like this at least since the Japanese occupation, where the Shinto religion made Japanese and Korean subjects to believe that the Emperor was a god.
Dating much further back than that, the Chosun or previous kings had a near diety, but not god like status, where they demanded just as much from people.
Actually, I am willing to conjecture that the Koreans under Japan had never put in deity status to a mere mortal king as they had for the Emperor of Japan. Thus, Kim Il Sung filled that void and enjoyed it. This is another small reason for Koreans to hate Japan. Japan created a context for Kim Il Sung’s rise and existance. Meaning, Kim Il Sung filled the role of the Japanese Emperor. A human living god who was the supreme ruler of the land.
These fools would probably want to preserve the Kim Il Sung statue, saying it’s a testament to Korean self reliance. Ju Chae. Bull crap. Kim Il Sung is in many ways very Japanese like. Look at himself. A human living god? Just like the Emperor of Japan.
Well, if the US were to leave South Korea, then Kim Jong Il will have exhausted his propaganda that South Korea is a US colony. He will have to find other sources of propaganda to discredit South Korea. And it will be hard. But until then, he does have a valid point. South Korea is to date, not completely an independent nation. It is a fact that even South Koreans are ashamed of about their country. 50 years after the Korean War and still North Korea is a threat? Come on.
shall we thank the Chinese, Mahathir fan? I would spit on Mao’s face, if I could. Kim Jong Il doesn’t have a valid point. He sucks Chinese butt holes for a living. That’s why some moron Hong Kong Chinese friend of mine said, We give them tons of free stuff and we bailed them out, we can end them, too. He won’t be saying that if Red China didn’t make Hong Kong pretty self governing.
I guess it could seem that way from San Diego.
Stay tuned, DJ is going to ride up on his white horse and make everything better. Commie dog!
DJ, not you guys!
Anyone participating in denigrating the MacArthur statue ought to be deported to North Korea. It’s not MacArthur’s fault Truman was such a pussy in not letting him finish the job in Russia and China.
Of course, one needs to remember that these “protesters” are in fact PAID PROTESTERS that are sympathetic to North Korea (and those other red bastards) for financial reasons. This may well be the perfect time to militaristically press the issue for unification, and absolutely eliminate the communist threat once and for all.
wjk wrote:
“i wonder what these βnationlistβ South Koreans would do with Kim Il Sungβs statues?”
Just wait, we’ll show the South Koreans a little trick we did with a tank and some rope in Iraq — what a beautiful day it will be finally to see Koreans reunited and communism utterly defeated. Believe you me, it won’t end with the Kim statue, we’ll rip down the Stalin and Mao ones too.
Bottom line: McArthur is not Korean. Our debt of gratitude is an embarrassment to our racial purity doctrine. He’s not Koreans, so we can project some sort of blame on him.