<html>
<body>
Mr. Brown<br><br>
I would like to protest your implied accusation of me as a KCI
sympathizer.<br>
I am truly sorry to see the ghost of McCarthism come alive on the Korean
Studies list.<br><br>
Well, should I confess that I was a KCI sympathizer and publicly
renounce Pro-KCI-ism? or Should I try everything to prove my
innocence shivering with fear?<br><br>
I am frightened very much not by your accusation but by your simplistic
equation of criticism against the U.S. foreign policy with support for
the dictatorship.<br><br>
Is it another manifestation of the Zeitgeist of the Bush era, that is,
"are you with us or with them?"<br><br>
<br>
serk-bae suh<br><br>
<br><br>
<br><br>
At 04:27 PM 9/27/2003 -0400, you wrote:<br><br>
<blockquote type=cite class=cite cite>Since the US is a representative
democracy, I think it is proper for all American citizens to say
"we" when we refer to our government. That is not to say we
necessarily agree with a current policy but it does mean we each, to a
small extent, are responsible for the actions of our govenrment. Clearly
that is not the case for many countries. Always I find it necessary
to dissasociate the people of North Korea from their Pyongyang rulers,
for instance. Read any of the stories of thousands of recent refugees if
you disagree. <br><br>
I would appreciate some suggestions on how South Koreans treat their own
government. In my experience, South Koreans tend to love their
nationality and their race but often truely hate their government.
Of course some Americans are the same way but in Korea it seems rather
extreme. Perhaps you are a Korean citizen and could help me understand.
But then I see you are from UCLA so perhaps you are American and don't
like to use the word "we". In truth, I don't know of
which country you are a citizen. <br><br>
And you are correct, I am not happy with a situation in which a despotic
government rules over 23 million people, ruining their lives and starving
their children. Apparently you are. As in Iraq, in my view it
is our (USG) inability to finish things up properly that causes us to get
stuck in places like the DMZ or in Saudi Arabia for so many years. I
would love it if we could remove all of our forces from both the W.
Pacific and the Middle East as soon its clear we won't get drawn back in.
The way things are going, I think that might be possible in a few
years--so I'm hopeful. Afganistan and Iraq are important in that
regard but a lot also depends on South Korea.<br><br>
In my mind, we (the world) have a hostage situation on our hands in
Korea, as we have since 1950. Pyongyang's rulers are pitifully weak
but they have their hands around the throats of too many Koreans.
The Japanese, Soviets and Chinese are largely to blame for this in
the past--now all of us share this burden. <br><br>
That's not to say I have the answer. Hostage situations are difficult, no
doubt. I understand why Kim Chong-il threatens nuclear
warfare. Its probably a logical reaction given the sucess he has
had with blackmail over the years. But ultimately I think that it will be
his own downfall. Like Saddaam, threatning something one can't use, even
threating something one might not have, is pretty dangerous. Seems
like we (the US, not necessarily our so-called allies) are doing the
right thing, letting him rant and rave all he wants but making sure he
understands there are tough consaquences to developing nuclear
threats.<br><br>
In that sense, far from scary, we (the USG) did the right thing not even
mentioning the Pueblo transit. (I am pretty sure it went by sea.) A
knee jerk reaction--probably desired by Pyongyang--would have been to
take it back. And similarly we did the right thing by not shooting down
the MIGs that threaten our (USG) recon aircraft. I think by now KCI
has been able to frustrate even his former Japanese and Chinese
sympathizers--the only ones left seem to be a few in America and in South
Korea.<br><br>
<br><br>
>Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>Subject: Re: [KS] Jong-il Personality Cult <br>
>Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:54:48 -0700 <br>
> <br>
>Mr. Brwon <br>
> <br>
>Let me thank you for your illuminating explanation. <br>
>I appreciate it. <br>
> <br>
>I also would like to agree with you to the degree that the
"you" <br>
>(since you address the U.S. government as yours) have been less
<br>
>bellicose with North Korea since 1953 compared to "your"
aggression <br>
>against other countries challenging "you" such as Cuba,
Vietnam, <br>
>Iran, Iraq, Panama, and so on. <br>
> <br>
>I am just wondering whether it is because North Korea has been armed
<br>
>with military capability to retaliate or because it does not have
<br>
>oil or any other valuable natural resources. <br>
> <br>
>If the former is the case, then it seems that "you" have
been <br>
>rewarding the country for its military capability by tolerating it
<br>
>despite its hostility while punishing those without the same degree
<br>
>of military prowess. Then who can blame Kim Jongil for developing
<br>
>nuclear weapons? <br>
> <br>
>If the latter is the case, I thank God who saves the peninsular from
<br>
>another war by having created it as non-oil-producing land although
<br>
>you, sir do not appear to be happy with it. <br>
> <br>
>sincerely, <br>
> <br>
>serk-bae suh <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
>At 09:46 AM 9/26/2003 -0400, you wrote: <br>
> <br>
>>Mr. Suh, that's a very good question. "We" users of
English should <br>
>>always be careful in our use of pronouns. And I see I also misued
<br>
>>the word "there" instead of "their". There is
some advantage in <br>
>>Korean where pronouns are not used as much. [Come to think of it,
<br>
>>Korean's do often use the term -ooudi- in all kinds of similar
<br>
>>situations]. <br>
>> <br>
>>I meant "we" in a broad sense as "we
Americans" as represented by <br>
>>our elected government. I don't think the US government has
really <br>
>>done anything to North Korea, at least since 1953, that has been
<br>
>>deserving of all the North Korean official acrimony. Of course,
the <br>
>>USG tells them (NK leadership) if they attack the South it (the
<br>
>>USG) will destroy them (NK leadership) but we (US) have never had
<br>
>>to actually do that. And I can't think of any time when we (USG)
<br>
>>hasve actually fired a gun or taken something of theirs (North
<br>
>>Korea's). <br>
>> <br>
>>I don't think it makes much difference though. The "we"
in my view <br>
>>could be South Korea or really just about anyone outside <br>
>>Pyongyang's ruling clique. NK's leadership uses any kind of
excuse <br>
>>for maintaining its ruthless, and yes I think evil, power over
its <br>
>>poor citizens. The rest of the world, for good or bad, has chosen
<br>
>>to tolerate their (NK leadership's) behavior. <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>> >From: Serk-Bae Suh <br>
>> >Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>> >To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>> >Subject: Re: [KS] Jong-il Personality Cult <br>
>> >Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 18:48:43 -0700 <br>
>> > <br>
>> >To Mr. William Brown <br>
>> > <br>
>> >I am afraid I also must be missing something here. <br>
>> > <br>
>> >Who are "we" in your previous posting? <br>
>> > <br>
>> >Does this "we" refer to you and Mr. Frank
Hoffmann? or Do you <br>
>>mean <br>
>> >the U.S. government by the "we"? or the American
People as a <br>
>>whole? <br>
>> >Or, does it just include a group of people who share your
view? <br>
>> > <br>
>> >Or does it mean the holy trinity of Christian Almighty God
whose <br>
>> >divine power is to judge who is evil and who is good and
break <br>
>>the <br>
>> >backbone of evil? <br>
>> > <br>
>> >Maybe it is because that English is not my native language.
<br>
>> > <br>
>> >I would be more than grateful if you would kindly elucidate
the <br>
>>"we" <br>
>> >you are talking about. <br>
>> > <br>
>> >Thank you very much. <br>
>> > <br>
>> >sincerely, <br>
>> > <br>
>> >serk-bae suh <br>
>> > <br>
>> > <br>
>> > <br>
>> > <br>
>> > <br>
>> >At 08:17 PM 9/25/2003 -0400, you wrote: <br>
>> > <br>
>> >>I must be missing something here. How can something that
did not <br>
>> >>happen (US recapture of the Pueblo) now be scary? Seems
like the <br>
>> >>fact that it was allowed to move should make you less
afraid. <br>
>> >>Unless your point is that perhaps the US doesn't really
watch <br>
>>them <br>
>> >>so closely after all, and that fact is scary. In truth,
despite <br>
>> >>all the war talk over the last 50 years, and lots of
North <br>
>>Korean <br>
>> >>provocations, its hard to say we have done anything to
provoke <br>
>> >>there current antagonism. <br>
>> >> <br>
>> >> >From: Frank Hoffmann <br>
>> >> >Reply-To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>> >> >To: Korean Studies Discussion List <br>
>> >> >Subject: Re: [KS] Jong-il Personality Cult <br>
>> >> >Date: Thu, 25 Sep 2003 16:39:29 -0700 <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >Professor Choe wrote: <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >> I cannot imagine that the US would have
allowed NK to remove <br>
>>it <br>
>> >> >>via high sea. The only alternative must have
been by land. Is <br>
>>it <br>
>> >> >>possible to move the ship Pueblo via ground
transportation? <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >You can always disassemble a 900 to 1000 ton boat
like that in <br>
>>a <br>
>> >> >week or two (which would be necessary anyway to get
it through <br>
>> >>all <br>
>> >> >the highway tunnels)..... but what I find much more
<br>
>>interesting <br>
>> >>is <br>
>> >> >your note that you can't imagine the US would have
allowed NK <br>
>>to <br>
>> >> >transport a spy ship that had been captured over 30
years ago <br>
>>(by <br>
>> >> >Oct. 1999, when it was transported). That's more
than alarming <br>
>>if <br>
>> >> >so. There is a Senate Resolution (see below) from
January of <br>
>>this <br>
>> >> >year (not the first one) asking for the return of
that ship, <br>
>> >>which, <br>
>> >> >I think, speaks for itself. But the suggestion that
the U.S. <br>
>> >> >military would go for an armed conflict to conquer
a 1944 <br>
>>build <br>
>> >>spy <br>
>> >> >ship that was captured three decades ago is rather
... well, <br>
>> >>scary. <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >Frank <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >--->> <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >Congressional Record: January 29, 2003 (Senate)
<br>
>> >> >Page S1752-S1756 <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > STATEMENTS ON SUBMITTED RESOLUTIONS <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > SENATE RESOLUTION 29--DEMANDING THE RETURN OF THE
USS <br>
>> >> >PUEBLO TO THE <br>
>> >> > UNITED STATES NAVY <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > Mr. CAMPBELL submitted the following resolution;
which was <br>
>> >> >referred <br>
>> >> >to the Committee on Foreign Relations: <br>
>> >> > Whereas the USS Pueblo, which was attacked and
captured by <br>
>> >> > the North Korean Navy on January 23, 1968, was the
first <br>
>> >> > United States Navy ship to be hijacked on the high
seas by a <br>
>> >> > foreign military force in over 150 years; <br>
>> >> > Whereas 1 member of the USS Pueblo crew, Duane
Hodges, was <br>
>> >> > killed in the assault while the other 82 crew
members were <br>
>> >> > held in captivity, often under inhumane
conditions, for 11 <br>
>> >> > months; <br>
>> >> > Whereas the USS Pueblo, an intelligence collection
<br>
>> >> > auxiliary vessel, was operating in international
waters at <br>
>> >> > the time of the capture, and therefore did not
violate North <br>
>> >> > Korean territorial waters; <br>
>> >> > Whereas the capture of the USS Pueblo resulted in
no <br>
>> >> > reprisals against the Government or people of
North Korea and <br>
>> >> > no military action at any time; and <br>
>> >> > Whereas the USS Pueblo, though still the property
of the <br>
>> >> > United States Navy, has been retained by North
Korea for more <br>
>> >> > than 30 years, was subjected to exhibition in the
North <br>
>> >> > Korean cities of Wonsan and Hungham, and is now on
display in <br>
>> >> > Pyongyang, the capital city of North Korea: Now,
therefore, <br>
>> >> > be it <br>
>> >> > Resolved,That the Senate-- <br>
>> >> > (1) demands the return of the USS Pueblo to the
United <br>
>> >> > States Navy; and <br>
>> >> > (2) directs the Secretary of the Senate to
transmit copies <br>
>> >> > of this resolution to the President, the Secretary
of <br>
>> >> > Defense, and the Secretary of State. <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> > Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. President, I am pleased to
submit a Senate <br>
>> >> >Resolution calling on North Korea to return the USS
Pueblo to <br>
>>the <br>
>> >> >United States Navy. The legislation I am
reintroducing today <br>
>>is <br>
>> >> >based <br>
>> >> >on a resolution I introduced last year during the
107th <br>
>>Congress, <br>
>> >> >Senate Resolution 246. <br>
>> >> > On January 23, 1968, the USS Pueblo was unjustly
attacked and <br>
>> >> >captured by <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >[[Page S1754]] <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >the North Korean Navy, becoming the first United
States Navy <br>
>>ship <br>
>> >>to <br>
>> >> >be <br>
>> >> >hijacked on the high seas by a foreign military
force in over <br>
>>150 <br>
>> >> >years. At the time of its capture, the USS Pueblo
was <br>
>>operating <br>
>> >>as <br>
>> >> >an <br>
>> >> >intelligence collection auxiliary vessel, and did
not pose a <br>
>> >>threat. <br>
>> >> > This act of aggression resulted in the USS
Pueblo's 82 crew <br>
>> >> >members <br>
>> >> >being held in captivity for eleven months, often in
inhumane <br>
>> >> >conditions. Another brave crew member, Duane
Hodges, was <br>
>>killed <br>
>> >> >during <br>
>> >> >the initial attack and several more crew members
were wounded. <br>
>>On <br>
>> >> >December 23, 1968, after nearly a year of being
unjustly <br>
>>detained <br>
>> >> >the <br>
>> >> >surviving USS Pueblo crew members were finally
released and <br>
>> >>allowed <br>
>> >> >to <br>
>> >> >return home. <br>
>> >> > It is interesting to note that the USS Pueblo I am
calling on <br>
>> >>the <br>
>> >> >North Koreans to return today is in fact the third
ship of the <br>
>> >>fleet <br>
>> >> >to <br>
>> >> >be named in honor of the city and county of Pueblo,
located in <br>
>>my <br>
>> >> >home <br>
>> >> >State of Colorado. The first ship of the fleet to
be named in <br>
>> >>honor <br>
>> >> >of <br>
>> >> >Pueblo was an armored cruiser which had previously
been named <br>
>>the <br>
>> >> >Colorado. In 1916, the USS Colorado was renamed as
the USS <br>
>>Pueblo <br>
>> >> >when <br>
>> >> >a new battleship named USS Colorado was authorized.
The first <br>
>>USS <br>
>> >> >Pueblo served until 1927. The second USS Pueblo was
a city <br>
>>class <br>
>> >> >frigate which served from 1944 to 1946. She was
later sold to <br>
>>the <br>
>> >> >Dominican Republic where she serves today. <br>
>> >> > The third USS Pueblo is the ship now wrongly held
by the <br>
>>North <br>
>> >> >Koreans. Built by the Kewaunee Shipbuilding and
Engineering <br>
>> >> >Corporation, Kewaunee, WI, the ship originally
served as a <br>
>> >>general <br>
>> >> >purpose supply vessel FP-344 for service in the
U.S. Army <br>
>> >> >Transportation Corps when she was launched on April
16, 1944. <br>
>> >>During <br>
>> >> >1966 and 1967 the ship was converted, redesignated
as the USS <br>
>> >>Pueblo <br>
>> >> >and commissioned as an environmental research
vessel, AGER-2. <br>
>> >> > It is important to note that even to this day the
capture of <br>
>>the <br>
>> >> >USS <br>
>> >> >Pueblo has resulted in no reprisal against North
Korea, <br>
>> >> >demonstrating <br>
>> >> >remarkable restraint by the United States. Even
though the USS <br>
>> >> >Pueblo <br>
>> >> >still clearly remains the legal property of the
United States <br>
>> >>Navy, <br>
>> >> >the <br>
>> >> >North Korean Government has kept it on display as a
sort of <br>
>> >> >traveling <br>
>> >> >propaganda museum. <br>
>> >> > Recent events have made it clear that many
unresolved issues <br>
>> >> >remain <br>
>> >> >regarding our Nation's relationship with North
Korea. For <br>
>> >>example, <br>
>> >> >North Korea's recent high-profile resumption of
nuclear <br>
>> >> >saber-rattling <br>
>> >> >presents a serious resurgent challenge that we, our
allies in <br>
>> >> >Northeast <br>
>> >> >Asia and the rest of the world community must take
seriously. <br>
>> >> > While I certainly agree that successfully
resolving this <br>
>> >> >situation is <br>
>> >> >first and foremost, I also believe that there are
other <br>
>>positive <br>
>> >> >restorative steps that the North Koreans should
take in order <br>
>>to <br>
>> >> >help <br>
>> >> >improve our bilateral relationship. One such action
would be <br>
>>to <br>
>> >> >return <br>
>> >> >the USS Pueblo to its rightful owners, the United
States Navy <br>
>>and <br>
>> >> >the <br>
>> >> >American people they serve and protect. <br>
>> >> > While returning the USS Pueblo may not necessarily
remove the <br>
>>35 <br>
>> >> >year-old scars inflicted by the attack of January
23, 1968, <br>
>>and <br>
>> >> >especially those suffered by the crew of the USS
Pueblo and by <br>
>> >>their <br>
>> >> >families and loved ones, it would serve as a good
will <br>
>>gesture, a <br>
>> >> >salve <br>
>> >> >if you will, signaling hope for a brighter future
between our <br>
>>two <br>
>> >> >nation's peoples. <br>
>> >> > I stand with my colleagues back home in the
Colorado State <br>
>> >> >General <br>
>> >> >Assembly in demanding the return of the USS Pueblo
to the <br>
>>United <br>
>> >> >States <br>
>> >> >Navy. <br>
>> >> > I urge my colleagues here in the U.S. Senate to
join me in <br>
>> >> >supporting <br>
>> >> >passage of this important resolution. <br>
>> >> > <br>
>> >> >-- <br>
>> >>
>______________________________________________________ <br>
>> >> >Frank Hoffmann <br>
>> >>
><a href="http://koreaweb.ws/" eudora="autourl">http://KoreaWeb.ws</a>
* Fax: (415) 727-4792 <br>
>> >> <br>
>> >> <br>
>> >>---------- <br>
>> >>Get McAfee virus scanning and <br>
>> >>cleaning of incoming attachments. Get Hotmail Extra
Storage! <br>
>> <br>
>> <br>
>>---------- <br>
>>Share your photos without <br>
>>swamping your Inbox. Get Hotmail Extra Storage today! <br><br>
<hr>
<a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMAENUS/2755??PS=">Help protect your PC. Get a
FREE computer virus scan online from McAfee.</a> </blockquote></body>
</html>