 Brief Backgrounder : In case you have not paid attention
to South Korea recently, the radical anti-US groups spearheaded
by the university students - but also joined by elements of the
Labor Unions and the Labor Party - decided to celebrate the 60th
anniversary of the US military being in Korea and the 55th
anniversary of the Inchon landings during the Korean War ---- by
putting forward a major internet effort to call out people to go
to Inchon on the 9/11 anniversary attacks in the US to rip down
the statue of Douglas MacArthur found in Freedom Park. To
see how the radical groups have been trying to change the
history of MacArthur into one of the savage leader of a bunch of
war criminals (GIs) -- check out the videos at
www.chungchun.net.
Korean society as a whole is not so receptive in the drive to
destroy the image of the US involvement in the Korean War.
They want to take up a Nogunri Massacre and believe such things
happened, but, I guess oddly enough, they react negatively
toward the type of promotion like the radicals trying to pull
down MacArthur.
The average Korean is not even as wishy-washy as their President
Roh is in the post you are about to read, but now that I type
this out, I'm not sure why.
 They
do believe in Nogunri Massacres -- that US soldiers commonly
fired on civilians and did some atrocities during the war.
They do (about 40-50%) place the most blame for the division of
Korea on the United States with about 5% going to China.
And they do believe the US has been pushing South Korea around
for decades or putting great "pressure" on it. So, why not
attack the leader of the US military back in the 1940s and 50s
during which time the division of Korea was solidified if you
already believe all that?
But, MacArthur is still seen as a hero and the US troops, with
all their problems, are still generally viewed as having saved
Korea from Kim Il Sung.
The Post :
"We should
leave the statue as it is, and respect it for its place
in history,” he said. “We have to remember the bad things as
being bad and remember the good things as being good.”
He said the important
thing was “that since we are a sovereign independent nation,
from now on we must take full responsibility and cooperate
with each other with mutual respect.”
Which side was MacArthur
on, in Roh's mind, the good or the bad? Or, how about telling
us what some of the good and bad MacArthur points he has in
mind....
He said some hoped for “a quicker change in the
Korean-American relationship, but the important thing is for
us to move ahead in a controlled manner based on consensus.”
He also urged fellow Koreans not to insult others simply
because they have divergent views and interpretations of
history and “proceed with what must be done with calmness
and presence of mind.”
 That is a wonderful comment if you have listened to Roh speak
since the election period that brought him to power. There are
many ways I think this goes in his mind.
I would translate this, after being tentative with him since he
was elected, this way at this point...
"I know what you
radicals good citizens want. You've got it right. I
understand. I am from your team, remember. You just can't get
it right now with all these knuckleheads around. If I had my
choice, don't you think I'd establish independence and Korean
pride for Korean people tomorrow -- if I just had my way? What
do you expect from me? We still have an immature
people's
democracy. Like I told the Koreans in Turkey, if it weren't
for all these outwardly Korea/inwardly Americans in the
government and positions of power in our folk's land, I would
have already accomplished what needs accomplishing. But, given
the dynamics, just give me some more time...."
Roh is trying to say something positive about the US
relationship especially where it concerns the history issue that
was brought up by the MacArthur protests, but he is betraying
very vividly what must be incredibly deep seeded in his heart,
because it is obvious in his words --- when trying to say the
opposite --- how much he agrees with the radical groups who want
to rip the statue down.
By "a
quicker change in the Korean-American relationship"
and "proceed
with what must be done with calmness and presence of mind"
he clearly indicates the changes the radicals want is good, just
not something that can be rushed given the current environment.
This "since
we are a sovereign independent nation, from now on we must take
full
responsibility and cooperate with each other with mutual respect"
can be read two ways, and neither are good.
1. Along the lines of respecting those who have divergent
ideas, this is aimed at the type of Koreans who Roh told those
in Turkey he couldn't stand trying to get along with the most
--- those in South Korea who have positions of power but are
more American than Americans, by which he means something along
the lines of the Uri Party leader this week when he said South
Korea needs to clean up the purity of the nation's folk in order
to move forward.
He is saying here to stop bashing the good nation folk
radical bastards
whose only fault is that they are pushing for what is right too
hard and too fast...
2. He is speaking about the American alliance ---- which
"before now" hasn't been equal or fair or beneficial enough.
This has been echoed previously by Roh as well. The "from now"
is loud.
And yes, I think he had in mind, whether he knew it or not, that
dual meaning, because we've heard those two kinds of things from
him a good bit before.
And if you find yourself wanting to extend to President Roh more
benefit of the doubt than what I've shown above, he is also
quoted as having added, "I
am not suggesting abrupt change. We have to take our time and
plan to achieve a relationship of mutual respect and close
cooperation with the U.S. Above all, we have to go in the
direction that secures the Korean people's safety and
prosperity."
Which again begs the question --- Mr. President, are you saying
before now the relationship with the United States has been one
of disrespect to Korea, without close cooperation, and that above
all it has been counter to the safety and prosperity of the
Korean people or clearly not safe and beneficial enough to South
Korea?
Because, that
is exactly what you just said. (15 Sep 2005)
|