한국, 기특하거나 혹은 배은망덕하거나
[제국에서 띄우는 편지 ④] 미국인은 한국을 어떻게 보고 있나
데니스 하트 (hwangjini)
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ 한국에 대한 설문조사에 답하고 있는 학생들.
ⓒ 데니스 하트
설문조사
<오마이뉴스> 독자 여러분, 안녕하십니까? 한국에 비가 너무 많이 온다고 해서 걱정했는데 이제는 가을 날씨가 되어가나 봅니다.
지 금까지의 편지에서는 미국의 제국주의적 정책을 떠받치고 있는 일반 시민들의 국가관, 미국 문화의 군국주의화, 그리고 미국민의 세계관에 대해 논의했습니다. 오늘은 좀 더 구체적으로 미국 시민은 한국과 한국인에 대해 무엇을 알고 있는지, 어떻게 생각하는지 말씀드리려고 합니다.
한국의 무기 구입부터 대(對)북한 관계, 구조조정 정책에 이르기까지 개입해온 제국으로서 미국의 의지와 선호는 한국인의 삶에 광범한 영향을 끼칩니다. 한국인으로 살면서 좋든 싫든 미국이라는 나라의 존재를 무시하기란 불가능에 가깝다고 해야지요.
그렇지만 반대로 미국인들은 한국과 한국인들을 어떻게 생각할까요? 제국의 시민들은 한국인들의 생활방식과 소망과 문화적 업적에 대해 어떻게 생각하고 있을까요?
간 단히 말씀드려서, 일반 미국 시민은 한국에 대해 거의 아는 것도 없고 아무 생각도 없습니다. 비유하자면 어떤 사람이 다른 어떤 사람을 사랑한다면 그 사람에 대해 많이 알고 싶어 하고, 관심을 두고, 같이 나누고 보살피는 것이 인지상정일 것입니다. 한쪽이 상대에 대해 아는 것도 아무것도 없고 알고 싶어 하지도 않는다면 그 관계는 뭔가 문제가 있는 것입니다. 세상에 짝사랑에 빠진 사람만큼 딱한 것이 또 있을까요?
대부분 미국인들은 자기네 나라에 대한 확고한 신념이란 색안경을 통해 한국을 포함한 다른 나라들을 보며 우선 그 나라가 미국의 이익에 중요한 관련이 있는지 여부를 따집니다. 미국인들이 한국에 대해 생각한다면 제일 먼저 한국이 미국의 적인지, 친구인지를 결정합니다. 즉 한국이 미국이 도와주고 구원해준 것을 감사히 여기고 있는 우방국인가, 아니면 미국에 대한 증오와 질투로 가득 차있는 반미국가인가를 알려고 한다는 것입니다. 이런 미국인들의 마음에는 그 두 가지 사이에 있는 나라는 거의 없습니다.
"너, 반미? 친미?"... 유치한 이분법에 갇힌 미국인
예 를 들어 '자유공화국(Free Republic)'이란 보수계 시민단체 블로그에 실린 글들을 소개해보겠습니다. "남한 사람들은 미국을 비난하고 노코(북한 사람들)들과 합작하고 있는데도 우리가 보호해줘야 된단 말인가? 남한 젊은 세대들은 역사에 대해 아는 게 없어서 미국이 고마운 줄을 모르고 미군이 한국을 떠난다면 어떤 일이 벌어질지 모르고 있다"는 주장이 있는가 하면, 그 바로 아래에는 "남한에는 소수지만 시끄럽게 떠들어대는, 미국을 증오하는 좌파집단이 있다, 이들이 노코에게서 지원을 받는다는 의혹이 제기되고 있다"고 적혀있습니다. 이와 함께 "나는 한국인 친구도 많고 그들과 이런 이야기를 주고받는다, 대부분 소코(남한사람)들은 대단히 친민주주의적이고 친자본주의적이며 친미주의적이다"라는 식의 글도 흔히 보입니다.
독 자 여러분, 이제 감이 잡히십니까? 미국인들에게 한국인들은 선량하든지 사악하든지 둘 중 하나며, 미국에 대해 감사할 줄 아는 기특한 사람들이거나 아니면 고마움을 모르는 뻔뻔한 국민들이고, '반미'가 아니면 '친미'입니다. 한국에 대해 조금이라도 아는 일반 미국 시민이라면 그 이해나 관심의 깊이가 이런 유치한 양자택일의 사고방식을 넘어서지 않습니다.
따 라서 미국의 대중매체가 늘 그렇듯 "친미" 또는 "반미"라는 딱지를 붙여 한국에서 일어나는 논의나 사건이나 인물을 소개할 때, 일반인들은 그 이상 의문을 제기하지 않으며 복잡한 국제관계 현실을 그저 말초 감정이나 자극하는 단순한 이야깃거리로 포장해놓은 뉴스꼭지들을 아무 생각 없이 소비합니다.
적어도 제가 아는 한국인들은 '반미'라는 개념을 주로 미국 정부의 정책을 반대한다는 뜻으로 사용합니다. 그러나 많은 미국인들은 '반미'를 아주 다르게 해석하여 "자유를 반대하고, 민주주의를 증오하며, 미국 정부를 타도의 대상으로 생각할 뿐만 아니라, 미국인 개개인을 혐오한다는 뜻"이라고 생각합니다.
믿 기지 않으시겠지만 사실입니다. 대부분의 미국 사람들은 미국 정부와 국민을 지나치게 동일시하는 경향이 있습니다. 국가와 동일시하는 것이 미국인으로서 정체감과 구별되지 않도록 유치원부터 고등학교까지 줄기차게 가르치는 것도 한 원인입니다. 그렇기 때문에 부시 대통령이 걸핏하면 텔레비전에 나와서는 "그들은 우리의 자유를 증오한다"면서, 테러리스트들은 미국 사람 개개인을 원수로 여긴다고 강조하는 것입니다.
미국인 선생에게 깍듯한 반미한국인, 월드컵 응원에 긴장한 미국인
오 래전에 제가 한국 대학에서 가르치고 있었을 때의 일화입니다. 당시 거의 매주 데모가 있었는데, 학생들은 벽돌을 깨서 전경들에게 던지고 전경들은 학생들을 향해 최루탄을 쏘는 상당히 격렬한 데모였습니다. 때때로 학생들은 미국 대통령의 허수아비를 만들어 불태우기도 하고 길바닥에 성조기를 그려 자동차가 그 위로 지나가게 하기도 했습니다.
하루는 집으로 가다가 한창 데모중인 학생들을 만났습니다. 제가 아는 학생 몇 명도 거기 끼어서 돌을 열심히 던지고 있었습니다. 학생들은 저를 보고는 돌아서서 꾸벅 절을 하면서 안녕히 가시라고 인사를 했고 저도 "예, 조심들 하세요"하고 인사했습니다. 그러고는 학생들은 바로 돌 던지기로 돌아갔습니다. 미국 학생들에게 이 일화를 들려주면 매우 놀랍니다. 반미주의자도 미국인의 친구가 될 수 있다는 사실을 이해하지 못하기 때문입니다.
미국인들을 상대할 때는 이들이 미국에 대한 어떤 비판이든 개인적인 비판으로 받아들인다는 사실을 기억하는 것이 좋습니다. 같은 논리로, 미국인들이 다른 나라를 비판할 때는 그 나라 국민들도 같이 싸잡아서 비난하는 경우가 많습니다.
제 미국인 친구 중에 서울의 고등학교에서 영어를 가르쳤던 사람이 있는데, 그는 월드컵 기간 중에 수많은 사람들이 길거리에 쏟아져 나와 열광적으로 태극기를 흔들며 국가대표 팀을 응원했을 때 진심으로 두려웠다고 합니다. 그 사람은 타국인에 대한 혐오와 적대감을 내포하고 있는 미국식 공격적 민족주의에 익숙했기에 한국인들이 길거리 축제에서 발산하는 긍정적인 민족주의를 이해할 수 없었던 것입니다. 한국 사람들이 민족적 자부심과 기쁨을 한껏 드러냈을 때 그 사람은 외국인인 자신에게 적대적으로 나오지 않을까 무서웠던 것입니다.
"미국인처럼 돼 가는 기특한 동아시아인들"
그렇다면 평균적인 미국 시민들은 서울시청 앞 광장에 떼 지어 나오셔서 성조기를 흔들며 친미 데모를 하시는 할머니, 할아버지들을 보면 무슨 생각을 할까요? 이분들에 대한 존경심이 솟아나올까요?
앞 서 인용한 블로그에서는 2003년 3·1절에 열린 예의 친미 데모를 보도한 <조선일보> 기사를 실었습니다. "반핵, 반김정일, 자유통일, 그리고 미군 철수 반대"를 내세우며 "약 100만명"이나 모일 것이라고 주최 측에서 밝혔던 이 데모에서는 부시 정권의 대북 정책을 전폭 지지한다는 내용을 담은 '부시 대통령에게 보내는 공개서한'이 전달되었다고 합니다.
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ 2003년 삼일절에 열린 '반핵반김 자유통일 3.1절 국민대회'에서 참가자들이 대형 성조기, 태극기, 유엔기를 펼쳐드는 퍼포먼스를 벌이고 있다.
ⓒ 3.1사진공동취재단
이 기사에 달렸던 85개의 댓글 중 다수 의견을 대표하는 것들은 다음과 같습니다.
"동아시아인들이 기특하게도 미국인처럼 되어가는군! (East Asia eagles up.)"
" 한국에서 반미 데모가 급속히 사라져 가는가 보다. (암, 그래야지!) 친미적인 사람들은 항상 있었겠지만 이제야 시간을 내고 용기를 내서 공산주의자들과 패배주의자들 같은 나쁜 새끼들(scumbags)과 맞서 싸우려고 나왔나보다. 만세!"
"머저리 같은 지도자 때문에 굶어죽는 사람들 보면 북한을 과소평가하기 쉽지만 방심하면 절대로 안 된다! 언제 쳐들어올지 몰라!"
"잘하고 있는 거야. 내가 마음이 다 훈훈해진다."
"이 기사 좋은데. 위로 올려라."
"좀 무서운데. 저 사람들 위험하지 않을까? 하긴 북한에서 미사일 쏘면 서울에 바로 떨어지는데 길에 있든 집에 있든 위험하기야 마찬가지지."
위의 댓글에서 한국 사람에 대한 존경심이라고는 찾아볼 수가 없습니다. 오로지 미국을 지지하는 데 대해 칭찬해주는 것뿐이고 미국을 지지하지 않는 사람들은 싸잡아 "나쁜 새끼들"입니다.
제 가 보기에는 <조선일보>나 친미데모에 참여해 성조기를 흔들어 주신 분들이나 제국의 시민들에게 한국을 좋아하고 존중하는 마음을 불러일으키지는 못한 것 같습니다. 대신에 적어도 일부 미국인들에게는 한국인들이 미국의 정치적·경제적 제반 정책과 미국 군대를 더욱 환영하게 되었다는 착각을 불러일으켜, 뭐든 미국 정부 마음대로 밀어붙여도 된다는 오만한 생각에 더욱 힘을 실어주었을 뿐입니다.
저로서는 좀 두렵기까지 한 것은 위 블로그에서 인용한 보수적인 미국 사람들은 대부분의 미국인보다 한국에 대해 상대적으로 많이 알고 있다는 사실입니다. (다음에 나오는 이야기를 읽으시려면 녹차 가지고는 안 되고, 아마 소주를 한 잔 들이키셔야 할지도 모릅니다.)
한국은 쿠바 옆, 미국은 싸움 말리러 한국전 참전?... 효순·미선 아는 이 없어
지난주에 제가 가르치는 국제정치학 개론과 미국정치학 개론, 그리고 미국의 대외정책 강의를 듣는 학생 전원에게 한국에 대한 간단한 설문지를 돌렸습니다.
이 설문조사를 실시한 계기는 두 가지였습니다. 하나는 얼마 전 한국의 한 고등학교에서 강연을 했는데, 학생 하나가 "미국 사람들은 효순양과 미선양 사건에 대해 어떻게 생각하나요?"라고 물었던 것입니다. 저는 미안하지만 미국 사람 중엔 그 사건을 아는 사람이 거의 없고 따라서 어떻게 생각하고 말고 할 것도 없다고 대답했습니다. 또 하나는 지난번 편지를 쓰면서 미국인들이 세계 지리나 다른 나라에 관한 일반 상식이 많이 뒤떨어진다는 말씀을 드렸기에 우리 학교 학생들은 어떤가 싶었기 때문입니다.
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ 저를 강연에 초대해주신 고등학교 선생님과 학생들입니다.
ⓒ 데니스 하트
한국관
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ 고등학생들과 필자.
ⓒ 데니스 하트
한국관
제가 실시한 한국에 대한 설문조사 결과는 생각보다도 더 비참했습니다. 거둬진 설문지는 총 70부였는데 효순양과 미선양 사건에 대해(희생자들의 이름은 물론 사건 자체에 대해) 아는 사람은 단 하나도 없었습니다. 카츠라-태프트 밀약(미국은 일본의 한국 지배를 승인하고 일본은 미국이 지배하던 필리핀을 침략하지 않기로 1905년 미일이 맺은 밀약)에 대해서도 단 한 학생도 대답하지 못했습니다.
설문지에는 백지 세계지도가 들어있었는데 거기에 한국을 비롯한 몇 개국을 표시하게 했습니다. 한국을 정확하게 표시한 학생은 19%에 불과했습니다. 일본이나 중국에다 한국이라고 써놓은 것은 약과이고 21%는 필리핀, 태국, 베트남, 버마 등 동남아시아 어딘가에 한국이라는 표시를 했습니다. 심지어는 그리스나 쿠바, 카자흐스탄, 이란 같은 나라를 한국이라고 써놓은 학생도 있었습니다.
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ .
ⓒ 데니스 하트
한국
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ "K"라고 한국을 엉뚱한 곳에 표시해 놓은 지도. 하나는 쿠바 근처에, 다른 하나는 그리스 근처에 표시되어 있습니다.(I는 이라크, B는 브라질, S는 수단, N은 이란).
ⓒ 데니스 하트
한국
한국과 북한의 국가수반 이름을 물어본 질문에 노무현 대통령의 이름을 댄 학생은 단 한 명도 없었지만, 21%는 김정일 위원장의 이름을 (비록 철자는 엉망이었지만) 비슷하게나마 알고 있었습니다. 김정일 위원장의 이름을 아는 학생이 조금이라도 있었던 것은 텔레비전 프로그램이나 코미디, 영화 등에서 자주 김정일 위원장이 포악한 정신병자나 독재자로 등장하기 때문인 것 같습니다. 일부 학생은 이름 대신 "광인"이라고 적기도 했습니다.
한국전쟁에 대한 질문에서는 21%만이 1950년대에 일어났다고 바르게 대답했습니다. 61%는 짐작도 못했고 나머지는 1960년대, 1970년대라고 하는가 하면, 심지어 1980년대까지도 나왔습니다. 한국전쟁에서 미국의 역할이 무엇이었는가 하는 질문에도 60%가 전혀 모른다고 답했고 27%는 북한이 쳐들어와서 남한을 도와주러 갔다든가, 공산주의의 확산을 막기 위해 갔다는 등의 비슷하게 맞는 답을 했습니다. 그러나 일부는 남한과 북한이 서로 싸우는데 말려주러 갔다든지, 북한을 편들어 주기 위해서 갔다든지 하는 엉뚱한 답을 하기도 했습니다.
북한을 군사대국으로 착각하는 학생들도 많이 있어서 영국, 일본, 독일, 한국, 북한 5개 국가 중 군사비 지출은 북한이 제일 적었다는 사실을 제대로 맞춘 학생은 7%에 불과했습니다. 한국인들의 업적에 대해 아는 것을 말해보라는 질문에는 거의 모든 학생이 "아무것도 몰라요"라고 대답했습니다.
[추천] [블로그] [자세히 보기]
▲ 설문에 대한 설명을 듣고 있는 학생들.
ⓒ 데니스
한국관
납작 엎드려도 미국은 쳐다보지 않습니다
첫 번째 드린 편지에서, 대다수 미국인은 누구보다 축복받았고 누구보다 자유로우며 누구보다 많은 권리를 누린다고 믿고 있다고 말씀드렸습니다. 달리 말하면 이 글을 읽고 계시는 독자 분들을 포함하여 미국 밖의 모든 세계인들은 미국인보다 열등하다고 믿는다는 것입니다.
제국은 원래부터 평등한 국제관계를 가정하지 않습니다. 제국주의 시각에서 보면 한국은 물론 미국에 종속된 주변국가에 불과합니다. 유럽, 캐나다, 호주 등 몇몇 이른바 '선진국'을 제외한 미국 밖의 모든 주변 국가들은 '제3세계'라는 개념 아래 뭉뚱그려져 막연하게만 이해됩니다. 원래 제3세계 개념을 창시한 분들의 의도와 달리 미국에서 '제3세계'란 말은 우리 학생들 말대로 "가난하고, 인구밀도가 높고, 질병이 넘쳐나고, 무식하고 열등한 사람들이 독재자 아래에서 신음하는 곳"이란 의미로 변질되었습니다. 그 주변국가 가운데 일부는 제국의 질서에 순응하는 친미국가, 나머지는 위험한 반미국가라고 인식하는 것이 평균 미국인의 의식의 깊이입니다.
그렇다면 제국의 주변국에 사는 한국인들에겐 어떤 선택의 여지가 있을까요? 제게 한국 학생들이 한 질문입니다. 저는 외국인이니 조심스럽습니다만 제 의견을 말씀드리자면, 대통령 선거가 곧 다가오니 미국 정부에 한국을 동등하게 대우할 것을 당당하게 요구할 수 있는 지도자를 뽑는 것이 한 가지 중요한 선택이 아닐까 합니다. 북한은 줄기차게 미국을 향해 동등한 국가로 존중해줄 것을 요구해왔고 사실 먹혀들어가고 있습니다.
미국 앞에서 알아서 기어주지 않으면 미국이 보복을 할 거라고 생각하시는 분이 있다면, 그래서 시청 앞 광장에서 성조기를 흔들어 주시는 거라면, 지금 말씀드리지요. 미국은 당신들이 납작하게 기든지 말든지 한국의 국익을 염두에 두는 일은 조금도 없으리라는 사실을 말입니다.
미국의 대외정책의 방향을 결정하는 데 있어 한국인의 안녕과 행복은 조금도 문제가 되지 않습니다. 오로지 미국의 이익만이 미국의 행동을 결정합니다. 한국을 우방으로 두는 것이 유용하다고 판단되는 한 미국은 한국을 지지하겠지만, 한국이 아무런 쓸모가 없어지는 순간 미국은 어떤 추악한 행동이든 할 수 있습니다. 미국의 지도자층이나 일반 시민이나 이런 점에서는 조금도 다르지 않습니다. 위로가 되는 말씀을 드리지 못해 정말 죄송합니다. (소주 한 잔 더 하세요.)
앞서 비유로 들었던 짝사랑하는 사람의 경우를 생각해봅시다. (짝사랑의 비유는 권력의 불균형이란 점에서 잘 들어맞습니다.) 일방적으로 구애를 받는 사람이, 자신을 짝사랑하는 사람이 납작하게 엎드리고 매달리고 빈다고 그 사람에 대한 존경심과 사랑을 느낄 수 있을까요? 스스로 당당하게 서는 사람만이 존경을 받습니다. 국제관계도 별로 다르지 않습니다.
다음번 편지에서는 제국 시민의 의식과 대중매체의 역할에 대해서 말씀드리겠습니다. (이번 편지가 마지막이냐고 물어보신 분이 계셨는데 '제국 편지'는 앞으로도 죽 계속됩니다.)
모두 건강하시고 안녕히 계십시오.
Saturday, September 15, 2007
Thursday, May 17, 2007
[Analysis] On inter-Korean relations, U.S. officials say, ‘slow down’
On May 16, a day before the two Koreas were scheduled to conduct a test of two rail lines connecting the countries, U.S. ambassador Alexander Vershbow paid a visit to South Korean Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung. The meeting was reportedly at the request of the U.S. official, who wanted to be directly briefed on the current status of inter-Korean relations.
The meeting comes at a sensitive time, as high-ranking officials from South Korea and the U.S. have expressed different views on inter-Korean relations and the six-party talks. In particular, Vershbow said in a May 4 forum that progress in inter-Korean relations should be coordinated with the implementation of North Korea’s agreement at the six-party talks.
The U.S. ambassador’s recent remarks seem to be raising the issue of a de facto ‘speed control’ in inter-Korean relations, worried they are developing too quickly considering the delicate nature of the process of denuclearizing North Korea.
During his 45-minute meeting with Lee, Vershbow reportedly said on the current matters of inter-Korean relations that South Korea and the U.S. need to closely exchange information and opinions. Three or four times during the meeting, Vershbow reportedly said inter-Korean relations and the process of six-party talks were two sides of the same coin.
Vershbow’s reported remarks are interpreted as reflecting the U.S. government’s worries that inter-Korean relations are accelerating ahead of progress in the six-party talks, which are currently suspended due to alleged technical issues surrounding the delivery of money previously frozen at Macau’s Banco Delta Asia to North Korean accounts at another bank. In the works between the two Koreas are the train test runs, an agreement from Seoul to send the North raw materials for light manufacturing worth some 84.1 billion won (US$91 million), and a shipment of 400,000 tons of rice worth 144.2 billion won (US$ 155.9 million). In addition, military generals from the two Koreas met and agreed to a fishing treaty for the West Sea.
But no such trace of the reported exchange between Vershbow and Lee made it into a press briefing by a unification ministry official following the meeting between the U.S. official and the unification minister. According to the briefing, Vershbow said to Lee that he was satisfied with the close cooperation between South Korea and the U.S. on the matter of the North’s nuclear weapons program. The ministry official also said that Vershbow called for the other five nations of the six-party talks to urge North Korea to swiftly denuclearize, and that Vershbow inquired to Lee about the prospects of inter-Korean relations following the scheduled train tests.
Vershbow’s reported request to the unification minister regarding ‘slowing down’ relations between the two Koreas may be part of the general mood in Washington toward the matter. According to Rep. Shin Ki-nam, head of the South Korean National Assembly’s intelligence committee, on May 15 Christopher Hill, the chief U.S. negotiator in the six-party talks, told him that inter-Korean relations and the six-party talks should go hand in hand. Shin met Hill during a recent visit to the U.S., and the Korean lawmaker said that Hill also expressed to him his complaint over recent developments in inter-Korean relations at a time when North Korea shows no commitment to the six-party talks.
Shin said that Dennis Wilder, a senior director for Asian affairs at the U.S. National Security Council, told him that North Korea has not shown any goodwill gesture, so it is not an appropriate time to hold the four-party summit. Shin said Wilder also emphasized the need for close cooperation between South Korea and the U.S., and expressed his negative views over a possible inter-Korean summit.
To place pressure on North Korea to implement an agreement at the six-party talks, the U.S. sees South Korea’s cooperation as essential, with Seoul now a major economic contributor to Pyongyang.
However, voices calling for more rapid progress in inter-Korean relations are gaining momentum in South Korea to build an atmosphere for North Korea to implement its agreement to denuclearize made at the six-party talks. On May 14, former South Korean president Kim Dae-jung again stressed the inter-Korean summit, the first and last of which was held in 2000, when Kim was president.
Kim, a 2000 Nobel Peace Prize laureate, said in a forum organized by the German Council on Foreign Relations, Germany’s national foreign policy network, "The Roh Moo-hyun government seems to have a position that it will hold the summit talks in relation to or simultaneously with the six-party talks, but the inter-Korean summit is possible before the second part of this year and I believe it should [be held]."
Even in the South Korean government, calls for putting the improvement of inter-Korean relations ahead of the development of the six-party talks has reportedly begun to gain ground, as the implementation of the February 13 agreement under the six-party talks has been dragging without any trace of breakthrough, due to the problems involved in transferring the North’s funds from the Macau bank. That issue stems from other banks balking at handling a transfer of funds previously deemed illicit by the U.S. Treasury Department.
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
Trains carry nation's hopes for future
| While more than a thousand spectators and international press crowded Munsan Station to watch the ceremony in the South, the mood was much more subdued in the North with no special ceremonies commemorating the event. The stark difference in the atmosphere seemed to reflect the disparity of interest between the South and the North, in reopening the railways, participants said. The operation of the test runs was carried out smoothly overall, and both trains passed through the Military Demarcation Line at around 12:20 p.m. It marked the first successful trial for the railways - one running along the west coast, and another on the east - that had sat rotting for over half a century since the end of the Korean War (1950-1953). The South Korean train ran on the Gyeongui Line from Munsan to Gaeseong, and the North Korean train traveled on the Donghae Line from Geumgang to Jaejin, each carrying 150 delegates, from both sides.
While some critics were more apprehensive of the timeliness of the test-runs, it was an event celebrated by many Koreans, who believe a full reconnection of the railways in the future would move the two Koreas closer to reunification. The South Korean government contends that a full reconnection of the railways will also bring positive developments in military and economic relations with the North. The event started at around 10:30 a.m. near the Munsan Station of the Gyeongui Line, which attracted more attention both domestically and internationally because of the site's accessibility. A brief commotion occurred outside the station as several members of the families of South Koreans abducted by the North during and after the war protested the test-run. They chanted that with the railways reconnection, the amount of aid to the North will increase but that it would do little to ease the pain of the families. They were soon taken away from the site by Police guarding the area. The train, driven by 55-year-old South Korean engineer Shin Jang-chul, headed toward the North Korean destination of the Gaeseong Station at around 11:30 a.m. Balloons and "Korea Reunification" flags in blue and white adorned the side of the railway tracks to add to the celebratory atmosphere. "It's so emotional to see the train go to the North now after all those years since such a tragic war that I don't dare to remind myself," Yim Hee-jae, a 82-year-old grandmother said while watching the departure ceremony, which was televised live nationwide. A total of 100 South Korean delegates and 50 North Korean representatives were on board to take part in the journey. Unification Minister Lee Jae-joung led the South Korean group, and his North Korean counterpart Kwon Ho-ung headed the North's delegation.
Also on board were former unification ministers Lee Jong-seok and Lim Dong-won, South Korean Red Cross chief Han Wan-sang, National Security Adviser to President Roh Moo-hyun, Baek Jong-chun, poet Ko Eun, and actress Ko Eun-a. No foreigners were included on the list of participants. Over 1,000 foreign reporters applied for permits from the South Korean government to cover the departure ceremony at Munsan Station. The youngest passenger was 13-year-old Jang Jin-gu, who was chosen because of his participation in a TV game show on Koreas' reunification. "Although most of my friends are not really interested in reunification, by coming here and looking at the North Korean kids (while stopping in Gaeseong), I can now understand how important (reunification) is," Jang said upon arriving in Gaeseong later in the day. The North Korean delegation comprised officials from the railways authorities, inter-Korean cooperation organizations and reporters. Many of their identities were not included on the list released to the press. The train briefly stopped at Dorasan Station for a customs check, which was conducted by South Korean officials inside the railcars. As the train neared the MDL, the delegations from both Koreas began to belt out "Our hope is reunification," a flagship song of the two Korea's move toward reunification. They clapped upon the announcement that the train has finally passed the MDL. The train then briefly stopped over at Panmun Station for another customs check, this time by North Korean officials, before arriving at Gaeseong Station around 1 p.m. The train traveled at a slow speed for safety as the route was never test-driven before the event, due to North Korea's refusal. North Korea had been reluctant to begin the test-runs since the restoration work on the railways was completed in 2004. North Korean military authorities were reportedly behind that reluctance for fear of revealing their security installations along the MDL. The delegations were greeted by some 50 clapping junior high school students donning blue and white uniforms with red handkerchiefs around their neck. They chanted "Minjok, Tongil (the people, the reunification)," as the South Koreans walked into the station. Gaeseong citizens on the streets appeared to go about their daily business, occasionally looking over at the buses carrying the delegations to a luncheon, but not waving or smiling. After the luncheon, the South Korean delegation returned to Munsan at around 4 p.m. A similar trip took place on the Donghae Line, along which a North Korean train carried a group of 150 South and North Koreans, traveling from Geumgang Station in the North to Jaejin Station in Gangwon Province, South Korea. The Seoul government was hopeful that successful test-runs would be a stepping stone to fully reopening the railways. Inter-Korean exchanges flourished almost immediately after the six-party talks drew out an important, although delayed, implementation agreement in February. The two Koreas have renewed their agreement to cooperate in North Korea's light industry and mineral resources development. In addition, South Korea has pledged 400,000 tons of rice aid. But the multinational effort regarding North Korea's nuclear program is deadlocked as Pyongyang continues to delay the shutdown of its main nuclear facilities because of a financial quagmire in Macau. Some South Korean observers also pointed out that the hurried execution of the test-runs would do little to encourage the delayed nuclear negotiations, which aim to pressure the North when progress is stalled, and provide incentives when the North complies with the agreed obligations. U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Alexander Vershbow has repeatedly highlighted the importance of coordinating inter-Korean exchanges with the progress at the six-party talks. After meeting Unification Minister Lee a day before the test upon his own request, Vershbow said, "We think that there is an agreement that if we are going to achieve our goals both in inter-Korean reconciliation and six-party talks, it is essential that the U.S. and South Korea work together to coordinate our efforts to the maximum degree possible." Before leaving for the test-run, former Unification Minister Lee Jong-seok said Vershbow's comments reflect the different interests of South Korea and the United States. "What we have to do is keep trying to coordinate our positions with each other," Lee said. The 27.3 kilometer-long Gyengui Line was cut on June 12, 1951 and the 25.5 kilometer-long Donghae Line was severed in 1950.
By Lee Joo-hee and Joint Press Corps
(angiely@heraldm.com)
| ||||
Divided nation prepares for first cross-border train since 1950
· Celebrities and politicians to take 15-mile journey
· Service seen as first step towards lasting peace
Thursday May 17, 2007
Guardian
Two trains were due to cross the demilitarised zone between the two Koreas for the first time since 1950 today in a major breakthrough for peace on the divided peninsula.The test run by two trains - one from each side of the border - is seen as a step towards closer economic ties between rich, open South Korea and the poor, isolated North.
Despite huge disparities in the quality of the tracks and rolling stock, it is hoped that the lines will eventually link to the Trans-Siberian railway and allow connections spanning more than 5,000 miles from London to Seoul.
Today's journey will be a mere 15 miles on the two tracks that cross the border, but the symbolism is more important than the distance.
The demilitarised zone along the 38th parallel is said to be the world's most heavily fortified border. Despite its name, the area is heavily mined, surrounded by tank traps and defended by thousands of artillery pieces and almost a million troops. Former US president Bill Clinton described it as "the scariest place on earth".
The last time a train attempted to cross was on New Year's Eve in 1950, when the line was used by thousands of refugees fleeing an advance by Chinese and North Korean troops. Their journey came to an abrupt halt when US soldiers riddled the steam water tank with bullet holes. The tracks were destroyed to slow the progress of the communist forces.
The conductor of the 1950 train will be among 150 celebrities and politicians joining today's historic resumption of cross-border rail travel from the south. One hundred people will travel from the south and 50 from the north along the two tracks - one on the east coast and the other about 40 miles north-west of Seoul. Driven by drivers from each side, they are scheduled to cross the border almost simultaneously.
The political and economic implications are enormous. In a cabinet meeting this week, the South Korean president, Roh Moo-hyun, described the test run as a "big step for the sake of the future of our nation and people and it will serve as an opportunity to move a step towards peace and stability on the Korean peninsula".
Seoul hopes that the line will help to end its virtual island status by serving as an overland route for cargo and passengers from China, Russia and Europe. Currently, the main way into South Korea is by plane or ship, though two road lines across the demilitarised zone opened in 2005.
South Korea's unification minister, Lee Jae-joung, who will also be on the train, said the lines should first be used to service his country's two biggest projects in the North: by transporting factory workers and managers to an industrial complex in the North's city of Kaesong, and by improving access for South Korean tourists to the Mount Kumgang resort.
North Korea has been far more cautious about relinquishing its isolated status. The railway was initially agreed at a summit between the leaders of North and South in 2000, but progress has been repeatedly held up by cancellations and changes of plan. The test was cancelled last May due to objections by North Korea's military. Although they finally gave the go-ahead last week, it was only for a one-off event.
The Choson Sinbo, a pro-North Korean newspaper in Tokyo, welcomed the relinking for the railway lines, predicting it would allow both sides to take a more influential role in the transport sector of Asia and Europe.
South Korea has provided substantial financial incentives for today's test run. It has paid to relay the tracks, upgrade rolling stock and build huge - but as yet empty - stations. Extra sweeteners have come in the form of subsidies for North Korean light industry.
The test run is worth 80bn won (£49m) for North Korea, Nam Sung-wook, of Korea University, told AP. And for agreeing to the service the North is expected to make "much bigger demands".
But there are reciprocal benefits. Last month South Korea promised to provide raw materials for making clothes, shoes and soap in return for the rights to explore mineral resources in the North. In the longer term, Seoul hopes to use the railway to close the gaping wealth gap between the two sides and avoid the pain and expense of a sudden German-style reunification.
Last year North Korea was condemned internationally for its missile and nuclear tests, but the railway has been hailed as a source of hope for ongoing peace talks.
Tuesday, May 08, 2007
The Road of No Return
The Road of No Return
President Roh Moo Hyun seems hapless. But he's helped kill South Korea's imperial
presidency, once and for all.
by Christian Caryl and B. J. Lee
Newsweek International
May 14-21, 2007 issue - At first glance, South Korean politics looks bleak these days. President Roh Moo
Hyun's approval ratings have dropped through the floor. His ruling Uri Party is coming apart at the
seams as members defect en masse, desperately trying to put daylight between themselves and the
struggling president. Roh himself even resigned from the party recently in the hope of saving its
chances at the next presidential election, scheduled for this coming December.
Bad as all this sounds, however, one ingredient has been conspicuously absent: a sense of crisis. In
many other Asian countries, investors would be heading for the exits by now. Not here, where GDP has
grown 5 percent and the stock market 7 percent in the past year. Once upon a time, governmental
chaos could have spurred a coup—as happened last year in Thailand and in South Korea itself in 1961
and 1979; today the prospect seems unthinkable. To be sure, a lot can happen in the months between
now and the election, and South Korean politics are famously dramatic. But underneath the turmoil, the
political fundamentals are growing stronger. Commentators now say that the country is well on its way to
becoming one of Asia's most mature liberal democracies, with one of the few fairly stable two-party
systems in the region (even Japan is effectively a one-party state). According to Freedom House, South
Korea now ranks among the freest countries in the region. That's mostly thanks to reforms undertaken
by its past few presidents—and, remarkably, by the much-maligned Roh himself.
South Korean society has also done its part. The cold-war passions that once pitted leftist students
against the ultraconservative military have ebbed; these days, students tend to be more interested in
finding jobs than staging protests. Formerly radical trade unions have grown more moderate. A
remarkably broad and vibrant network of civic organizations now helps ensure citizen participation in the
government. The media have grown more assertive and a whole new crop of magazines and blogs has
sprung up on the Internet (a powerful force in a country where 90 percent of homes have broadband
access). And public attitudes show strong support for democracy. According to a recent survey by Asian
Barometer, 82.7 percent of South Koreans disagreed with the statement "We should get rid of
Parliament and elections and have a strong leader decide things," compared with 80 percent in Japan.
Even more significantly, 88 percent of South Koreans disagreed with the statement "No opposition party
should be allowed to compete for power," compared with 67 percent in Japan, and 73 percent in Taiwan
and Thailand.
But the biggest changes are visible in the political sphere. Twenty years after the People Power
movement forced the military to submit to popular elections, there are signs of progress everywhere.
Consider Roh's opponents, who are enjoying his current troubles with glee. Not so long ago, South
Korea's right wing was dominated by the military and its allies. Today, however, that role is being filled by
the Grand National Party (GNP), the conservative opposition group that has proved its democratic bona
fides by fairly contesting—and losing—the last two presidential votes. The military has been under full
civilian control for some time and shows little interest in changing the status quo.
Meanwhile, the country's democracy is becoming truly liberal for the first time. Even after South Korea
started holding elections in the late 1980s, it remained dominated by larger-than-life figures who built
their power on their individual appeal. The country's first democratic leaders, known as the Three
Kims—Presidents Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung and Prime Minister Kim Jong Pil—governed through
force of personality and cozy ties with businessmen and regional elites. Political parties played little role;
the Kims created and discarded such organizations at whim. Small wonder that modern-day South
Koreans often refer to former holders of the country's highest office as "imperial presidents."
Today, however, says Hahm Sung Deuk, a political scientist at Korea University and former teacher of
Roh's, "political institutions enjoy a very high degree of authority. There won't be any more imperial
presidencies." And that's due largely to reforms made by the Kims themselves. Kim Young Sam, for
example, depoliticized the military, police, intelligence services and other powerful agencies such as the
tax office, which past presidents had used to attack their enemies. As a result, says Gong Sung Jin, a
leading member of the GNP in Parliament, such "power agencies" "have been politically neutralized." Kim
also curtailed money laundering and reduced the huge underground economy. Kim Dae Jung further
The Road of No Return - Newsweek: International Editions - M... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/print/1/d...
2 of 3 5 8 07 2:58 PM
reduced corruption and the role of money in politics—in part by giving South Korea one of the world's
most rigorous campaign-finance laws. Perhaps most important, he also worked hard to bridge the
regional divide in the country's politics by bringing western supporters into a government long
dominated by eastern elites.
By all accounts, a robust system of legal checks and balances—absent under the imperial
presidents—has now taken root. Roh helped establish the supremacy of due process by prohibiting and
punishing government abuse of South Korea's security laws. Indeed, Roh deserves much credit for
Korea's newly healthy state, something even his enemies grudgingly admit. This is somewhat ironic,
given that Roh came to office looking like another charismatic populist. Early on, he promised to stage a
full-fledged assault on the country's conservative elite, proudly playing up his own relative lack of formal
education (he has a high-school education).
But he never showed imperial ambitions, and his confrontational style only dramatized the new checks on
the president's power. Parliament, for example, proved its muscle by impeaching him in 2004. The
Constitutional Court then stepped in to override Parliament's decision after prolonged but independent
deliberation, showing how strong the third branch of government had become. The episode also
demonstrated how stable as a whole South Korea has grown: although it lacked a president for 63 days,
its economy kept calm and there were no security or crime problems. Various ministries dutifully went
about their jobs and the people patiently waited for the final ruling.
Some argue that Roh's greatest contribution has been his efforts to bring the presidency down to the
level of common people. Despite his charisma, he's generally tried to act humbly. Soon after his election,
for example, he conducted a nationally televised debate with dozens of young prosecutors opposed to his
plan to reduce their powers—complete with raw give-and-take so sharp that Roh complained of feeling
"insulted." It was a spectacle unlike anything the country had ever witnessed.
Not that Roh has been getting much credit for his efforts. Voters are understandably more focused on
his perceived economic mismanagement and sometimes chaotic style. Critics argue that his erratic
behavior—he complains about his job and has threatened to quit—and his anti-elitist rhetoric have
diminished the standing of the presidency and hurt South Korea's reputation. Conservatives chide him
for throwing out the baby with the bath water: "In the process of dismantling authoritarianism," says
Yang Sung Chul, a former ambassador to the United States, "he has undermined the authority of the
presidential office itself."
But even Roh's rough style has profited the country by reinforcing its two-party system. His polarizing
rhetoric, say experts, contributed to the formation of solid liberal and conservative camps by forcing
moderates to take sides. Parties now stand for something more than the personality of their leaders.
Opinion polls show fairly consistent and broad support for a left-of-center coalition to oppose the GNP,
meaning that even if the Uri Party collapses, a similar organization would soon take its place. It's clear
what that new party would stand for: an expanded social-welfare system, tougher rules on business
conglomerates, more reconciliation with Pyongyang and more independence from Washington.
As this suggests, voters in the next election won't face a choice just between personalities but also
between platforms. That seems to be exactly what they want: asked about his preference in the
upcoming presidential contest, 42-year-old Yum Jong Suk, a school director from Busan, responds, "I'll
look at personalities, but I'll look at the people around them as well. That's why the party's
important—because one person can't do everything."
A GNP victory would mean an end to a decade of liberal domination and a more pro-business attitude in
Seoul. The GNP would probably also strive to repair ties with Washington. But whoever wins, greater
stability should be the outcome. "Our past elections were winner-take-all," says political scientist
Hahm—leading to a volatile and destructive political culture. "Political retaliation was rampant before. Not
just losers, but predecessors were [also] attacked. This time, losers and winners will share [power]."
This, too, is thanks to party reforms made under Roh. To limit their strength and force power-sharing,
presidents are now prohibited from doubling as party officials (as the imperial Kims often did). Even the
GNP is now vowing to force its leaders to share power after presidential primaries—another recent
innovation—are conducted later this year. To stabilize the two-party system, candidates are also
prohibited from running on another ticket if they try but fail to secure a party's presidential nomination.
Indeed, the largest significance of this year's election will be as a litmus test of just how mature South
Korea's politics has become. After all, there's no better yardstick for the efficacy of democracy than the
smooth transfer of power from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other—something that even
Japan has managed but once in the past half century.
The Road of No Return - Newsweek: International Editions - M... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/print/1/d...
3 of 3 5 8 07 2:58 PM
The only drawback to South Korea's new politics may be a noticeable decline in drama. Though things
could still get ugly this year, Hahm argues that epic presidential contests—pitting larger-than-life figures
against each other in struggles in which the loser faced likely prosecution and public humiliation—may
soon be a thing of the past. "Korean presidential elections have always been exciting," he says with a
laugh. The good news for Korea is, they now seem likely to get a lot more boring.
With Jonathan Adams in Taipei
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com
President Roh Moo Hyun seems hapless. But he's helped kill South Korea's imperial
presidency, once and for all.
by Christian Caryl and B. J. Lee
Newsweek International
May 14-21, 2007 issue - At first glance, South Korean politics looks bleak these days. President Roh Moo
Hyun's approval ratings have dropped through the floor. His ruling Uri Party is coming apart at the
seams as members defect en masse, desperately trying to put daylight between themselves and the
struggling president. Roh himself even resigned from the party recently in the hope of saving its
chances at the next presidential election, scheduled for this coming December.
Bad as all this sounds, however, one ingredient has been conspicuously absent: a sense of crisis. In
many other Asian countries, investors would be heading for the exits by now. Not here, where GDP has
grown 5 percent and the stock market 7 percent in the past year. Once upon a time, governmental
chaos could have spurred a coup—as happened last year in Thailand and in South Korea itself in 1961
and 1979; today the prospect seems unthinkable. To be sure, a lot can happen in the months between
now and the election, and South Korean politics are famously dramatic. But underneath the turmoil, the
political fundamentals are growing stronger. Commentators now say that the country is well on its way to
becoming one of Asia's most mature liberal democracies, with one of the few fairly stable two-party
systems in the region (even Japan is effectively a one-party state). According to Freedom House, South
Korea now ranks among the freest countries in the region. That's mostly thanks to reforms undertaken
by its past few presidents—and, remarkably, by the much-maligned Roh himself.
South Korean society has also done its part. The cold-war passions that once pitted leftist students
against the ultraconservative military have ebbed; these days, students tend to be more interested in
finding jobs than staging protests. Formerly radical trade unions have grown more moderate. A
remarkably broad and vibrant network of civic organizations now helps ensure citizen participation in the
government. The media have grown more assertive and a whole new crop of magazines and blogs has
sprung up on the Internet (a powerful force in a country where 90 percent of homes have broadband
access). And public attitudes show strong support for democracy. According to a recent survey by Asian
Barometer, 82.7 percent of South Koreans disagreed with the statement "We should get rid of
Parliament and elections and have a strong leader decide things," compared with 80 percent in Japan.
Even more significantly, 88 percent of South Koreans disagreed with the statement "No opposition party
should be allowed to compete for power," compared with 67 percent in Japan, and 73 percent in Taiwan
and Thailand.
But the biggest changes are visible in the political sphere. Twenty years after the People Power
movement forced the military to submit to popular elections, there are signs of progress everywhere.
Consider Roh's opponents, who are enjoying his current troubles with glee. Not so long ago, South
Korea's right wing was dominated by the military and its allies. Today, however, that role is being filled by
the Grand National Party (GNP), the conservative opposition group that has proved its democratic bona
fides by fairly contesting—and losing—the last two presidential votes. The military has been under full
civilian control for some time and shows little interest in changing the status quo.
Meanwhile, the country's democracy is becoming truly liberal for the first time. Even after South Korea
started holding elections in the late 1980s, it remained dominated by larger-than-life figures who built
their power on their individual appeal. The country's first democratic leaders, known as the Three
Kims—Presidents Kim Young Sam and Kim Dae Jung and Prime Minister Kim Jong Pil—governed through
force of personality and cozy ties with businessmen and regional elites. Political parties played little role;
the Kims created and discarded such organizations at whim. Small wonder that modern-day South
Koreans often refer to former holders of the country's highest office as "imperial presidents."
Today, however, says Hahm Sung Deuk, a political scientist at Korea University and former teacher of
Roh's, "political institutions enjoy a very high degree of authority. There won't be any more imperial
presidencies." And that's due largely to reforms made by the Kims themselves. Kim Young Sam, for
example, depoliticized the military, police, intelligence services and other powerful agencies such as the
tax office, which past presidents had used to attack their enemies. As a result, says Gong Sung Jin, a
leading member of the GNP in Parliament, such "power agencies" "have been politically neutralized." Kim
also curtailed money laundering and reduced the huge underground economy. Kim Dae Jung further
The Road of No Return - Newsweek: International Editions - M... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/print/1/d...
2 of 3 5 8 07 2:58 PM
reduced corruption and the role of money in politics—in part by giving South Korea one of the world's
most rigorous campaign-finance laws. Perhaps most important, he also worked hard to bridge the
regional divide in the country's politics by bringing western supporters into a government long
dominated by eastern elites.
By all accounts, a robust system of legal checks and balances—absent under the imperial
presidents—has now taken root. Roh helped establish the supremacy of due process by prohibiting and
punishing government abuse of South Korea's security laws. Indeed, Roh deserves much credit for
Korea's newly healthy state, something even his enemies grudgingly admit. This is somewhat ironic,
given that Roh came to office looking like another charismatic populist. Early on, he promised to stage a
full-fledged assault on the country's conservative elite, proudly playing up his own relative lack of formal
education (he has a high-school education).
But he never showed imperial ambitions, and his confrontational style only dramatized the new checks on
the president's power. Parliament, for example, proved its muscle by impeaching him in 2004. The
Constitutional Court then stepped in to override Parliament's decision after prolonged but independent
deliberation, showing how strong the third branch of government had become. The episode also
demonstrated how stable as a whole South Korea has grown: although it lacked a president for 63 days,
its economy kept calm and there were no security or crime problems. Various ministries dutifully went
about their jobs and the people patiently waited for the final ruling.
Some argue that Roh's greatest contribution has been his efforts to bring the presidency down to the
level of common people. Despite his charisma, he's generally tried to act humbly. Soon after his election,
for example, he conducted a nationally televised debate with dozens of young prosecutors opposed to his
plan to reduce their powers—complete with raw give-and-take so sharp that Roh complained of feeling
"insulted." It was a spectacle unlike anything the country had ever witnessed.
Not that Roh has been getting much credit for his efforts. Voters are understandably more focused on
his perceived economic mismanagement and sometimes chaotic style. Critics argue that his erratic
behavior—he complains about his job and has threatened to quit—and his anti-elitist rhetoric have
diminished the standing of the presidency and hurt South Korea's reputation. Conservatives chide him
for throwing out the baby with the bath water: "In the process of dismantling authoritarianism," says
Yang Sung Chul, a former ambassador to the United States, "he has undermined the authority of the
presidential office itself."
But even Roh's rough style has profited the country by reinforcing its two-party system. His polarizing
rhetoric, say experts, contributed to the formation of solid liberal and conservative camps by forcing
moderates to take sides. Parties now stand for something more than the personality of their leaders.
Opinion polls show fairly consistent and broad support for a left-of-center coalition to oppose the GNP,
meaning that even if the Uri Party collapses, a similar organization would soon take its place. It's clear
what that new party would stand for: an expanded social-welfare system, tougher rules on business
conglomerates, more reconciliation with Pyongyang and more independence from Washington.
As this suggests, voters in the next election won't face a choice just between personalities but also
between platforms. That seems to be exactly what they want: asked about his preference in the
upcoming presidential contest, 42-year-old Yum Jong Suk, a school director from Busan, responds, "I'll
look at personalities, but I'll look at the people around them as well. That's why the party's
important—because one person can't do everything."
A GNP victory would mean an end to a decade of liberal domination and a more pro-business attitude in
Seoul. The GNP would probably also strive to repair ties with Washington. But whoever wins, greater
stability should be the outcome. "Our past elections were winner-take-all," says political scientist
Hahm—leading to a volatile and destructive political culture. "Political retaliation was rampant before. Not
just losers, but predecessors were [also] attacked. This time, losers and winners will share [power]."
This, too, is thanks to party reforms made under Roh. To limit their strength and force power-sharing,
presidents are now prohibited from doubling as party officials (as the imperial Kims often did). Even the
GNP is now vowing to force its leaders to share power after presidential primaries—another recent
innovation—are conducted later this year. To stabilize the two-party system, candidates are also
prohibited from running on another ticket if they try but fail to secure a party's presidential nomination.
Indeed, the largest significance of this year's election will be as a litmus test of just how mature South
Korea's politics has become. After all, there's no better yardstick for the efficacy of democracy than the
smooth transfer of power from one end of the ideological spectrum to the other—something that even
Japan has managed but once in the past half century.
The Road of No Return - Newsweek: International Editions - M... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/print/1/d...
3 of 3 5 8 07 2:58 PM
The only drawback to South Korea's new politics may be a noticeable decline in drama. Though things
could still get ugly this year, Hahm argues that epic presidential contests—pitting larger-than-life figures
against each other in struggles in which the loser faced likely prosecution and public humiliation—may
soon be a thing of the past. "Korean presidential elections have always been exciting," he says with a
laugh. The good news for Korea is, they now seem likely to get a lot more boring.
With Jonathan Adams in Taipei
© 2007 Newsweek, Inc.
URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18505670/site/newsweek/
MSN Privacy . Legal
© 2007 MSNBC.com
Saturday, March 24, 2007
[Column] The importance of enforcing media standards
 |
| ||||||
One of the biggest diseases plaguing Korean society today is that forums for public discussion recognized as valid are quickly disappearing. One of the biggest factors in this lies in the fact that the media - newspapers, in particular - are losing the public's confidence. Civil society's lack of trust in newspapers is so widespread that it is not a problem unique to any one class or group. No small number of people say they are afraid to open the paper every morning, or that there are articles or opinion pieces that can ruin one’s whole day after a single read. This reaction is leading to distain and contempt for those of us that work in print media. Being a member of the media does not carry anything close to the same trust and authority it used to; instead, stories and opinions are twisted because of partisan interests, and become targets of the public’s censure and pity. The current mistrust of newspapers does not stop at being a crisis for the industry; it is a vicious cycle that exacerbates the mistrust and discord in society as a whole.
As part of its effort to save its publication from the brink of crisis, The Hankyoreh Media Company has decided to implement and maintain a new set of guidelines for how its people cover the news. Our highest priority at the current juncture is restoring public confidence. We are going to begin by taking a painful look at how principles have been ignored and how misguided practices have brought mistrust upon us. Korea’s media companies have brought upon themselves this public malaise, through abrasive news collection practices, arbitrary story coverage and editing, unbalanced editorial positions, wrongful outside influence on editorial authority, self-righteousness that make them ignore readers' criticism, and by confusing the interests of the public and those that are their own. We confess that we at The Hankyoreh are by no means free from responsibility surrounding this crisis of confidence.
We began drafting these guidelines last year, after long and serious internal discussion and seeking the advice of scholars and experts. It has a total of 50 clauses. It was formally approved on January 29 in the name of all of us here at The Hankyoreh, with representatives from our share-owning readership. There are media outlets in Korea that have guidelines that are maintained internally, but The Hankyoreh is the first to let the world know about ours and call for open criticism. Since our founding in 1988 through voluntary donations following the June Democracy Struggle of the year before, The Hankyoreh has broken new ground in the media for establishing ethical guidelines, excluding the use of hanja (Chinese characters), printing the Korean script from left to right instead of from top to bottom, leaving no story untouched, and adopting the latest printing techniques. If our share-owing readers and civil society understand the significance of these guidelines and maintain a genuine interest in what we do, we will have a lighter burden in the course of improving the media climate and removing the malicious distortions that exist within it. We pray that our small effort will lead to a gradually greater movement, one that helps remove the country's media from blind antagonism and hate. We hope it will allow society to be just in sorting out its wrongs and become a vessel for suggesting solutions to the current discord.
[Column] Why does Korea refuse to accept immigrants?
| [Column] Why does Korea refuse to accept immigrants? |
| |
By Park No-ja, Professor of Korean Studies at Oslo University I felt disappointment at news reports about the tragedy at the foreigner detention center in Yeosu, an event that claimed nine lives. Fortunately, you did hear voices of anger at how foreigners’ rights were violated, but the mainstream media seemed to be avoiding the key issue and focusing instead on the cause of the fire and "insensitivity to safety concerns." Why do people who work hard, who in some circumstances have established families and think of Korea as their new homes, have to be rounded up and put in facilities where their lives are threatened? Is rounding them up the country’s only immigration policy?
Korea’s population is expected to shrink approximately 12 percent by 2050. Aging will make the ratio of elderly increase and the working population will begin dropping off by 2016 <<
I wonder if the way to start would be to begin by giving amnesty to "illegal" immigrants, as has been done several times in France and Spain. In 2005, Spain decided to give 700,000 "illegal aliens" legal status, after they proved they had lived in the country six months or more, had contracts for at least six months, and had no criminal record. A considerable number of the 190,000 foreign workers in Korea with "illegal status" are believed to want to work in the country long-term or live here permanently. If the government were to give them amnesty and legal status with eventual eligibility for naturalization, it would accomplish many things at the same time: contributing to the making of a multiethnic society, reducing the rights violations that stem from being "illegals," and helping an economy in need of workers. If these people were given legal status and allowed to bring their spouses and children, Korea would then be a normal nation in the 21st century, one where diverse ethnicities live together.
The tragedy in Yeosu demonstrates the bankruptcy of an immigration policy that only focuses on rounding people up. Are the authorities going to continue suppressing immigration with "vigilance and punishment," despite what has happened?
Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]
| ||||||||
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
