Site Search:
 
Speak Korean Now!
Teach English Abroad and Get Paid to see the World!
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Not the South Korea we thought we knew
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Alias



Joined: 24 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 1:31 pm    Post subject: Not the South Korea we thought we knew Reply with quote

Quote:
Berea, Ohio, and Honolulu - Media reports dwell on South Korea's frustration with the United States. Concern over the plight of Christian volunteers seized by the Taliban in Afghanistan and angry crowds in Seoul demanding an American withdrawal from the Korean peninsula have fed that image.

However, a recent face-to-face survey of more than 1,000 South Korean citizens (20 years or older) regarding inter-Korean and foreign relations reveals a much more complex and nuanced picture and may offer a few surprises to those who have written off the country as no longer a solid US ally.

Contrary to what we frequently hear from South Korean and US media, even from other Korea scholars and Asia watchers, the top concern among South Koreans is their own national security. The increased anxiety over the North Korean threat and wariness of China may partially explain why South Koreans are drawing closer to the US.

The results of this spring's survey, sponsored by the Fulbright Program, belie both American and Korean news accounts of the Korean public's seeming indifference to the North Korean nuclear program. They also challenge the reports of rising widespread anti-American sentiments and a possible tilt toward China. In light of the upcoming South Korean presidential election in December 2007, the survey offers an intriguing picture of public opinion, which may influence the election's outcome.

Despite persistent news reports about the public's calm in the face of heightening tensions over the North Korean nuclear issue, the survey data show that the South Korean public is alarmed by the nuclear test conducted by North Korea in October 2006 � and reveal support for strong measures to censure and counter its nuclear program.

More than 70 percent of those surveyed believe that North Korea's possession of nuclear arms and the sale of nuclear materials pose a threat to South Korea's national interests.

Furthermore, should North Korea continue to pursue nuclear weapons, a clear majority support South Korea's participation in United Nations sanctions against North Korea, the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative, and the development of its own nuclear weapons. [Editor's note: The original version omitted a key phrase.] Additionally, almost half of the survey participants back US military action to prevent North Korea from proliferating nuclear weapons.

Similarly, the American press has extensively reported rising anti-American sentiments in South Korea in recent years, especially among the younger generation. However, the survey results show that public opinion is, on the whole, favorable toward the US. And the overwhelming majority (92 percent) believes that the South Korea-US alliance should either be maintained or strengthened. Only a small minority (8 percent) says that the alliance should be weakened or terminated.

A majority (55 percent) believe that South Korea, being surrounded by China, Russia, and Japan, should ally itself with a distant power, the US, in order to strengthen its security. A similar percentage is opposed to a precipitous withdrawal of the US troops stationed in South Korea (57 percent). Contrary to the critical comment recently made by Sen. Hillary Clinton that South Koreans are forgetting US contributions to Korea's development, 54 percent believe that the security provided by the US troops has contributed to economic prosperity.


The survey results also contradict the impression of an increasing public tilt toward China. In fact, one of the most striking findings is that the public strongly prefers the US over China.

When asked which of the two countries Korea should maintain close ties with for the sake of its national interest, 20 percent picked China, while an overwhelming 79 percent selected the US.

If faced with the sudden collapse of the North Korean regime, a mere 4 percent believe that Korea should cooperate with China to deal with the crisis, whereas 28 percent favor the US. The rest chose the UN or the "six-party talks group" or preferred that South Korea act alone.

Only 26 percent believe that China takes into account Korean interests in dealing with North Korea over the nuclear issue, while 56 percent believe the US considers South Korea's interests.

The survey also shows that the assessment of China is uniformly negative, especially in comparison with the US. Moreover, public wariness and suspicion of China seem particularly intense, and 81 percent believe China's rise poses a threat to Korea's national interests. Nearly the same percentage (82 percent) interpret the claim of Chinese state-sponsored revisionists � that Koguryo, an ancient Korean kingdom, was actually a Chinese regional province � as an ominous reflection of present-day territorial ambitions.

Likewise, a large majority (74 percent) believes that the Chinese are seeking to exert influence over the reunification of the two Koreas by propping up the North Korean regime with extensive aid.

� Haesook Chae is a professor of political science at Baldwin-Wallace College in Berea, Ohio. Steven Kim is a professor at the Asia-Pacific Center for Security Studies in Honolulu.


http://www.csmonitor.com/2007/0813/p09s02-coop.html?page=1
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 3:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing that's often forgotten in our discussions about how Koreans regard the US is that, even in periods of virulent anti-Americanism, about half of Koreans still vote for the GNP, a party that is quite open in its praise of and support for the American alliance.

I am not a fan of Spiro Agnew, but there was something to his idea that the extent of conservative opinion is often underestimated, because of the reluctance of conservative middle-class people to vocalize their politics.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dogshed



Joined: 28 Apr 2006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The amount of something and it's rate of change are not the same thing.

To know if the anti-American sentiment is growing or shrinking we need to compare to past surveys.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Sat Aug 18, 2007 6:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Alias:

This is a very interesting article you've posted, and therefore a very thoughtful thread (despite the bump and grind avatar).

The CSM in my estimation has the best foreign news reporting of mainstream source in the world, so I always perk up when I read it.

That said, I'd wish to know more about this observation:

Quote:
a similar percentage is opposed to a precipitous withdrawal of the US troops stationed in South Korea (57 percent).


Does this still mean that 43 percent of ROK youth want us to leave now? And what do they consider to be "precipitous?" Either way, it's not exactly a ringing endorsement for American forces here.

And then this:

Quote:
Contrary to the critical comment recently made by Sen. Hillary Clinton that South Koreans are forgetting US contributions to Korea's development, 54 percent believe that the security provided by the US troops has contributed to economic prosperity.


I don't find this to be necessarily a contradictory claim. South Koreans can acknowledge the American contribution while ignoring our demands for greater access to their domestic market. Isn't that what prompted Clinton's criticism? And, let's face it, 54% is a narrow majority, which begs the question: why are so many unappreciative? [As a reminder, I personally believe we should pull all our troops off the peninsula unless the ROK contributes more to cost of maintaining a contingent of 37,000 along the DMZ and elsewhere]

On the other hand noted:

Quote:
I am not a fan of Spiro Agnew, but there was something to his idea that the extent of conservative opinion is often underestimated, because of the reluctance of conservative middle-class people to vocalize their politics


Neither was I and what you refer to is the "Silent Majority," about which he was correct. Today, however, I would characterize that constituency as more moderate than either conservative or liberal.

dogshed cautioned:

Quote:
The amount of something and it's rate of change are not the same thing.

To know if the anti-American sentiment is growing or shrinking we need to compare to past surveys.


Bingo, bruddah.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nautilus



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 1:35 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I still don't see anywhere like enough appreciation of America's help in that survey.

PULL the forces out.

Do it.

What would it matter anyhow? The US can still defend Korea from subs in the sea of japan. South korean soldiers can be the new tripewire.I don't think anyone would predict a north korean victory anymore.

After a decade or more of anti american protests and hostility its time to let them know where they stand. Cut them loose. Let them mature as a nation, leaving victimhood behind. Stand on their own 2 feet.

-and as U leave don't forget to explain that this is why



Because other cultures don't overlook insults as easily as they think we do.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
jajdude



Joined: 18 Jan 2003

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

nautilus wrote:


Because other cultures don't overlook insults as easily as they think we do.


And what group of people is more easily offended than Koreans? If everyone in the world was so easily riled, we'd all have killed each other by now.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 9:39 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
PULL the forces out.

Do it.


Keep dreaming.

As I've already pointed out in a similar discussion a few weeks back, the US is so starved for troops in Iraq right now that they're recruiting former mental patients and calling up 40 year old reservists. And this situation has been going on for at least a couple of years now. If the troops in Korea were of no strategic value to the US, they would have been shipped off to Iraq already.

My American friends:

Contrary to what you might have learned from watching Schoolhouse Rock, America's foreign policy is as self-interested as any other nation's. The troops are here not because your government cares about the welfare of other human beings, but because they are thought to advance some interest of the United States. Until either the Koreans or the Americans decide that the interests of their respective nations are no longer served by the troop presence, you can expect the troops to remain here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand wrote:

Quote:
My American friends:

Contrary to what you might have learned from watching Schoolhouse Rock, America's foreign policy is as self-interested as any other nation's. The troops are here not because your government cares about the welfare of other human beings, but because they are thought to advance some interest of the United States. Until either the Koreans or the Americans decide that the interests of their respective nations are no longer served by the troop presence, you can expect the troops to remain here.


To My Canadian friends:

Contrary to whay you might have learned from watching Dudley DoRight, American foreign policy, like all nation's foreign policy, is at a basic level promoted out of self-interest, even when its primary intent is altruistic. You see, for most of us, the concept of "freedom" and offering others the chance to be free is more than just a political platitude. That's what others in Western nations which have the luxury to be complacent and judgmental like to believe so it can assuage their own collective sense of guilt for not sacrificing more themselves.

Then again, we've learned from the Iraq debacle by now that you can't give freedom to people who don't know how to use it and don't want to try.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Dome Vans
Guest




PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 6:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steve Mcgarrett wrote:

Quote:
Then again, we've learned from the Iraq debacle by now that you can't give freedom to people who don't know how to use it and don't want to try.


You can't attempt to give freedom to people after you have, and continue to kill, bomb, humiliate, kill civilians (and shrug it off), install puppet governments and still fail to install any infrastructure in the country. That is what this debacle has shown. An illegal war, with little international support that counts that was doomed from the start. That is why it has failed and the US will not win it or any other genocidal jaunts it feels it might like to embark on in the next decade or so. Unless they make their decisions more consensual. They can't get consensus with other nations because their invading has no legal grounding and are just gung-ho pre-emptive strikes. I'm sure Iran, Pakistan and Syria are really worried.
Back to top
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 7:25 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dome Vans wrote:
Steve Mcgarrett wrote:

Quote:
Then again, we've learned from the Iraq debacle by now that you can't give freedom to people who don't know how to use it and don't want to try.


You can't attempt to give freedom to people after you have, and continue to kill, bomb, humiliate, kill civilians (and shrug it off), install puppet governments and still fail to install any infrastructure in the country.


True, but in this case McGarret is right. While the US has committed quite a few human rights offenses in Iraq, it does not change the fact that Iraqis voted overwhelmingly among ethnic lines. It also does not change the fact that more Iraqis than not cower to powerful militias and prefer to be bought out by people they know are slime rather than work for change. The bulk of Iraqis are just slavish.

*This does not in any way absolve the US of any transgressions it may or may not have committed in Iraq.

Anyway, OTOH is pretty much right. The US gets in trouble whenever its policy becomes overly idealistic, although despite OTOH's contentions, it does happen on occasion. To tie in the Iraq discussion to whats been said about Korea, three cheers for crass self-interest in American-Korean relations!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
On the other hand



Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
It also does not change the fact that more Iraqis than not cower to powerful militias and prefer to be bought out by people they know are slime rather than work for change. The bulk of Iraqis are just slavish.



Well yes, but you've also got to factor in the almost complete collapse of law and order that followed the invasion.

Suppose that in your hometown, the police were disbanded, and rival gangs took over the streets, mowing down anyone who didn't follow their will. Would the law-abiding citizens in your town gather together and "work for change", or would they align themselves with whatever gang they thought was most likely to protect them from the other gang?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Dome Vans wrote:

Allow me to dissect your rant from The Guardian:

Quote:
You can't attempt to give freedom to people after you have, and continue to kill, bomb, humiliate, kill civilians (and shrug it off).


Bombing was done in the lead-up to the invasion on selected targets and involved "surgical" strikes, which unfortunately but inevitably resulted in "collateral damage." Every effort was made, however, to minimize this fallout. The so-called "shock and awe" was confined to what is now the Green Zone.

The Coalition Forces gave initial freedom to the Iraqi people when Saddam's regime was toppled. The Iraqi people chose not to exercise their freedom responsibly (no surprise there, except to a naive Bush Administration) and the Sunnis condoned the former Baathist insurgents in their midst. The Shiites condoned Al-Sadr's brigade in their midsts. The Kurds kept to themselves and have reaped the benefits of autonomy. As for "humiliation," it was limited to a few isolated incidents and can hardly be characterized as brutal torture, though the histrionic media often depicted it as such. Those involved were tried and punished and the investigation is on-going. The incidence of gang rape and reprisal killings

Quote:
...install puppet governments and still fail to install any infrastructure in the country.


Is that what you call it? So if it's a puppet government, why did many of the Sunni leaders accede to requests to join the assembly? Or were they just bribed or bullied into going? And why then does the UN negotiate with this government?

We have been infusing billions of dollars in rebuilding an infrastructure which Saddam neglected for nearly a quarter century as he built his palaces and funded his military buildup. And terrorists have sabotaged much of what has been built, or didn't you read those accounts?

Quote:
That is what this debacle has shown. An illegal war, with little international support that counts that was doomed from the start. That is why it has failed


It might very well prove to be a debacle, although the jury is still out on that one. Is it any more illegal than Saddam ignoring UN sanctions for 12 years and Russia and France profiting from the embargo?

It might have been doomed from the start, indeed, but not for the reasons you think. If it is doomed, it is because too many Iraqis are not willing to tolerate religious and sectarian differences or to support their own elected parliament.

Quote:
...and the US will not win it or any other genocidal jaunts it feels it might like to embark on in the next decade or so. Unless they make their decisions more consensual. They can't get consensus with other nations because their invading has no legal grounding and are just gung-ho pre-emptive strikes.


So which is it: a debacle or an act of genocide? The former does not result from premeditated policy. A "jaunt," you say? You mean the soldiers who fight with honor (99% of them), their families and friends who rally around them, and their leaders who send them are just on some kind of picnic in the park? Revealing how you belittle those who mean well and put themselves in harm's way. As for being "gung-ho," how do you know what most soldiers are thinking? Most I know or have read about are reluctant to enter combat, not out of cowardice or a lack of principles but out of a healthy sense of fear of being ambushed.

As for "pre-emptive strike," if you're referring to the initial invasion, it was threatened for years if Saddam did not toe the line. It hardly came as a surprise to the entrenched insurgency, as we have witnessed. Regardless, we're not talking about nuclear weaponry here but conventional weaponry.

No, there was no consensus but we now also know that France, Russia, and China all had ulterior motives for declining to join the Anglo-American forces. And you're forgetting the support received from Eastern and Southern Europeans, Australia, Japan, and even Korea. It was hardly planned as a "go-it-alone" strategy.

Quote:
I'm sure Iran, Pakistan and Syria are really worried.


I'm surprised you left out North Korea, Myanmar, Cuba, Zimbabwe, and Venezuela. And we have seen how much the Iranian leader is fretting over an American attack, what with all his bellicose speeches.

Gimme a break.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stevemcgarrett



Joined: 24 Mar 2006

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 8:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand conjectured:

Quote:
Well yes, but you've also got to factor in the almost complete collapse of law and order that followed the invasion. Suppose that in your hometown, the police were disbanded, and rival gangs took over the streets, mowing down anyone who didn't follow their will. Would the law-abiding citizens in your town gather together and "work for change", or would they align themselves with whatever gang they thought was most likely to protect them from the other gang?


I think your analogy isn't apt in this situation. It diminishes the fact that Iraq has no history of democracy or a civic culture. It also ignores the degree to which Saddam suppressed his own people to the point where they believe violence is the only solution to their grievances. And your analysis ignores the very palpable grudges these various sects hold for one another.

Of course, it does not entirely negate your point that fear can prevent well-meaning citizens from acting but the bloodbath, sadly, was inevitable once Saddam was ousted or otherwise left.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
nautilus



Joined: 26 Nov 2005
Location: Je jump, Tu jump, oui jump!

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

On the other hand wrote:
The troops are here not because your government cares about the welfare of other human beings, but because they are thought to advance some interest of the United States. Until either the Koreans or the Americans decide that the interests of their respective nations are no longer served by the troop presence, you can expect the troops to remain here.


Cynical.

If the US was really as self-interested to the level of many other nations, they'd have simply killed every Iraqi person they met and pumped out all the oil already.

There is some self interest (of course)-but it is tempered by a degree of responsibility, and reasonability barely experienced by lesser nations.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
thepeel



Joined: 08 Aug 2004

PostPosted: Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:50 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To use the 'argument from authority'... :

I attended an academic seminar last week on this very topic. I stood up and asked "why is America defending a nation that hates it to the core". The academics in question giving answers varying from "policy inertia" (they have bigger problems that distract them from a major policy change in the region) to containing China and an ideological tendency towards supporting democracy. But all academics agreed, however, that the major reason was bureaucratic and policy inertia.

Take it for what it is..
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 1 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2018 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International