Kathreb

Saturday, February 07, 2004

US Military - you can't take them anywhere!

Three US Navy guys have been arrested on alleged rape claims in Darwin, Australia. Talk of putting them in US Navy custody at the bottom of the article doesn't seem right. They were off duty so they should be under Aussie jurisdiction, right?. But hopefully this kind of behaviour will make Australia reconsider the stupid of idea of allowing US military to set up bases on our soil which I read about in article a couple of weeks ago.

Permalink Post a Comment

Trade Matters

Amidst all the talk of growing rivalry between Japan, China, Korea the FT gives a piece about the growing inter-regional trade as a sign of the closer relations between the countries. It also mentions talk of a free-trade area to consolidate economic relations. Though I suspect that an actuall free-trade area between these three is a long way off.

On the subject of trade the European Union has conducted a study on the viability of banning imports from countries that did not share their national values and standards. Note the EU's slogan: "united in diversity"!? Hmmm I think I see a contradiction. Maybe "united in conformity" might be more appropriate. Although, Lamy stresses that it is just a debate topic at present and not a policy option.

And finally, the Economist critiques Roh's next chance at getting it right with regard to labour strife. Spring will soon be upon us and the annual labour strikes are probably already in the planning. Economist seemed a little bit more optomistic than I would be regarding Roh's ability to devise a cunning strategy to balance the militant nutters in the labour unions and the businesses that fail to negotiate meaninful knowing that government will alwasy step in to intervene when the public outcry gets too much for them to bear, especially in an election season.

Permalink Post a Comment

Friday, February 06, 2004

Anti-American Sentiment

I kinda feel guilty of neglecting my poor blog page lately. I have no time to search sites and get information to discuss issues or keep up with Korean news. The irony of studying in the classroom so much that you have no time to keep up with what is actually happening.

My stop-gap answer for this dilemma is to post a piece I used for a class today. My task was to put forth the argument that anti-US sentiment in Korea is an eduring phonomenon and will lead to a weakening of the US-Korea alliance. I wrote it in the wee hours of dawn the day before it was due (as any student would) and tried to be a little controversial. There were two people debating each side so my part is just one half and presentations were followed by informal discussion. Also, before you read it, I would like to list the readings for the week from which I formulated my argument. Some of these can be found at Jstor

1. Shin, Gi-Wook, "South Korean Anti-Americanism: A Comparative Perspective", Asian Survey, Vol 36, No.8 (August 1996) pp.787-803
2. Cha, Victor, "Realism, Liberalism, and the Durability of the U.S. - South Korea Alliance", Asian Survey, Vol. 37, No.7 (July 1997) pp.609-622
3. Jang Jip Choi, "Reality and Image of the U.S. - Korea Relationship: for strengthening the partnership" paper presented at the fourteenth US-Korea Academic Symposium, Stanford University, October 22-24, 2003
4. Kim Seung Hwan, "Anti-Americanism in Korea," The Washington Quarterly, Winter 2002-03 pp.109-122

The rise of anti-American sentiment over the last few years has been manifested in numerous ways. As Shin notes, the overarching source of anti-American sentiment in Korea stems from resentment against political and economic domination.

Issues
There has been considerable anti-American sentiment against political domination with regards to the North Korea nuclear crisis. President Bush?s perceived mistreatment of President Kim during his visit to Washington, the inclusion of North Korea in the ?axis of evil? and instances of US failing to consult or adequately include South Korea in important developments regarding North Korea and US-North Korea relations has given rise to negative feelings against US. Especially feelings that South Korea?s voice over matters pertaining to the peninsula is irrelevant on matters where US has its own national interest to consider.

The death of the two schoolgirls in particular brought this issue of the SOFA to the fore. The untimely death of the schoolgirls, and the ensuing candlelight vigils actually brought out many issues, of which the SOFA is but one. However, the deaths and subsequent actions highlighted to Koreans the lack of equality in the existing SOFA agreement and led to calls for a revision. Furthermore, the acquittal of the two soldiers riled the Koreans, not only as they saw SOFA as unfair but because it denied them justice as they saw it should be carried out and emphasised that even on their own land, American?s will have their way. This particularly hurt after Korea was feeling flush with national pride from not only economic growth and prosperity but from the success of the World Cup.

The argument over economic domination surfaced with US calls for greater liberalisation and market opening in Korea. The resultant farmer?s protests, which included American flag burning, were something to behold. Friction over the US trade deficit and exchange rates are seen as impinging on Korea?s right to determine their own policies and to protect their own workers and economy.

Underlying Sentiment
What we can discern from these events are the underlying problems fuelling anti-American sentiment in Korea. Briefly, I list them as inequality, rise of nationalism, and divergent perceptions of security. Firstly, Koreans perceive with increasing angst the inequality of the current US-Korea relationship. Second is the rise of nationalism. Koreans are notably proud of their achievements and feel that they deserve greater recognition as a viable player on the world stage. Through this, they see the presence of US and its policy toward the peninsula as holding them back and even threatening to destroy what they have attained. And thirdly, as Victor Cha notes, is a divergence in the conception of security. America sees security through a global lens and the threat of WMD as paramount. South Korea has a more local perspective and sees the threat of conventional war as the greater danger.

Why are they not resolvable?
So why then are these issues going to have a long-term impact on the US-Korea relations? I argue that they reason anti-American sentiment won?t go away anytime soon, and may even increase over time is that both America and South Korea have divergent goals that cannot be reconciled ?the tendency is toward a zero-sum game.

The clearest example is the discord in the rationale of the alliance. As mentioned, America sees the threat from North Korea as the proliferation of WMD and potential to sell those weapons to terrorists who would strike the US. The policy to deal with this is to take a hardline to bring about the dissolution of their nuclear programs ? even if that means use of force. On the other hand, South Korea sees North Korea as a declining threat with a stagnant economy; and famine and shortage make them more a country that should be aided, not bombed. Moreover, antagonising the desperate state may bring about irrational action on the part of North Korea and make them strike the South. The policy to avoid this then is to engage North Korea through aid and exchanges. This will lead to a security dilemma: the more America pursues a hardline policy, the less safe South Korea feels; the more South Korea pursues its softer approach, the less safe America feels. The two parties cannot agree of ?what the situation is? how then can they establish a joint policy stance, on ?how to deal with that situation?.

SOFA and presence of US bases in Korea have long been a thorn in Korea?s side. Particularly, as Korea becomes a stronger and more prominent player on the global scene it becomes insulting to be subject to such an unequal arrangement as the SOFA. Recent revisions have occurred which may have appeased the Koreans but it?s important to note that revisions to SOFA have a limit. And this limit may not coincide with what Korea perceives as an equal arrangement. Furthermore, in the case of Korea, the difference in (justice) systems and values may make Americans more circumspect before signing over too much discretion concerning US military in Korea. Here?s a catch, (my opinion only) the more Korean?s scream about the inequality and protest vociferously and emotionally for justice, the less likely the Americans are to grant concessions to seemingly unreasonable and highly emotional country.

We need to ask, what possible arrangement would actually make Koreans perceive that the relationship is ?equal? as long as US military remains on their soil, and would that arrangement be acceptable to US military?

In the matter of economics, Koreans feel threatened by the omnipotent power of the US economy and its competitiveness, particularly in agriculture. But again, it?s a zero-sum game. The more closed the Korean market the less American?s benefit. The more open the Korean market the more they feel over-run and dominated by the US, thereby creating resentment which will linger, especially if unemployment or economic conditions worsen in Korea.

Anti-US sentiment has been burgeoning in Korea in the past decades and is not likely to disappear. The sources of the problem require compromise that neither party, in the long-run, would be willing to agree on. As Korea becomes more nationalistic and less tolerant of perceived US political and economic domination the more they will demand ?equality?. Meanwhile, the more America asserts itself on the global stage and focuses on the War on Terrorism the less willing it will be to make sacrifices for South Korea?s pride.

Permalink Post a Comment

Sunday, February 01, 2004

Corrupt or just poor - considerations for Korean politics

This is not yet a well enough formed argument in my head to be too firm but I've been thinking about the issue of corruption in politics. It was raised by a professor here that it is not fair to bad mouth Korean corruption practices in the context that you get what you pay for. Koreans have too strict restrictions on the activities of their politicians while the demands on what they should accomplish becomes unrealistic. If you don't pay them or don't allow them legal means to raise sufficient money to support the works of campaigning, etc then you could expect them to become corrupt.

In the past, the civil officials were 'wise men' given great power to direct the nation as they knew best. But in more recent times, they get little money, little power in a highly centralised system, and little room to do anything. They get no respect and are treated as cheats who are likely to be corrupt so what incentive do they have to become better people or prove the stereotype wrong.

For example, we complain about politicians taking bribes,etc in Korea but the rules for contributions to parties seem to be well short of what US parties/individuals are allowed to collect. Ceilings on Supporter Contribution by an individual to a central party is W100,000,000 or less and for corporations it is W200,000,000 or less, which is rouglhy US$86,000 for individuals and US$171,000. For District Party, Nat'1 Assemblyman, Candidate for Nat'1 Assembly its W20,000,000 (US$17,000) or less for individual contrbutions and W50,000,000 (US$43,000) or less.

Now, I'm not expert on US campaign finance but I think they have contributions that are not limited in this way, or some loopholes exist regaring 'soft money'. So are Korean politicians really more corrupt than counterparts in other countries or are they just doing what other politicians are allowed to do in other countries?

Permalink Post a Comment

Oohhh what fun, a map of countries I have visited. Obviously quite a large chunk of the globe left to see. I do have a trip to Ireland scheduled for later this year so I guess this is a work in progress.