http://restlesstimes.com/taech....._index.htm

My photography skills suck greatly, but for the hangul heads here, much of the writing is legible.

Note to self: Never ask a country ajumma if some place is “far.” You could end up doing another five-mile hike.

Wjk,

You are lucky that the Marmot supports the disabled, Squatters don’t own land. Have you learned to dodge a wrench yet?

When I take a look around, and I see some familiar faces, faces that I’ve seen at every protest no matter what, as long as it has something to do with putting press on the US in Korea, AND, I loook around and see those same faces at gathers to praise the Sunshine policy, call for doing all we can to help out Korean brothers to the North, and generally by active in trying to help South Koreans feel better about Kim Jong Il’s North Korea ——- I have some SERIOUS problems with an effort to keep the focus on just “the poor farmers.”

And you do extend yourself too far, in my opinion, in what I would characterise as a fight to maintain sympathy for the weak and oppressed beyond what might be reasonable.

For example, being moved off 3 times - 1st under Japanese rule, then by the US military, then by the Korean government for the US military. First, my mind asks me, “How many of the hold outs does this statement fit?” I learned via the Koon-ni/Maehyangri issue that some statements need to be held in a question box, because eventually, it started to leak out into at least the English version of the press that the Korean government was saying the bombing range was built in that area due to people not living in the area, and the small villages grew up around it, as they did around US bases after the war throughout the country.

But, even more germane for the “forced off 3 times” is the fact my in-laws were forced out of their homes twice within a span of 3 years…

Look around Korea. Large population on a small area of rugged land. You have towns of 10,000 people or so with 7 to 10 stories or more apartment buildings: How many times do you think people were moved off their land to make way for Korea’s urban sprawl or the construction of infrastructure (railines and highways and irrigation projects and so on) as South Korea moved from a dirt poor, war torn nation to become the world’s 11th most powerful economic nation?

How many households do you think are still moved off their land each year?

So, how much and what kind of sympathy for the plight of Pyongtaek residents is natural? How much is generated by a distaste for the US military?

And then their are lines about “with only rice and flour handed out by US soldiers” and the Japanese already having a base down there.

What is the actual history of the place and the households currently on the land? I’m sure there will be a variety of life stories. How many of them match this description? I wish I had the Korean language skills to investigate it.

Regardless, what about the 37,000 GIs who died to prevent Kim Il Sung’s version of a “democratic republic” from extending down to Pusan? I normally don’t like to get into a discusion of the Korean War costs when talking about the contemporary condition of the US-SK relationship, but it does fit here — because we are talking about a base that was established soon after or during the Korean War. So, it was tied both directly to the defense of Korea and the economy of the local area at a time when Korea was dirt poor and could not defend itself against the North and had almost become a part of the hell that became North Korea.

So, does any of that factor into the plight of the tenants today? How much? How little? None at all?

And what about #17?:

“Communist drivel” is spot on. Just listen to the lyrics- avoid the subtitles, as they dodge displaying the true goals of those involved (hence, drivel). Calls for the joys of production, uprising of ‘real’ owners, criticism of capitalism and bourqeois, desire for revolution….my translations here are off the top of my head, so not exact, but a lot closer than the subtitles in the video!

What about that? What about the subtitles? Do they capture the nature of the message? Do they smooth it up for a non-Korean speaking audience because a more direct translation might point out some other things that the NGOs down in Pyongtaek also fight for? namely things that end up being pro-NK?

The line about the violent videos demonstrating “police brutality” starts to clarify the discussion for me.

So, when I look over these issues mentioned so far, and I get to what I agree is a meaty issue that ties directly to the heart of the situation for the residents I do have sympathy with, I nonetheless have little hope for an adequate discussion — the meaty issue being the definition of “minimal compensation” or “proper assurances” or adequate compensation.

What is a fair price? Did it take years of holding out to get even a “minimal” compensation packet?

I have at least my in-laws to add to the picture. They are working class people. They went through a lot of anxiety about being moved off the land twice in so short a time. But, in the end, they got enough money for the homes they had build or renovated to purchase another home to work on. It was not as good as the original. It was not the home the father had grown up in. But, they got enough money to set up a home somewhere else.

And they did not hold out for years. They did not have NGO members camping out day and night for years willing to smash riot police upside the head with a metal pole with a flag attached to it or a large bamboo pole.

So, I start to wonder if we can have a meaningful discussion of what is “minimal” and what is “adequate” without acknolwledging how the US military being the cause for the move is what is pushing so many to fight for “adequate” compensation….

When we sit down together, and I hear about the “police brutality” that has been going on. I get a real itch in my pants to stand up and walk out rather than end up wasting my time.

I wish I had the Korean language skills to find out what levels of compensation those who agreed to move early on got. The amounts will differ, of course, because their are different ownership issues, land sizes, home values, and so on.

One thing is clear: the variety of claims makes it hard if not impossible to come up with one summary statement about whether compensation was “adequate” or “minimal” without a look at the stats.

Then, what about “acting responsibly” on the part of the Korean government?

The Korean government let this thing drag out for years. They let it drag out to the point it began doing serious damage to the US-SK security relationship. In the past, delaying tactics have seen plans the ROK government didn’t like die, but that did not happen this case, and it seemed to me that time and time again, the Korean government would set deadlines, attempt to negociate with the locals (and the anti-US NGO leaders whom the locals put their trust in), and time and time again, the deadlines would pass, and no deal was cut, and the Korean government wouldn’t move but asigned a news deadline. Whose fault was the lack of agreement? The ROK government being stingy? The NGO leaders? The tenants themelves?….

What about the responsibility of the NGO leaders and the thousands of outsiders who heed their call? What kind of responsibility to they have and for what? This can start to get into the idea of “goals” again….what are their goals? How many of them are good for the locals? the city? and South Korea? How much of their action in this 4 year drama should we deem responsible? How much irresponsible?

What the farmers are going through IS harsh and IS unfair. This is the third time they are being kicked off their land without a say since World War II, when the Japanese military built bases there. When the US military moved in, the farmers had to leave their land again, with only rice and flour handed out by US soldiers. Now they are being kicked out once more with minimal compensation and no proper assurances that they will be able to support themselves. Given the history of removal suffered by these farmers, the Korean government could have shown a great deal more sensitivity.

I also think that the US government could call upon the Korean government to act more responsibly instead of taking a hands off approach, since it is a US military base that’s being expanded.

Groups with agendas to promote need to attract an audience. If tying up with another group will gain access to a wider audience, they often will do so. If Group A’s passion is to get the US military out of Korea, they can expect to attract audience X to that issue. If Group B’s passion is to halt land seizures, they will attract audience Y. Where a particular land seizure is concerned with US base expansion, it is wholly logical for both groups to ‘lend’ each other their respective audiences. Perhaps a separate group of environmentalists may discover that a local species of flora is in danger - climb aboard!

A dilemma results: are the farmers truly anti-US military, or do they just want the borrowed audience? Will the flora-savior find himself speaking against land appropriation, even if he doesn’t know anything about it? Many of the posts above show the frustrations of the audience in trying to separate the issues.

As Metropolitician continues with his worthy and interesting project, my free advice is to be shrewd with how he manages the Seoul Glow brand. Taking sides may ultimately limit the value of your brand, and perhaps suck you into the dilemma.

I like the video. Keep up the good work.

Police brutality……ok….got it…

If we mean by this that they got more by holding out than they would have otherwise, it means one thing. If we mean that they would have gotten nothing or next to nothing if they had not drug negociations out, refused to negociate, or hold out, it means something else. And there is a big difference between the two.

We can argue whether they would have gotten too little or enough. We can argue what the right amount of compensation should have been. But, I don’t think it can work if we try to argue they would not have been compensated without a 3 or 4 year hold out.

I also don’t think we can argue that the pain and suffering caused by losing their homes “naturally” means they should not have been moved — because as several of us mentioned, people in Korea (and around the world) get moved off their land by their government for things much less necessary than detering Kim Jong Il’s North Korea…

It would be interesting to compare the amounts given between those who agreed to leave around the time of the first deadline and those who have held out until now.

I did a little news archives quick search:

Last December, the government’s Land Expropriation Committee approved the “imminent seizure” of Taechuri, Toduri, and surrounding fields, making the villagers’ presence on their own land illegal.

So far, 330 households, or 61 percent of residents in the area, have applied for government compensation under which a household can receive around $16,000 at $2,620 a person. Low income earners, of those deemed “special beneficiaries” may get an additional $10,000.

The government also plans giving residents farming land owned by Hyundai Engineering and Construction in Sosan, South Chungchong Province.

A Feb 2007 article says 150 residents were left to sign the final deal. (The quote above listing 330 or 61% households applied for compensation was from May 2006. That would mean at that time 211 “households” not individuals were holding out…I would guess.)

It doesn’t seem to indicate that holding out until now or Feb added much, but this is just a little piece of information.

One of the tactics of the anti-US groups (and other NGOs against government NIMBY issues) is to delay and delay on talks — as I said above — to milk the issue for all the political capital it can hope to bring. That is where the activists step in, and there is no way to dismiss that they have had a major role in Pyongtaek going back to 2003. The Priest moved down their officially and set up up organizing the effort and was joined by a lot of the familiar anti-US NGO groups -

and they staged both peaceful and violent protests with participants ranging from several hundred to several thousand — many more than just the residents were holding out.

So, whose effort may be forgotten? I mean that as a serious question. And what is the defination of that effort?

An effort to hold onto their land? OK.

Everybody agrees having to leave your land and/or your homes stinks.

Or, is the goal thwarting the plans of USFK?

How much do the two overlap in this or that person’s mind involved in Pyongtaek?

We have no trouble defining what the goal of the NGO leaders and their followers have - and it ends up having little to do with helping those 150 hold outs get more compensation from the government.

For them, it is all about putting pressure on the US-SK military alliance by trying to milk any issue they find which they can play up among the general population.

Do we want to feel sympathy for the people losing their homes (and getting compensated to begin setting up somewhere else)? Do we want to admire their determination to keep their land?

That’s fine. I feel sorry for them and wish them well.

But trying to surgically remove the anti-US NGO leaders from the picture does not work. They are intertwined greatly.

On the videos, I’d like to see some day in the life stuff too. I’m torn between whether I would encourage the GIs who visit the orphanages and old folks homes to carry a camcorder to get video. It would show a good side of USFK, but it is too much like exploiting the situation. It seems to cheapen it in my mind.

Maybe when the farming season is under way and some GIs go out to help as they do each year, that would be a good time to film.

Personally, I think video of GIs training hard, and going through the daily grind of being prepared to go to war to defend Korea at a moments notice should have an impact, but it doesn’t, does it?

Anyway, how about these two videos:

http://www.usinkorea.org/video.....h_2006.wmv

http://www.usinkorea.org/videos/new/8_may_2005.wmv

Being American means that one might have to go the extra mile to ensure that Korean viewers understand one’s neutrality. However, being American does not mean that the other half of one’s audience is captive.