<HTML><FONT FACE=arial,helvetica><HTML><BODY BGCOLOR="#ffffff"><FONT BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">Worry not, dear Mark. This horse is very much alive.<BR>
<BR>
Not only is the thread fascinating in itself, but for me at least<BR>
it also has great contemporary resonance and relevance.<BR>
<BR>
Building on a point Don made, and returning to themes which<BR>
got me into hot water here before:<BR>
<BR>
One of my worries about South Korea's present trajectory is that<BR>
such vital matters as how a smallish country - not so small, in truth -<BR>
may relate to larger ones seems nowadays to be perceived through a<BR>
glass darkly, in ways which oversimplify and distort the choices<BR>
available. Nuance, subtlety and irony appear forgotten - along with<BR>
history. Which is foolish, for these are eternal questions.<BR>
<BR>
As Don rightly said, Park Chung-hee was no Yankee puppet<BR>
- any more, one might add, than Kim Il-sung was under Moscow or Beijing.<BR>
<BR>
Koreans don't do puppet, do they? But they used to know how to fake it,<BR>
and why that was sometimes a smart move. What one might call the <BR>
Aretha question - who's zooming who? - is key here. A dissembling<BR>
appearance of subordination may be good cover for very real autonomy.<BR>
<BR>
Back in 1985, at what may have been the first conference on dependency<BR>
(then deemed a radical notion) in Seoul, organized by Kim Kyong-dong, <BR>
I praised <U>both</U> Korean states for standing up to their respective hegemons<BR>
so effectively. Such avowed bipartisanship, in those days, caused a bit of a stir;<BR>
it was inconceivable not to be either on one side or the other. (Later published in <BR>
K-D Kim ed, <I>Dependency Issues in Korean Development. </I>SNU Press, 1987)<BR>
<BR>
Twenty years on, my fear is that the new South Korean "progressive" orthodoxy,<BR>
with its jaundiced reading of much of Korea's modern history, shares the delusion<BR>
of past and present puppetry. Now, as eveywhere, blunt self-assertion is all the rage. <BR>
<BR>
So when President Roh Moo-hyun says he seeks a more "independent" diplomacy<BR>
and security stance, I can't help wondering:<BR>
(a) what precisely this would mean, in an era of globalization; and <BR>
(b) whether proclaiming it is the best way of actually achieving it.<BR>
<BR>
Granted, the Bush administration would tax anyone's patience. Yet perhaps the <BR>
long history of how Choson handled its relations with China might provide better<BR>
practical lessons, precedents and exemplars for contemporary Korean statecraft<BR>
than all the theoretical persiflage of dependency, postcolonialism, subaltern studies etc etc.<BR>
<BR>
Of course, there is a Korean regime which continues to pursue absolute autonomy, <BR>
against all comers and at any cost. It is North Korea. <BR>
<BR>
Aidan FC<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0">AIDAN FOSTER-CARTER<BR>
Honorary Senior Research Fellow in Sociology & Modern Korea, Leeds University <BR>
Home address: 17 Birklands Road, Shipley, West Yorkshire, BD18 3BY, UK <BR>
tel: +44(0) 1274 588586 (alt) +44(0) 1264 737634 mobile: +44(0) 7970 741307 <BR>
fax: +44(0) 1274 773663 ISDN: +44(0) 1274 589280<BR>
Email: afostercarter@aol.com (alt) afostercarter@yahoo.com website: www.aidanfc.net<BR>
[Please use @aol; but if any problems, please try @yahoo too - and let me know, so I can chide AOL]<BR>
<BR>
____________</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0">Maybe this is beating a dead horse for most of you on the list, but for <BR>
a few of us, this is fascinating.<BR>
<BR>
best regards to all,<BR>
Mark<BR>
<BR>
_________<BR>
<BR>
[Don Baker] <BR>
<BR>
In some ways, Korea's behavior during the Choson dynasty reminds me of <BR>
> Korea's behavior in the 1960s and the 1970s. American congressmen I <BR>
> talked to in the 1970s thought that the South Korean government was <BR>
> under the control of the US. They bragged of US advisors in every <BR>
> government ministry, as though their very presence gave them actual <BR>
> power. Of course, as we all know, Park let the Americans think that <BR>
> they were in charge, when that served what he thought was Korea's best <BR>
> interest, but he controlled what went on in Korea, not the Americans. <BR>
> Perhaps the Choson dynasty experience of often exercising actual <BR>
> autonomy but pretending to always follow the dictates of a stronger <BR>
> power helped Korea in the 2nd half of the 20th century deal <BR>
> effectively with American hegemony.<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
<BR>
_________</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
<BR>
In a message dated 22/03/2006 10:55:33 GMT Standard Time, markpeterson@byu.edu writes:<BR>
<BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=2 PTSIZE=10 FAMILY="SANSSERIF" FACE="Arial" LANG="0"><BR>
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE style="BORDER-LEFT: #0000ff 2px solid; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px">To go back to the original theme of this thread, that security<BR>
> crisis grew out of what the king and all factions in the court<BR>
> believed to be a Ming betrayal, engineered by an anti-war faction<BR>
> in the Ming government. This caused King SOnjo to literally go on<BR>
> strike, refusing to give any orders or directives related to the<BR>
> war and especially to supply of the front lines. This was<BR>
> complemented by a barrage of memorials to Peking, shaming the<BR>
> Chinese in Confucian terms for not recognizing Korea's loyalty to<BR>
> the alliance. It is that episode that is analyzed in that article.<BR>
> The truth is, Chinese "control" was hardly absolute. While the<BR>
> Koreans had to play the hand they were dealt, they repeatedly<BR>
> prevailed in diplomacy and argument. This was not just in Imjin<BR>
> times. I could cite other examples of how Korea often prevailed and<BR>
> convinced China to retreat from an aggressive position. In other<BR>
> words, the tributary system did provide for effective<BR>
> communication, and Chinese and Korean officialdom spoke from a<BR>
> common Confucian vocabulary. In THAT front, the relationship was<BR>
> equal, if not at times actually in Korea's favor.<BR>
</BLOCKQUOTE><BR>
</FONT><FONT COLOR="#000000" BACK="#ffffff" style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" SIZE=3 PTSIZE=12 FAMILY="SERIF" FACE="Times New Roman" LANG="0"><BR>
</FONT></HTML>