The situation on Jeju Island – the Island of Peace – seems to be getting worse. Clashes between the anti-base demonstrators (local and foreign) and riot police seem to be escalating – or, maybe, just finding their way in to the news more often. The Korea Times (September 2, 2011) reports that:
The Seogwipo Police Station sent 600 riot police to the site at around 5 a.m. who forcibly dispersed about 100 protestors, officers said.
While riot police were blocking protesters, construction workers erected a 200-meter-long fence to link the already existing steel wall along the 1.6-kilometer perimeter of the site to block protesters from entering and preventing construction.
[...]
During the crackdown, police apprehended 35 villagers and activists occupying the construction site. They also detained three other key figures who have organized the “illegal rallies” against the project.
While a lot of this is pretty much the run-of-the-mill demonstrators against the police stuff, I did find this interesting:
The Jeju Special Self-Governing Provincial Council strongly denounced the use of police force. “We have demanded that the government resolve the conflict peacefully. The use of police force will only accelerate conflict without solving the issue. We strongly oppose the construction of the naval base without reaching an agreement with the residents.”
I have said this before but it seems as if Jeju is slowly distancing itself from the mainland. Everytime I visit the island I am amazed at how many shops and businesses are named T’amna …… (T’amna was the ancient kingdom on Jeju Island before it was basically annexed by Korea). But it isn’t only businesses. The Jeju government and the central government seem to have also adopted this idea that Jeju is different from the mainland – including a Korean ambassador to the island.
This naval base is not the only issue of contention between the islanders and the central government. The recent spat over Mount Halla in which the central government wants to take the management of the mountain from the Jeju Government and give it to the Ministry of Environment (Jeju Weekly, July 31, 2011).
There is also the ever present controversy of the April 3rd Incident (Massacre). Jay Hauden’s piece “People’s Republic of Korea: Jeju 1945-1947″ provides an interesting read on the early self-governing of the Jeju Islanders and events that lead to the 4.3 massacre:
The Jeju PCs were demonstrating that Koreans could govern themselves and remain friendly to the US military under the conditions of support from it. The popular and participatory form of democracy that was evolving on Jeju was a good example of the steps possible toward a united independent Korea without need for US or SU occupation. The PCs included communists and socialists and activists who had the respect and support of the great majority of Jeju people. The PC de facto government of Jeje was left leaning and so were the people of Jeju.
It is also interesting to note that the Jeju Government has now announced that it will provide a “maintenance allowance” for the survivors of the 4.3 massacre and their family members (Jeju Weekly, August 31, 2011).
Will the controversy over the construction of the base spiral into something bigger? As more and more mainlanders, and for that matter – foreigners, become involved it makes the issue even stickier. Even this blog in Japan is demanding a referendum. One is left to wonder just who is actually protesting and for what reason. With very little effort, or imagination, conspiracists should be able to weave more than a couple of diabolical plots from the over-abundance of articles that are appearing not only in the local papers but also in the international press. For those who are interested – Jeju Weekly has a play-by-play account of these ongoing demonstrations (along with a lot of photographs) which can be seen here.
{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }
The protest leaders are UgLy people – http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/photo/201109/1902_2803_1548.jpg
No wonder they can’t find a REAL job.
Ugly people – http://211.234.126.10/upload/news/Police_disperse_450(0).jpg
They should be laying in the mud where they belong –
http://www.jejuweekly.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=1859
instead of stopping Jejudo from progressing.
Well, well, well. Authoritarian conservative governments forcefully imposing its will on a regional people, insinuating critics as leftists, traitors, or pussies (or a combination of the above).
Hmm where have we seen this in Korea before?
“cornbrain” the South Korean Government is well within it rights to determine what is good for the collective even if there is a vocal minority against such. This is still a democracy even though those protesting the South Korean naval base don’t like the fact they lost a vote against this, as well as a couple of lawsuits.
Regarding the base, even then President Roh said, “Peace without armament cannot exist,” and that a naval base on the island is crucial for South Korean security.
P.S. it is not insinuation to consider much of the protest to have a leftist (political) element when there are banners on the island that read “Fight to the death against the American imperialists’ anti-China naval base!”
What reasonable South Korean would post such a thing if they were not pursuing a political agenda in the first place!?
Meow! Mr. Elgin with his powerful insults! 0_o I’m so wounded…
“This is still a democracy even though those protesting the South Korean naval base don’t like the fact they lost a vote against this, as well as a couple of lawsuits.”
And guess what: protesting is also democracy. Democracy isnt a one way street!
“Fight to the death against the American imperialists’ anti-China naval base!”
The fight to the death part is pretty kooky, but I fail to see why the rest is anymore political than..um…the very act of putting in a base where the island’s people CLEARLY dislike it?
Would you say China’s installing additional bases on Chinese soil on an unwilling regional people is not political, and any protest AGAINST it is? Cmon, you can do better than that.
Then again, “Fight to the death” seems to be pretty tame shit compared to the aggressive mottos printed out by Korean protestors in general – both convservatives and liberals
“Fight to the death against the American imperialists’ anti-China naval base!”
Is very pro-North Korean propaganda. The N.I.S. should go in a lock the ring-leaders up for communist activities.
ROK democracy in action
. . . rather you are so impeccably lame as to troll in favor of the indefensible. A vocal minority “clearly dislike” the base and “dislike” is a far cry from “American imperialists’ anti-China naval base”, which really is “clearly” a political agenda that is not home-grown or a mere domestic issue.
Maybe you want argue about the virtues of imported politics for South Korea instead (?).
I read that the minority had their chance in a vote and two lawsuits and, naturally they claim the vote was “illegal” (because they lost) and maybe they will try another lawsuit but the system has dealt with their concerns. If the actual people living on Chejudo want to rebel against their own government, citing misdeeds from the past as their cause, then that is an entirely different story.
“American imperialists’ anti-China naval base”
That this is in question is the real source of amusement. Make no mistake, my trollish friend, this base is not aimed at the piss-poor military of the DPRK.
And this base is done in the larger context of the American bases in Japan, Taiwan, Phillippines, in addition to its already existing bases in ROK. South Korea is not an island. Its military does not work in a vacuum. And any major military move by ROK is not done purely by itself, but in conjunction with the US. I’m sorry if you can’t see that – let alone that every single DPRK provocation that I can recall was dealt not by the ROK military alone, but in conjuction with the US.
But if you want to pull a China-style Shi Lang defense and go “But this is all for our own innocent purposes!” then you can keep believing that.
“I read that the minority had their chance in a vote and two lawsuits and, naturally they claim the vote was “illegal” (because they lost) and maybe they will try another lawsuit but the system has dealt with their concerns. ”
Thanks for your speculation.
I personally dont know the legal context, so I base what I say mostly on the why’s of the protest/opposition against the base.
This American double-standards is amusing, it reminds me of the Cuban case. Somehow, ROK arming itself up (with explicit coordination with the far-away US) against a rising, hegemonic China = ok. But a socialist Cuba doing the same with the help of far-away USSR against a hegemonic US (with its history of invasions and control of the island) = evil, bad!
You obviously refuse to understand that this is a South Korean base, built without American direction, so maybe you don’t think South Koreans have the ability to follow their own initiative. You are being arrogant and trolling here since you have no valid argument nor do you have any real facts other than what you dig up from one of the protest sites.
I note that, per one article:
This was back in 2007 too (cite). So, basically, ten-percent of any voting population in South Korea could cause a recall referendum, which is madness.
Does the United States still maintain bases in Taiwan and the Philippines? When I was in the Navy sailors (Chinese linguists, mainly) looked back fondly at the lost bases in Taiwan, and rued the impending loss of bases in the Philippines. If we were hoaxed, there will be hell to pay.
Well, conflakes, you seem to have a keen grasp how of global alliances work. Yes, the US doesn’t mind when allied nations develop their military, and they disprove when non-allied and/or hostile nations do the same. Why, it’s almost as if the US “favored” certain nations! I wonder if other countries know about this . . .
Now, about that “But this is all for our own innocent purposes!” thing you mentioned . . . I don’t think Korea protecting it’s most important shipping lane, in the face of China boosting its naval power, is so much “innocent” as it is “stupifyingly obvious.” To me, the only real question is why there wasn’t a naval base on Jeju thirty years ago.
“so maybe you don’t think South Koreans have the ability to follow their own initiative. ”
Ability? The Koreans are more than capable.
Permission? That’s a more ambiguous question. My answer leads to: not really, or at least not as much as they should. Koreans do not have “permission” to make military moves independently. Not without checking with the US first.
“since you have no valid argument nor do you have any real facts other than what you dig up from one of the protest sites. ”
umm…what? I think you are confusing me with someone?
“I note that, per one article:”
You do realize that I said:
“I personally dont know the legal context, so I base what I say mostly on the why’s of the protest/opposition against the base.”
“Yes, the US doesn’t mind when allied nations develop their military, and they disprove when non-allied and/or hostile nations do the same. Why, it’s almost as if the US “favored” certain nations! ”
That’s right! It’s almost as if…. as if….. *gasp* it were like any other large/prominent nation in the world! Hmm, can we think of any other such nations?
“I don’t think Korea protecting it’s most important shipping lane, in the face of China boosting its naval power, is so much “innocent” as it is “stupifyingly obvious.””
By that same economic logic, the unsettling Chinese military maneuvers in East and South China Sea is similarly “stupifyingly obvious”, not meriting much criticism.
cornflakes,
To your first point . . . well, I have no idea what your first point is. Please clarify.
To your second point, to a certain extent, yes, it is fairly obvious that China’s naval influence in those seas would grow. But countries criticize anyway, because that’s the way this game is played. Nobody expects China to stop growing its military just because of a few diplomatic admonishments. Similarly, China may protest the Jeju base, but they don’t have any real expectation of seeing Korea discontinue the process just because China’s feelings are hurt. Do you see a pattern here? Countries often say one thing, but have very different expectations of what they think will happen. For more examples, see every damn thing North and South Korea have ever said to each other.
Now, if China’s shipping lanes faced a potential threat from a foreign power, they would be well within their right to bolster their naval strength. As it happens, that threat is much less manifest (even with a Korean base on Jeju), so the criticism to China has a bit more merit than your criticism of South Korea.
In any event, Korea failing to secure the waters around Jeju, and by extension the West Sea, is tantamount to just trusting that China won’t abuse their naval superiority in those waters. This is a BAD IDEA. Honestly, I don’t think that China is aiming for the kind of hegemonic military dominance in East Asia that America has in the Western hemisphere, but Korea still needs to keep its military, especially its navy, up to par.
My first point was made in an intentionally snarky tone because your own writing was incredibly snarky. In internet discussions, I prefer to dish out what others dish out to me. I do apologize if it was over the line.
So basically your point was, there was nothing out of the ordinary for the US to support ROK, because the Americans did so out of their own interests and those of its allies. And I rebutted by insinuating that so was the case for other large, influential countries – PRC support for North Korean provocations and free trade zones, Soviet support for Czech and Hungarian suppressions, you know the rest. Basically I am agreeing with you by saying the US is morally of the same fiber as any one of these countries – not more righteous or whatever.
RE: your second point. Thanks for your well-argued, thoughtful response. I definitely agree with you that a strong argument is there that the ROK military has every motivation to strengthen itself. I never mean to insinuate that South Korea is “safe” for itself. Even Japan in the long term is not much safer than ROK.
Keep in mind this whole Jeju discussion can be a bit separated from China’s own military expansion. (Our Jeju discussion was originally about the opposition to it, by its own people in the region. And whether or not they were Communist sympathizers and all that. ) Certainly if I were the Lee government, I would push for continued strong relationship with the US military, and bases are definitely part of that equation.
But on the flip side…if I were China, I also would be – SHOULD be – building up my military as much and as fast as possible. Be very careful to insinuate that what China is doing here is anything out of the ordinary. Increased military budgets is nothing unique to China or China-like states, or even East Asia. Brazil, India, and Saudi Arabia are other large countries who are pursuing China-like strategies of military expansion. Yet why is it that China doing so is “bad” or newsworthy to Americans, but those other guys not? The reason (as I see it) is Asian territorial disputes, and because China is a huge country not aligned with the US.
Reading what you wrote gives me the sense that you don’t believe China faces a threat to itself comparable to what the ROK faces. Let me give you a small tip: take a look at a map of East Asia (or even better, a world globe). Look at it closely; you will reallize China has more land and water neighbors combined than any other country, even Russia. Then you will realize that literally all of them are either outright enemies (or the politicallly correct term “rivals”), or untrustworthy neighbors. That, and the vast majority of Chinese trade and energy comes from/through the East, South China seas. That, and unlike ROK, Japan, Taiwan, Phillipines, Vietnam, Singapore and so many others (inc. around the world), China has no option to “play off” the United States against its rivals. It is all alone. (and if you are about to suggest Russia is a Chinese ally…please slap yourself). So, if I were China, why wouldn’t I militarize and exponentially increase my capabilities ASAP? In a hypothetical drawdown with the US over Taiwan, the Chinese know very well that US forces could intercept Chinese-bound ships along the Strait of Malacca. Or forget Taiwan – Daiyou, Paracel, Spratly are other exmaples.
I am not defending China’s actions, but I am saying: if I agree with your logic on the ROK military, your logic is doubly true and appropriate for Chinese military.
Thank you for the thoughtful response, cornflakes. Isn’t it nice to see an internet exchange get progressively better? They usually get worse . . .
So it turns out we agree more than we disagree. I definitely think we should be watching China very carefully, because there is the potential there for a very ugly hegemony over all of East Asia. But at the moment, I think that’s only one of several directions China could take. Traditionally, what China has wanted from its neighbors above all else is simply an acknowledgement of Chinese superiority. I think this may be enough to keep them happy, politically speaking, and I think a strong China could actually be good for East Asia overall (probably not for Japan, though). What worries me is the potential for the Chinese economy to grow out of their own control. I think East Asia may have a lot more to fear from Chinese corporations than from the Chinese government. But again, this is only one of several directions China could take. Interesting times, as they say.
It seems our mutual friend Mr. Elgin has disappeared? Oh well, so sad.
Thanks for your comment Mr. Granfalloon (where is that name from, I wonder?) I definitely agree that China is a hegemonic neighbor who deserves alot of scrutiny. I will also more than agree that China has its bullying moments, esp. its recent actions with the territorial disputes in SE and E. China seas (just like South Korea repeatedly bullies Japan wrt the Liancourt isles. The main difference being Korea is small).
But to insinuate China is more of a bully than, say, other large, influential countries like Russia, US, or even India? Ever wonder why not just Pakistan, but Sri Lanka, Bangladesh, Nepal welcome Chinese economic and even political presence/strengthened relationship, while India keeps wanting to see the Indian Ocean as its “Indian Lake”? And don’t get me started on the Americans and their Monroe Doctrine!
I appreciate the discussion, as always.
You must log in to post a comment.