Epilogue: Insularity

As I wrap up this blog for a short time being, I am devoting this post in order to set down some of my thoughts and defending some of my choices.

I started this blog in part to have reason to revisit the Korean news media, and see if it has changed in tone since I have immigrated to America. When I left for America years ago I felt that despite the rapidly changing world, the traditional media in South Korea was still too insular, too mired in old view of the world. We send out our children in record numbers to other countries in order to acquire skills and education, but in Korea itself our understanding about the world is still far too primitive. And that the media focused mostly on sensations and failed to give adequate understanding to greater world. This was reflected not only on the Korean newspapers and magazine I read for this class, but in blogs as well.


In the course of the class, the profound events in Syria was in the headlines. Yet, in Korean news they were muffled sound in the distance. It did not assume the center of attention, and more importantly, in general, failed to show reporting that were little different than the American one. Korean perspective was missing. Why did our own memory merely 30 years ago fail to inspire our own perspective?

A critic would say that the media and the citizenry in this country are not that different from Koreans. And that criticism has some merit. But what surprised me is the largely supporting of America in the conservative media, such as Chosun-illbo and Joongang-illbo in political news. True, in economics the papers were more balanced, but here all the media seemed concerned was about attainment of profit or security. However, I feel I did not quite manege to see the grand narrative of changing opinions and worldviews I expected when I begun the blog. Nuanced worldview is not only missing, but is not even considered as important. 

A reader of this blog might be surprised at the restricted sourcing of this blog, I drew primary on the established Medias and few professional papers. As for that, there are two reasons. First, reasons is largely technical. Blogs service in Korea, such as Naver, and Daum in Korea requires intrusive registration that I was not in position to do so (all my information needed are ironically in Korea). Second was living in blogging culture in Korea was different in some careful way that I could not get used to or adjust in time (if only I could figure out what that was more clearly...). Quite possibly despite my best efforts, years of living away from Korea may have distanced me from the worldview far more than I have realized.

This project was easy in some way, hard in others, and it was a joyous journey for me. I hope the reader whoever read it also found it joyous.

Conclusion: Legitimacy and Media

This will be my last posting for this blog. Since the beginning of this blog right after the spring break, I have been thinking about the how we, as people in countries look at the world around us and how it differs. Despite living in America over a decade I cannot quite penetrate the into the worldview of Amricans, so I will move directly into the worldview of Koreans.

The modern Korean is both prideful and still bearing heavy injuries around us. Since the fall of the Chosun Dynasty in 1910, and even in the chaotic two decades before that, the world was a hostile place where the foreigners were indeed "barbarians" as it was noted in the Confucian Orthodoxy. The new foreigners did not want to accept Korea as it was, but was determined to force it to the it Imperialist Great Game, and eventually Korea endured grueling three-decade rule from Japan, where Japanese tried to obliterate the unique distinction of Korea from the Koreans. After that Korea was liberated not through its own might, but through the intervention of victorious allied powers in WWII. And then in five years, Korea was engulfed in horrific Civil-International war (for how else can the Korean war be described?) where we were amputated into two very different, but equally unsatisfying political system. For the Southern half, it took three decade of democratic agitation, as well as untold hardship and development for its part to grow into democratic economic powerhouse today. But political discourse and the worldview has not caught up with the Korean people yet.

In the first two posting, I noted the inglorious history of conservatism in Korea: pro-Japanese, pro-American, pro-Dictatorship, pro-Corporation. In retrospect, the origin of the conservatism goes back even further to the neo-Confucian ideology of the Chosun Dynasty, which believed in keeping the alliance with the powerful Ming (later Qing) Dynasty in order to secure borders with the Japanese and the Jurchens, with whom the country had antagonistic relationship. It may be pragmatic, but it is not something that looks attractive in a age of nationalism. Accommodating America and Japan might be the order of the day. But it leads to restrictive worldview and one that does not count the various historical forces that are at work. And looking at the coverage about Middle East in South Korea, my suspicions are confirmed. Even in long monthly articles about Middle East (few and far they are) there is little if any articles about the complicated relationship within the region. What articles there are, is articles about Korean companies doing business there or interviews and profiles with government officials. Is it any wonder that the left in Korea questions the legitimate pedigree of the conservative papers?

What about the left? If the right suffers in limited worldview and overly doctrinaire pragmatism, the left suffers from critical lack of resources (compared to right), and increasingly strident view that seems to object any merit on views based on the fact that the opposition supports or attacks it. It is losing the flexbility which was its hallmark during the long struggle against the dictatorship years.

The news in Middle East is not only a portal to that world, but a reflection of our Korean worldview. I am not so sure I like that view.

Bargain

Article


The today's article is about the liberal paper Hankyoreh’s editorial about the Korea’s access to Iranian oil. The editorial demands that if the Korea does sanction Iranian oil, South Korea should demand some kind of assistance with the six-party negotiation with North Korea.

In theory I agree with the idea that some kind of quid-pro-quid is not only desirable but is in the offering. South Korean government might be pro-America, but idiots they are not. The question lies more on the nature of aid that Hankyoreh propose. Since the article note that the fact that India and Israel possess nuclear weapons tacit American toleration, but does not make explicit recommendations. I cannot but wonder what kind of concession Hankyoreh is thinking. Here are my list:

1 Live with nuclear North Korea: Hankyoreh is well known for arguing that sanctions due to North Korea’s Possession of Nuclear weapons are obsolete and should be removed. This would mean that both Koreas would accept North Korea as nuclear power. Considering the political climate in both Washington and Seoul where both countries are having presidential elections this year, that is not going to happen.

2 More aid to North Korea:  The general consensus is that there will be famine this year in North Korea. The current conservative government is unsure about sending aid due it the experience of past, not to mention wanting to see if Kim Jung-Un will make concessions. This might be more likely, but Kim is in no position to make concessions when his own power base is so insecure. So this will not happen either.

It would be interesting to know kind of concession there might be, and whether that would actually be found acceptable to the liberal newspaper. My guess? It won’t/

Bulletproof Contract

Today's article from the  Joongang-ilbo is about the rather light human interest story about Hussain al-Shahristani. the Assistant Prime Minister for Energy and Yu Jung-Jun, the head of Korean energy firm SK G&G. It recount the time in 2009 when Yu, along with the heads of competing firms in America and Europe visited Iraq in order to hammer out new deal in developing Iraq's abundant resources. The article goes on to note that unlike the heads of other companies who did not leave Baghdad airport, Yu strapped on a Bulletproof  vest and visited al-Shahristani on person. This evidently impressed al-Shahristani to a point that SK's position in development became much higher. The article notes this as triumph of personal leadership, saving SK whose position in Iraq has been in doubt for some years.

As for me? Without a doubt what Yu did took act of bravery. However, aside from the security concerns and the lives of his staff (whose choice in this matter would have been slight, considering the Korean business world). This article fails to take into account why Yu had to take such measures. SK was one of the companies in 2007 and 2008 took direct deals with regional powers in Kirkuk and up in Iraqi Kurdistan to develop the fields without directly dealing with Maliki government. Accordingly SK was frozen out of Iraq for several years.

True, the situation in Iraq in 2007 was chaos and corporations have obligation to create profit. But it is disingenuous of the Newspaper to argue that this personal courage somehow translated into business bonanza. If  its that easy to create international business agreement, courageous CEOs would be running into warzones and making Billions without need for staff, presentations and bribes.

Yu Jung Jun. Brave, Yes. A hero he is not

History: Korean Muslims

Article

Despite the restrictive online service and the wretched delivery service, there is a reason why even in Korea I subscribed to Hankyoreh, it is paper that was most like the Guardian in many ways. While it has its share of the problems (including the unreasonably friendly to China and have almost knee-jerk reaction against America), it is always breaking new ground, viewing issues that no other mainstream papers will deal with. Now whether they do that justly or not… the article will tell us about that.

The article here deals with the small community of Muslims in Korea. And the focus of the article is the life of 2^nd generation born of Pakistani immigrant. Much of the article deals with the cultural dislocation, prejudices, generational conflict and many other problems that immigrants have. This article when it came out created a small controversy last year. Hankyoreh’s position that the unofficial social persecution toward the 4000 Muslims (especially naturalized Muslims) must end, and that the government must extend social protection toward them.

The response to the articled ranged from the fact that many of these Muslims, do not adopt Korean cultural convention to the more nativist arguments about the Korea’s race purity and need to keep the distinct Korean race (how long will that wretched idea haunt the East Asian societies!) as well as talking about the supposed barbarism and the dangers of Islam (one commentator in the article makes argument that no immigrants can be truly Korean or accept the Korean values). Others made more nuanced argument that if these were the teething pains of a society were Islam is after all, new introduction, and was therefore considered alien compared to Christianity and Buddhism. After all, religious completion, like everything else in Korea, is highly and viciously competitive.  We must also consider the many, many evangelicals in Korea which parrot the narrative of their American brethren. But still, even the most positive commentaries demanded the subordination of Islam identity to the Korean and too many were negative in accepting them in any measure.

It has been twenty years since the Korean construction industries have been working in Middle East, Ten years since 9/11 where 50 Koreans perished. 7 Years since the War in Iraq and deployment of troops. 16 Years since the first civilian government pushed for internationalization of Korea. Still, we seem to be in dark about world that is not Japan, China or America.

How far have we progressed since his time?

History: Sending Troops to Iraq.

The Article That Started it All.

For the next few postings, I am going to focus my attention more on older, more historical articles. That is articles which either created sensations at the time or created the bases for positions that eventually other newsgroups took.

The article which was published in Monthly Chosun's May 2004 issue, was followed by far longer article recommending the deployment of troops into Iraq (Eventually, South Korea deployed the Zaytun Division, a 3,800 men non-combatant formation until 2008). If I were to summarize the supporting reasons behind the article, it was in two reasons. First was the argument that sending troops was beneficial to maintaining the Military Alliance between the America and South Korea (one of the conservative Holy Grail). Second was that sending troops were essential after death of Kim Sun Il, a Korean who was murdered in Iraq (and whose death led to brief surge of Anti-Iraqi feelings in Korea), to show resolve. Finally (although more muted at the time), was the argument that without sending troops, it would be impossible to secure the lucrative oil contract in Postwar Iraq (earlier article in the blog dealt with what happened to that boondoggle).

Aside from the controversy of sending troops into Iraq at all (after all the 2003 Iraq War, like in many other parts of the Globe, was hardly popular one in Korea), the controversy was in the reasoning behind it. These two articles from the liberal Hankyoreh give succinct summery of refutation. First, South Korea had no obligation neither in national interest or moral one, to send troops. Second, sending troops will only ensure greater exacerbation of bad impression between Iraq's neighbors and South Korea. But underlying all this was the Korean left's discomfort, since Korea once had its sovereignty stripped away from it, and ill-defined scene of kinship pervaded the articles.

Eight long years have passed since the publication of these articles. South Korean Troops has left Iraq. The country never got the oil contracts, the two papers which dueled are in still at each other's throats.But the central view of looking at Middle East has not changed. The conservatives are convinced in economic opportunity for Korea in the region and maintaining America's good triumphs morality (or is morality). While liberals still see eerily shadows of our own past.

Jesus = Heaven. No Jesus = Hell

Today as I was walking in the Korea-town in Flushing, I was accosted by the missionary who asked me "if I believed in Jesus Christ" to be saved. He went on tell me I could not only be saved but healed of all my physical ills by the power of faith. Its hard to bear that in Friday night when, your back is hurting and your balance is often shot to hell due to a long week.

I am Catholic. I came to peace with God some time ago.

The Missionary was Korean.

This posting will not link to any articles, but will be a musing from depth of my heart. Korea has many evangelicals. When the Christianity was introduced it found fertile ground in which to grow. The reigning Chosun dynasty was visibly failing to meet the needs of the its people, and rebellions and riots were showing that the internal contradiction of 500 years of Confucian Feudalism was coming to boil. Christianity quickly spread into the population, and by the 1900s the faith was well integrated into the life of Koreans. Unlike the Japan, where Shinto reignes supreme even now, the Confucian faith was compatible with the already existing belief systems and found little to be supplemented.

Moreover, it cannot be denied that for majority of time, the Church did its part. It had its place of honor against the Japanese Occupational era and later it fought against the military regime. But since than, the Church, especially the evangelical community has changed, for worse. Since 2003 the Evangelical community has openly embraced missionary tactics which will yield in damaging Korean interest and image.

The kidnapping of Korean Missionaries in Afghanistan in 2007 was merely the most embarrassing of the these events. All they manged to do was fatten the war chest of Taliban and marked out the converts for death (when Americans leave Afghanistan, the converts are essentially doomed). And since than they have also showed their faces in Iraq (in 2004 onward) and several non Middle Eastern nations, including Indonesia. I doubt they have converted any one. Koreans struggle to display their distinctive nature from our neighbors. This is one image I can do without