<html><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; ">Dear David,<br><br>As much as you and Scott may not appreciate a 'left-leaning' perspective on the SK candlelight vigils against the reduced restriction US beef import agreement, I also felt uncomfortable reading your response, and the direction in which it clearly leans:<br><br>, David Scofield wrote:<br><blockquote type="cite">I second Scott's observations.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the trade<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the US. They<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the import to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a free<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver list.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations.<br></blockquote><br>There are two reasons why I don't think these trade demands by the South Korean government needed to have been included in the article for it to appear non-biased. First, the article was intended to address why South Korean citizens have been hitting the streets, protesting for over a month now (and having grown exponentially in recent weeks) over the US beef import agreement (which quickly spread to other controversial neoliberal reforms introduced by Lee Myung Bak, like the canal project, his education policies - which the high school students abhor as much as the reduced restriction beef agreement - and plans to privatize healthcare and water, among others) and not an article based on the KorUS FTA agreement (which is related to the beef imports since it is a conditionality imposed by US lawmakers for potential ratification of the KorUS FTA, but not part of the official FTA agreement or the principle issue behind these protests). Moreover, If you are alluding to the fact that potential Korean beef and canned ginseng chicken imports may be a health risk for Americans if imported then that is a grievance that should be addressed to and blamed upon the US govt. and its negotiators and lawmakers if the FTA is eventually ratified, and perhaps mobilized amongst American citizens to oppose it (like the South Koreans protestors are doing with the beef), not blamed upon the South Korean protestors to the beef agreement or even the S. Korean government as their hypocrisy. The KCTU in SK and the AFL-CIO and the UAW in the US jointly oppose this FTA deal -- and the reason for these protests appear to be the South Korean government's generous compliance with the US demands so far (including reducing safety restrictions on the beef imports - which the protesters want renegotiated).<div><br><div>Second, you appear to be making a dangerous conflation between the South Korean citizens who are participating in these demonstrations AGAINST the South Korean government AND the South Korean government. The people and the state are not the same thing, nor do their interests always overlap. To even imply that the significance of these demonstrations is merely a leveraging tool by the LMB government as a measure to get a more advantageous trade deal vis-a-vis the US is ludicrous, offensive, and patronizing to the hundreds of thousands of people attending rallies chanting "Lee MyungBak Resign!" There is a difference between how the government attempts to use the protests in negotiations with the US and the actual antagonistic relation between the SK government and the protesters. Your conflation of the state and people and your implication that these Koreans are just sheep being steered by their leaders, are at best, sloppy, and at worst Orientalist: the premise of your argument being - Koreans can't actively participate in a democracy because they have a follow-the-leader mentality. Some may consider these massive protests a sign of a healthy democracy. How else are people supposed to register their complaints and make their voices heard? What does a politically engaged citizenry look like for you?<div><br><div><div>(BTW, LMB's approval rating having fallen to 20% from over 60% when he was first elected has been reported in papers of all stripes.)</div><div><div><br><br><blockquote type="cite">I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that 'spontaneous'<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death of the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo - fiasco...),<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop by<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic media<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">in S. Korea.<br></blockquote><br>It also does not necessarily follow that considering South Korean netizens' outpouring of emotion as 'spontaneous' has to do with the fact that the author must be "new to Korea." This may not be the first time that demonstrations have been initiated among netizens, but that does not invalidate the fact that they did spontaneously begin and have been sustained (and grown) among average citizens on the internet and not by social movements. One of the most interesting and amusing aspects of the continuing mobilization of these protests is the 'agora' phenomenon. Agora went from being a message board on the Daum internet portal site to acquiring its own Flag/Banner during the past month of demonstrations! I've been puzzled by the numerous 'agora' flag/banners flying at the protests.....but then there are banners for 'anti-lee myung bak' as well as other ad hoc 'groups'. These flags/banners are quite different from the Democratic Labor Party or the KCTU (the korean confederation of trade unions) flags or other 'organized' social movements who have always had a flag/banner. I even heard a first hand account of how the police have been asking those arrested at the protests if they were members of 'Agora' - confusing this internet message board for an organization. It's interesting to see internet mediums like blogs and message boards taking on organizing/mobilization functions for the 'unorganized' as the people move from the screen to the streets. While attending these, it's hard not to notice that many of the the flags look quite different from what you would see at organized protests like the anti-KorUS FTA protests that took over the streets all last year (in much smaller numbers than these). <br>You appear to be echoing the unsupported "who's pulling their strings" theory drummed up by ChoJoongDong. The People's Countermeasure Council Against the Full Resumption of US Beef Imports - a coalition of various (and not just left-leaning) social movement groups, Ngos, unions, community groups, etc. was formed weeks after these protests commenced. They are the rearguard in these protests (pragmatically and literally).<br><br><blockquote type="cite">The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more than<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem not to<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as people<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as providing<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from outside<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean politicians<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">since the Korean war, perhaps before.<br></blockquote><br>Considering modern South Korean history and the many protests "deemed not to be in the government's interest" that were violently 'put down' with not a few deaths and casualties (alongside martial law) by the military dictatorships, the reason why the deployment of tear gas and other forms of military violence are not a matter of light consideration for the current government and its "more than enough riot police and soldiers" is understandable. Also, 60 shipping containers weighted with sand and welded together in the middle of Sejong-ro to barricade the road to Cheongwadae, as well as impending resignations of LMB's newly appointed cabinet members DOES signal some amount of perceived threat on behalf of the SK government. And lastly, in addition to the monikers '2megabytes' and 'rat' (쥐새끼) that Lee Myung Bak has been given by the protesters is 'Public Enemy' (공공의 적 ). I believe it is fairly apparent that in these demonstrations the people perceive the enemy ("Public Enemy number 1") to be much closer to home (via a sentiment - of betrayal - shared amongst even those who probably voted him in earlier this year but are on the streets today), even if the pressures may originate from further away.<br><br><div>The most popular song at these protests is "South Korean Constitution Article 1" (대한민국의 헌법제1조), which begins: "South Korea is a democratic republic...". </div><div><br></div><div>The second most common is the newly coined song/jingle "Leave office/resign Lee Myung Bak" - 이명박은 물러나라/물러가라 (repeated to the melody of "우리들은정의파다").</div><div><br></div><div><div><br></div><div><div apple-content-edited="true"> <span class="Apple-style-span" style="border-collapse: separate; color: rgb(0, 0, 0); font-family: 'Gill Sans'; font-size: 12px; font-style: normal; font-variant: normal; font-weight: normal; letter-spacing: normal; line-height: normal; orphans: 2; text-align: auto; text-indent: 0px; text-transform: none; white-space: normal; widows: 2; word-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-horizontal-spacing: 0px; -webkit-border-vertical-spacing: 0px; -webkit-text-decorations-in-effect: none; -webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; -webkit-text-stroke-width: 0; "><div style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div><div>Alice S. Kim</div><div>PhD Candidate</div><div>Department of Rhetoric</div><div>7408 Dwinelle Hall, #2670</div><div>University of California</div><div>Berkeley, CA 94720</div><div><a href="mailto:kimas@berkeley.edu">kimas@berkeley.edu</a></div><div><a href="mailto:kim.alice.s@gmail.co">kim.alice.s@gmail.co</a>m</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><img height="240" width="324" apple-width="yes" apple-height="yes" src="cid:5F4A88F3-4B8F-4B43-86A4-6E34BA583238@hananet"><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Gill Sans'; min-height: 14px; "><br></div><div style="margin-top: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-bottom: 0px; margin-left: 0px; "><font face="Gill Sans" size="3" style="font: normal normal normal 12px/normal 'Gill Sans'; ">policebus6.10.JPG</font></div><div><br></div><div>the poster reads: Public Enemy (middle); </div><div>top left in red: All country Mouse/Rat catching day; (nickname for LMB) </div><div>bottom in white: Opposition to Privatization of water, education, health insurance, public service</div></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></span> </div><div><br></div><div><br></div><br><div><div>On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:46 AM, David Scofield wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><div>I second Scott's observations. <br><br>It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the trade<br>issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free of<br>foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the US. They<br>are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the import to<br>the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a free<br>trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver list.<br>These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for the<br>South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations. <br><br>I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that 'spontaneous'<br>outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.<br>Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death of the<br>two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo - fiasco...),<br>these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop by<br>certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic media<br>in S. Korea.<br><br>The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more than<br>enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem not to<br>be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the<br>political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as people<br>perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as providing<br>useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in the<br>minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from outside<br>Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean politicians<br>since the Korean war, perhaps before.<br><br>A final thought. In July 2000, when the furore centered around the dumping of 20<br>gallons of formaldehyde into a drain at US Camp Humphries (the embalming fluid<br>was then processed through two separate treatment centers before reaching the<br>Han river), headlines screamed that the US army was "poisoning the Han<br>river"...street outrage ensued, prompted by Green Korea, the PSPD among others.<br>But what wasn't discussed, aside from the fact the chemical had been twice<br>treated and posed no threat to the river as a result, was that S. Korean<br>hospitals and clinics routinely dump chemicals like formaldehyde in a similar<br>way. Nor was the fact that lumber companies upstream of Seoul dump TONS of<br>formaldehyde untreated into the Han every year discussed. Neither point was<br>allowed to distract Korea's netizens from their rightful rage.<br><br>David<br><br>Quoting "J.Scott Burgeson" <<a href="mailto:jsburgeson@yahoo.com">jsburgeson@yahoo.com</a>>:<br><br><blockquote type="cite">1. `While cows 30 months of age and older at the time of slaughter are in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">general not allowed to be sold for food consumption in the US and elsewhere,<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">the agreement between the US and South Korean government included the import<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">of beef from cattle over 30 months old.`<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Q:　Can you provide a reliable and up-to-date source for the first part of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">this statement? I have read elsewhere that beef over 30 months old is widely<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">used esp. for hamburger meat in the US. <br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">2. `A video of a cow in the US that was unable to walk but was passed as<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">acceptable to be slaughtered and its beef included in the human food supply<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">was distributed on the Internet by netizens.`<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Vague attribution. What was the source of this video? MBC`s PD Such`op? And<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">did that cow actually have BSE (I have heard otherwise)? Please provide a<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">clear reference if possible.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"> * * * * *<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Your article implies that there is insufficient democracy in South Korea but<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">does not really explain why so few people chose to participate in the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Presidential election of Dec. 2007 and thereby register their democratic will<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">at the institutional level. Political apathy is distinct from lack of<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">democracy. One might also note that the GNP won a majority of seats in<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">Parliament in April, yet your article does not account for this phenomenon<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">either (beyond perhaps objecting to it on ideological grounds). Up until<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">recently the Korean electorate was seemingly conservative, which again is<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">distinct from lack of democracy.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">ChoJoongDong have their biases but many of the left-leaning sources you site<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">approvingly in your article have their biases as well, which renders the<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">persuasiveness of your analysis somewhat less than it might otherwise be.<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite">--Scott Bug<br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><blockquote type="cite"><br></blockquote><br><br>-- <br>Commercial Property Research<br>Department of Town and Regional Planning,<br>University of Sheffield,<br>c/o 220 Sable Creek Drive<br>Alpharetta, GA<br>USA, 30004<br><br>T: +1 770 676 7463 <br>M: +1 678 602 0753<br>Department website: <a href="http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/">http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/</a><br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></div></body></html>