Originally posted by chimx+Oct 9 2006, 11:32 PM--> (chimx @ Oct 9 2006, 11:32 PM) In case you haven't noticed, the ROK is denouncing the nuclear tests.
In case you haven't noticed, the ROK is a capitalist government. And not only that, but a U.S. client regime - even if no longer a slavishly obedient one.[/b]
Of course I realize that. But if peaceful unification is going to be possible, the DPRK is going to have to be willing to make some political sacrifices, as is the ROK. Anything short of this is going to lead to a situation like we had in 1950.
we attempted a 5-year trusteeship period, which was immediately rejected by all Koreans, and we made attempts to squash the Left (particularly in 1946),
It's interesting to note you are still referring to Washington as "we". Again, that's a statement of loyalties, intentionally or Freudian.
i'm from the united states. thus, "we". Please stick to real arguments and stop trying to undermine my personality to win your point. it is bad arguing.
Originally posted by
[email protected]
Severian
The new generation in south Korea has been increasingly rejecting all the old myths about the war. South Koreans are more and more hostile to Washington, and less and less hostile to the north.
I would agree with you if this was 1988, but it isn't. While Kwangju, the Olympics, etc. did a lot to boost anti-Americanism within the ROK, it has been on the sharp decline recently as far as actual numbers go. This is because the students of the 1980s which fought the Chun Do Hwan regime have seen a real working democracy under Kim Young-Sam and in particular Kim Dae-Jung come about. There is a new generation that has only known liberal capitalist democracy and seen Korea's economy grow within the international community.
Singing the praises of capitalism and liberal democracy....
But in fact, "anti-Americanism" within the ROK has continued to grow since 1988. As reflected in opinion polls and everything else. One poll I saw showed about 85% opposing Washington's "war on terrorism", for example.
That's reflected to a degree even in official policy; the current government has been the most independent of Washington and the most friendly towards Pyongyang, of any, ever.
Also, Korean capitalist prosperity has in fact peaked. Asian financial crisis? Daewoo bankrupt and bought by General Motors? Hello? Another reason for growing anti-imperialist sentiment in south Korea, possibly.
I'm not singing the praises. I am calling it what it is, a liberal capitalist democracy. I specified "real working" to make a distinction between todays democracy in the ROK with that of the chun, park, and rhee regimes, which were founded on military coercion.
being opposed to the war on terror hardly reflects anti-americanism today. I will be in the library later today and will post some polls I have regarding anti-americanism on the peninsula and how it has declined recently.
Edit Add:
The following polls are from the essay "Korean Perceptions of America" by Kim Kyong-Dong, and is part of the book Korea Briefing, 1993: Festival of Korea, edited by Donald N. Clark.
"Percent Choosing the United Stats as the 'Country I Like Most'" (from a nationwide sample)
1980: Firstplace--Switzerland (37.5%) Secondplace--United States (28.1)
1981*: Firstplace--United States (60.6%) Secondplace--Switzerland (9.4%)
1984: Firstplace--United States (37.3%) Secondplace-- NO POLL DATA GIVEN
1989 Firstplace-Switzerland (19.3*) Secondplace United States(9.3)
*this is the first year of the Chun regime, and press censorship was heavy. considering that this poll was done through national newspapers, i have my doubts as to the reliability of this year
--
"Percent who 'Would Cheer for the U.S. Team in an Athletic Match'"
1986: Against Japan-86.5 Against USSR-96.5 Against North Korea-76.6
1988: Against Japan-74.1 Against USSR-73.9 Against North Korea-38.7
1989: Against Japan-83.1 Against USSR-78.7 Against North Korea-27.8
1990: Against Japan-82.5 Against USSR-72.8 Against North Korea-15.5
I suggest you check the book out, as it is quite interesting and seems to take a pretty moderate stance on the issue.
--
Now, I'm not a total cock, and will grant you that there has been some contrary data recently. Bruce Cummings cited a recent gallup poll in a conference he gave recently. I will simply quote dr. cummings entirely on this:
"A recent Korean Gallup Poll shows an increase in those who 'dislike the United States' from 15 percent in 1994 to 53 percent in 2003. News reports about this poll did not give the actual questions posed to respondents, but when respondents were asked the opposite question--Do you like the United States?--the response was 64 percent in 1994 and 37 percent in 2003. . ."
However, Cummings goes on to admit that: ". . . there is little to indicate one way or the other whether such poll results stem primarily from the Bush administration's policies and the acquittal of the two soldiers or whether they stem from a growing anti-Americanism."
He goes on to admit that the "actual high point of opposition to U.S. policy . . . was in the mid-1980s".
I hope that helps!
Its funny you mention daewoo. The daewoo riots that occured in 2001 is what first attracted me to Korean history. The radicalization of workers there I found quite inspiring. I still have a few pictures of it here:
http://chimx.yardapes.net/countrystudies/s...9-pictures.html (http://chimx.yardapes.net/countrystudies/southkorea/20010219-pictures.html)
After studying Korean history and contemporary politics however, I came to realize that unionization has been in sharp decline these past 10 years. Unfortunately, the daewoo workers constitute a radical minority within contemporary Korea. Most workers are not unionized.
but what i bet you didn't know, is that the national People's Committee which was held in Seoul actually elected Syngman Rhee as the president of the KPR.
I didn't know that - and it turns out it ain't true.
I will post quotations and references when I get to the library later this afternoon.
Edit Add
This is from A History of the Korean Reunification Movement: Its Issues and Prospects by Bong-youn Choy, who was a professor at Berkley, as well as a founder of Seoul University's polysci department. I have supplemented the quotation with my own contributions in brackets to clarify certain things:
"When the Japanese unconditional surrender had become imminent . . . Endo [who was Japan's governor general of political affairs] made contact with Lyuh Woon-hyung, one of the underground movement leaders who had been closely associated with the left-wing movement. Early on the m orning of August 15th, Lyuh accepted Endo's offer [Endo was trying to hand power over to a Korean power that would ensure the safety of Japanese and their property on the peninsula]. . . . Then Lyuh consulted with Korean leaders including Song ch'in-wu, Chang duk-su, and Kim Chun-yon, all nationalists, Yi Kang-g'uk and Yi Yo-song, Communists, and Ahn Chae-hong, a moderate nationalist. All the nationalists except Ahn Chae-Hong refused to cooperate with Lyuh's plan, arguing that all Korean people should support the exiled Korean Provisional Government and wait for its return to Seoul. Because of the uncertainr eturning date of the Korean Provisional Government and the possible social unrest as a result of the collapse of the Japanese authorities in Korea, Lyuh organized the Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence [this was the body that saw the proliferation of decentralized committee decision making through Korea. it was the precursor to the KPR which you had mentioned], with the leaders of left-wing and moderate nationalist groups. Lyuh was elected chairman and Ahn Chae-hong vice-chairman of the committee. . .
. . .On Septermber 6th, the Committee for the Preparation of Independence called a National Congress in Seoul, with approximately one thousand delegates representing both north and south Korea. The Congress proclaimed a "People's Republic" [KPR] and elected a Central People's Committee, authorizing it to form a coalition government with rightist, moderate, and leftist leaders represented. The Central People's committee formed a coalition government, including the leaders overseas: Syngman Rhee was elected President, and Kim Ku, Kim Kiusic, and Kim Won-bong were appointed cabinet members. All of them were appointed in absentia, without consultation. . ."
I hope that helps.
Korean's hated him.
I didn't know you were the spokesman for all Koreans. In any case, Kim Il Sung was able to set up a regime capable of standing on its own - unlike Rhee, who had to call on Uncle Sam to save him.
and the DPRK had to call in China to save it. Big deal. If you look at the Korean peninsual in 1950, you will see that while the northern half only held 1/3 of the population, it was the industrial center of the peninsula. the southern half which the americans occupied was dedicated to agriculture. This is why the DPRK was able to militarize so much faster than the south.
Regardless of this, both sides had massive aid from their corresponding big powers.
it is only debated by those on the radical left. No serious historian takes the idea that the ROK initiated attacks seriously.
That's an interesting way to put it. Between this formulation, and your repeated references to Washington as "we", I gotta ask: you still consider yourself a revolutionary opponent of capitalism?
Of course I do, but I am not going to undermine history by twisting facts to use as propaganda for the sake of opposing capitalism. That strikes me as foolish.
I believe now that the soviet archives have been opened, some papers have been found which support this idea... that Kim and Stalin had discussed invasion and made plans for it.
The question should be, in response to what?
Wikipedia says of the years between 1946 and 1950: "Under Rhee, and often with the knowledge and consent of the American military, the southern government conducted a number of campaigns aimed ostensibly at "removing communism" but that in reality targeted anyone who opposed his rule. Over the course of the next few years, over between 30,000 [1] and 100,000 people would lose their lives in during the war against the left-wing insurgents. "
source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Division_of_Korea)
Maybe one should ask why Kim didn't come to their aid sooner. Let's not fetishize an imaginary dividing line which was then very new. War in Korea began before June 1950.
That's a fascinating position to take, and is quite similar to that of Bruce Cummings. He argues that from liberation to the Korean war can be marked as an internal revolutionary struggle against the right and the left, and the Korean war was a continuation of this underlying revolutionary attitude.
while I can see where he (and you) are coming from, I think it takes too much emphasis off the fact that the ROK was being manipulated and exploited by the US government. It wasn't so much Rhee as it was the US that crushed the left in 1946. By 1946, there were more political prisoners in the ROK than there had been under Japanese imperialism a few years prior! Lets not forget that the massacre of Cheju island was directed NOT by Rhee's forces, but by American forces. The blood is primarily on our hands. (opps, i said "our" again for metaphorical effect. i bet i get chastised again)
Also: a witness' comment on Rhee's provocations against the north. (http://www.kimsoft.com/1997/kwar98.htm)
I'm glad you like kimsoft. it has some great information on Korea there. for example, an eyewitness account of the deplorable acts of North Korea (and Korean generally), though be warned, it is pro-capitalist:
http://kimsoft.com/korea/eyewit.htm
It was an attempt to militarily force the unification of Korea.
Oh noes!
Revolutions are also attempts to "militarily force" progressive goals.
You seem to know a bit about korean history. I would have assumed you would have realized that this is what saved the Rhee. It legitimized his regime to South Koreans and alienated 2/3s of the population from their northern brothers and sisters. It is what ensured the peninsula's division for the next 60 years. It was anything but progressive.
***
And while spending plenty of space on distant history, you ignored my concluding point on this. Regardless of the history, there is no way north Korea could invade the south now.
So what's the relevance today of this view of north Korea as an evil aggressor in 1950?
Sorry, I study history and I jump on the chance to talk korean history.
No, it probably won't invade the south. It would be political suicide. He is using the nuke to ratchet up his stance in the region or to use as a bargaining chip with the US as he did under Clinton. It certainly has nothing to do with defense.
The problem is that it IS alienated the ROK, regardless of if it is capitalistic. (but you could always make the argument that the DPRK is capitalistic too). By alienating the southern peninsula by militarizing, he is making the unification process all the more difficult. That is why I am not a fan of it.