Understanding diplo-speak is never easy, even in one’s mother tongue. Translating it can be a grueling task, especially when you’re trying to do so between languages as different as English and Korean. In the WaPo, former State Department translator Kim Tong does his best to explain to the non-Korean literate how linguistic differences are at least partially to blame for the seeming inability of the United States and North Korea to stay on the same page:
The agreement reached a week ago in Beijing may yet turn out to be durable and useful. But the accord is a linguistic minefield, and it will take more than a week to tiptoe through its hidden meanings and obfuscations. The day after it was signed, North Korea and the United States were sparring over what they meant. Judging from my experience as an interpreter, I believe that there is as much room for mis understanding as there is for better understanding.
Given not only the linguistic, but also cultural and historical differences between the United States and the DPRK, it should come as no surprise that the two sides could interpret the same document in two entirely different ways. Be sure to read the rest of the piece, as Kim recounts some great examples of words simply getting in the way.
The WaPo, for its part, does the best it can do trying to interpret the six-party nuke accord, as well as explain who conceded what, when and why.
4 Comments
I read the article further and he goes onto say:
In contrast to the American media description of North Korea as a “Stalinist Communist state,” I have come to see it as a Confucian nationalist monarchy, based on traditional Korean values and reflecting the bitterness born of foreign invasions throughout Korean history. In Confucian society, loyalty to the ruler and respect for elders are basic tenets. The iconic stature of the late “great leader” Kim Il Sung isn’t that different from the Confucian image of a divine ruler.
__________________________________________________
Isn?t this a winded way to say cult?
A cult should be defined by three factors.
1. Chrassmatic Leader - Kim Il Sung (He is dead but has the title leader for life)
2. Afraid of outsiders - Hermit Kingdom
3. No Freedom ? N. Korea ranks terrible in freedom of the press or speech for that matter.
The point is that cults go crazy and tend to kill themselves when faced with collapse.
Although this article is very fascinating and defintely worth reading, I am saddened by how easily “Confucian” is thrown around these days. North Korea is almost the total antithesis of Confucius. Rigid hierarchy and blind loyalty to elders and government is actually the tenet of the Legalists, who literally buried Confucianism alive in ancient China.
Confucianism stresses rule by virtue, good example and personal morality, while shunning rule by fear, which is deemed to destroy the people’s scruples. It is obvious that few people commenting on Asia have read anything by Confucius or Mencius. Otherwise they wouldn’t label anything that seemed old-fashioned or tyrannical as “Confucian”.
This is particularly sad in Korea, which, as far as I know, is the last refuge of traditional Confucianists, who lead quiet, secluded lives in rural areas studying and teaching philosophy, literature and the arts. These genuine disciples of Confucius are a far cry from the brutal North Korean Communist ruling class.
Maybe a short quote from the beginning of the Great Learning will be of help:
“From the Son of Heaven down to the mass of the people, all must consider the cultivation of the person the root of everything besides.”
This is not the governing philosophy of a totalitarian regime where a person has almost no value at all, and is given nearly no chance to cultivate themselves intellectually or morally.
North Koreans themselves don’t fancy the idea of applying Confucianism to their republic.
It was funny (and very predictable) how the North Korean participants to a Korean Studies conference last summer in the UK reacted to a presentation by a Russian scholar (Alexander Zhebin), who suggested that Confucian elements have lately been used increasingly in DPRK in legitimizing the rule. His presentation was well argued, but with the North Korean take to scholarship, that is never the issue. (Dr. Zhebin did not claim that the system would be in any basic way Confucian.)
Those sitting in front of the head of the DPRK delegation, the old veteran of many of those conferences who speaks English but has perhaps never presented a paper himself, said they could feel the wrath emanating from him when he denounced the presentation as an insult to their leader and their system.
If Kim Il-sung and his son were thought of as Confucian rulers, I guess suitable posthumous names for them would be K?ดnh?ด-gun (??บ?????) and Mangguk-gun (?บก?????).
(Waiting for a fatal blow from Dda…)
Confucianism limits personal freedom. It is badly outdated; it was OK in 19th century but absurd in 20th century. And, we are living in 21st century.
Old tools and systems must be thrown away, to go forward. Even though I like some aspects of Confucianism, respect for the old and strong family structure, I am afraid it has become obsolete just like Communism.
NKs are losers for holding on to these antiquated systems.