|
Korean Job Discussion Forums "The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
View previous topic :: View next topic |
Author |
Message |
wylies99

Joined: 13 May 2006 Location: I'm one cool cat!
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:39 pm Post subject: KT Asst editor bashes USA |
|
|
01-06-2009 17:28
http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/01/137_37375.html
Kathleen 'the Great'
By Oh Young-jin
Assistant Managing Editor
Name one favor U.S. President Bush has done for Korea.
It is not hard to make up a shortlist since it is really short. After all, the outgoing American head of state has contributed to a general aggravation of his country's standing not only in the Muslim world but also among its traditional allies such as Korea.
But his appointment ― albeit it was more likely at the behest of Secretary of State Condalezza Rice ― of Ambassador Kathleen Stephens will in all likelihood have a lasting impact on the two nations' relationship for the better.
Of course, the proud daughter of Texas has yet to prove herself under fire but, as things stand now, many Koreans would share my regret that she did not come sooner. The point is made plain, considering the all-male lineage of her predecessors. For instance, Alexander Vershbow, whom she succeeded, was known to hold a great amount of disdain for Korea and was quite open about it.
Besides, his drum work, hyped by the Korean media and revered by the larger audience who didn't have a chance to listen, was mediocre even by an amateur's standards, according to one ``eyewitness.'' With Ambassador Stephens in place, the ``April beef crisis'' could have been handled differently. The crisis is to be looked back upon as the single most important watershed that has generalized anti-American sentiment among Koreans.
Amb. Stephens is deftly handling her part of helping turn that ill will into a good one.
First, her Korean language skills are instrumental. The Peace Corps program has its share of duds among its participants, but finds success with Stephens. One of the first things she did when she returned to Korea was visit a middle school where she taught English. Watching her speak with her former colleagues during their reunion tugged the heartstrings of Koreans, some of whom may as well have felt as if her tour of duty was the return of a long-lost daughter. In the process, she became one of ``us'' and helped Koreans put behind them remnants of their inferiority complex with the Big Brother in the United States, at least for a while.
A look at an extensive itinerary she is completing in addition her visit to the middle schools in Yesan and Buyeo reinforces where her true heart lies. Especially her recent visit to Kim Koo Museum was memorable since the museum is for Korea's leading independence fighter during Japan's colonial occupation. The independence fighter, often revered as a seminal person of Korea's progressivism, was a strong candidate whose portrait was considered for use on new 100,000-won bills. The new bill plan was nixed, with speculation rife that the conservative Lee Myung-bak government disapproved of the use of Kim's portrait.
Kim had a run-in with U.S. military authorities, who favored U.S.-educated Syngman Rhee and forced Kim to return to his liberated fatherland as an ``ordinary'' man, being deprived of his status as head of the provisional government. Stephens adroitly dodged the historical implications her visit might trigger, saying that her visit, together with a son she had with a Korean husband, was educational in purpose.
To top it all, she has a combination of modesty and occasional self-deprecation that appeals to Koreans in particular. According to our Embassy Row reporter, she often puts down her command of Korean by reciting an old Korean saying that is used to show modesty when complimented. With a western touch of modernization, the saying would go, ``A dog spending three years keeping the gate of Shakespeare's house can recite from the Bard's verses.''
Few Koreans would have illusions about what her priorities are and where her loyalty lies. She showed she is an American patriot from bottom to top, quite literally, when she showed up for a U.S. election-day reception with her ``patriotic shoes'' on. The shoes have an American flag embroidered on their sides.
Considering the amount of good will she has accumulated during a short period, she finds herself in a better position than others to serve the two allies' interests.
She will have her chance to put that capital into good use. The administration of the incoming U.S. President Obama is set to pick up from where the second term of the Clinton administration left off in its policy on Korea, considering Obama's choice of appointees in key positions. President Lee Myung-bak, who assumes the same color and shape of policy as the outgoing Republican President Bush, will be taxed to tune in with the Obama team, increasing the chances of friction. There are bound to be limits to how much one ambassador can do but I am sure that Stephens will be able to top the upper limit. Besides, she has already met half of Obama's key foreign affairs goals ― undoing what his predecessor has done for eight years and putting on a friendly face to the world.
[email protected] |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
VanIslander

Joined: 18 Aug 2003 Location: Geoje, Hadong, Tongyeong,... now in a small coastal island town outside Gyeongsangnamdo!
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 4:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kicking a dog when he's down - for Koreans it's 'a cultural thing' |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease

Joined: 14 Sep 2004 Location: The deep south...
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 5:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
That piece isn't bashing the States, so to speak.
It more or less bashes the old ambassador and praises the new one. I see that story as a praise of the US more than a criticism. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
Name one favor U.S. President Bush has done for Korea... |
Start with his keeping the aid rolling in, his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea, his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and his administration's continuing to grant South Korean exporters (namely, cars and consumer electronics) favorable access to the American market.
Just how much do South Koreans believe the United States owes them -- especially in the face of their continuing antiAmerican hysteria re: issues such as mad cow, not to mention the usual ongoing rants against American imperialism, etc....?
I, for one, am beginning to fail to see any utility at all in keeping Korean-American relations as they are. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003 Location: I walk along the avenue
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea?
Quote: |
his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program |
So, the US regards itself as having no strategic interest in containing the Nork's nuclear program? Their stance on that issue is just the equivalent of a boy scout helping a little old lady accross the street?
Your comments here remind me of those Canadians who say things like "Canadian foreign-policy, unlike that of the US, is not about pursuing selfish interests, but is rather motivated by idealistic concerns about the third world blah blah blah north-south partneship blah blah blah Pearsonian whatever blah blah blah". And of course, you know what I think about that line of rhetoric. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Location: Eungam Loop
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 7:51 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea?
Quote: |
his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program |
So, the US regards itself as having no strategic interest in containing the Nork's nuclear program? Their stance on that issue is just the equivalent of a boy scout helping a little old lady accross the street?
Your comments here remind me of those Canadians who say things like "Canadian foreign-policy, unlike that of the US, is not about pursuing selfish interests, but is rather motivated by idealistic concerns about the third world blah blah blah north-south partneship blah blah blah Pearsonian whatever blah blah blah". And of course, you know what I think about that line of rhetoric. |
Since the 1950's every time the US has mentioned troop reduction on the peninsula, Korean politicians wet themselves. While both nations benefit, SK has a lot more to lose then the US due to a complete US troop withdrawel. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
chickenpie
Joined: 24 Dec 2008
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Start with his keeping the aid rolling in, his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea, |
Yea, every American president has done that for the love of the Korean people!!
Gopher wrote: |
his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, |
Didn't the Norks get their first nuke under Bush's watch?
Gopher wrote: |
and his administration's continuing to grant South Korean exporters (namely, cars and consumer electronics) favorable access to the American market. |
You got this one, but I think that boils down to American consumers not wanting over priced gas guzzlers anymore, and Korean electronics being of decent quality and cheap!! |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Gopher

Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea? |
Altruistic? No. I do not suggest that. But do you think it is free for us to do this, or that we entail no liabilities for doing it, On the Other Hand?
So you are damned right it is a favor to them. No matter how much we might benefit from it, they benefit much, much more.
As for the rest of your questions, I reject the notion that because the United States has security interests in East Asia, that therefore no one benefits from American favors, from H. Truman to W. Bush to B. Obama. That is a leftist thing: if someone profits, then therefore the entire thing is tainted. Nonsense. South Koreans asking us to show how we have done them any favors these last eight years strikes me as pure nonsense.
They would not exist as a viable nation-state without us, On the Other Hand. They ought to start with that.
Last edited by Gopher on Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:19 pm; edited 3 times in total |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
blaseblasphemener
Joined: 01 Jun 2006 Location: There's a voice, keeps on calling me, down the road, that's where I'll always be
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Does she mean the Korean beef crisis where Koreans showed themselves to be sheep, and then the first chance they got, made U.S. beef #1 in Korea?
That "crisis"? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
mises
Joined: 05 Nov 2007 Location: retired
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 8:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ROK prosperity is almost entirely due to a preferential and wildly unbalanced trading relationship with the United States. I sincerely hope this comes to an end. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
PeteJB
Joined: 06 Jul 2007
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Quote: |
It is not hard to make up a shortlist since it is really short. After all, the outgoing American head of state has contributed to a general aggravation of his country's standing not only in the Muslim world but also among its traditional allies such as Korea. |
Upon reading this (among the first lines) I could already see this writer is hopeless. And what's that about the Muslim world? I'm sorry, who started it again? |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Beej
Joined: 05 Mar 2005 Location: Eungam Loop
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:13 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Analogy time. Lets say you have a rare form of cancer. You go to a brilliant doctor. He is the only doctor in the world who can cure you. He takes great care of you, cures you, and saves your life.
Do you then tell the doctor to go eff himself because 1) he doesnt really care about you anyway 2) he just became a doctor to get rich and get a pretty wife. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Joo Rip Gwa Rhhee

Joined: 25 May 2003
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
[quote="On the other hand"]
Quote: |
his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Quote: |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea? |
Not just cause of that but it is a small reason for it.
Lets put it this way the US spends between 3 and 20 billion dollars a year keeping US forces in Korea .
Do land locked troops in Korea give the US the most bang for the buck? Do they really provide the US with substantial military utility? Which would scare China , North Korea, Russia or Iran more? More F-22s or land locked troops in Korea?
If the US is out to threaten others keeping US forces in Korea isn't a very efficient way of doing so. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
Leslie Cheswyck

Joined: 31 May 2003 Location: University of Western Chile
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
On the other hand wrote: |
Quote: |
his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea |
Do you think that Bush kept troops here as a favor to South Koreans? That is, simply because he felt like doing something nice for South Korea?
Quote: |
his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program |
So, the US regards itself as having no strategic interest in containing the Nork's nuclear program? Their stance on that issue is just the equivalent of a boy scout helping a little old lady accross the street?
Your comments here remind me of those Canadians who say things like "Canadian foreign-policy, unlike that of the US, is not about pursuing selfish interests, but is rather motivated by idealistic concerns about the third world blah blah blah north-south partneship blah blah blah Pearsonian whatever blah blah blah". And of course, you know what I think about that line of rhetoric. |
Hey OTOH, does Korea benefit from us or not? If so then it's as close to a favor as Koreans have a right to expect. I think that's what Gopher meant, and it's certainly what I mean. NOBODY does "favors" in international relations. It's awefully arrogant of Koreans to believe they deserve any. |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
RJjr

Joined: 17 Aug 2006 Location: Turning on a Lamp
|
Posted: Tue Jan 06, 2009 9:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher wrote: |
Quote: |
Name one favor U.S. President Bush has done for Korea... |
Start with his keeping the aid rolling in, his keeping American forces stationed in South Korea, his keeping the pressure on North Korea's nuclear weapons program, and his administration's continuing to grant South Korean exporters (namely, cars and consumer electronics) favorable access to the American market.
Just how much do South Koreans believe the United States owes them -- especially in the face of their continuing antiAmerican hysteria re: issues such as mad cow, not to mention the usual ongoing rants against American imperialism, etc....?
I, for one, am beginning to fail to see any utility at all in keeping Korean-American relations as they are. |
It isn't every day that I defend Bush while agreeing with Gopher, but I couldn't agree more with the way he said it.
Her bit about the "Muslim world" was especially rich since that's where the South Koreans took the long ride on the short bus (literally and figuratively). |
|
Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
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
|
|