[KS] Re: On Korean Politics

[Pankaj Mohan]

REPLY sends your message to the whole list
__________________________________________

Ms Clarence Williamson,

One of the list members called you a 'self-styled observer of Korean 
politics', not because you  'try to view Korea from all views to draw 
your own conclusions',as you assumed. Indeed, what was being debated 
and attacked was not your right to interrogate the existing paradigms 
and articulate alternative versions. In my view, you have a 
conclusion and you either bend or abruptly dismiss all the 
uncomfortable evidence which inhere the possibility of weakening your 
arguments. I asked you to demonstrate how Kim Dae-jung's political 
influence in Korea was derived from his international reputation. I 
also challenged you to adduce evidence in support of your contention 
that common people in Korea were apathetic to Kim's Nobel glory. You 
simply ignored them. I pointed out that much before the Western media 
knew who Kim Dae-jung was, he got nearly half of the total votes 
polled. If there had not been intimidation, rigging, thuggery or 
employment of other fraudulent methods, the result for Kim would have 
been much more encouraging. You wrote that he received "numerous 
apple boxes filled with Won (even he admitted to it) and his record 
shows shifting of political allegiances and allignments over the 
years, even with the meanie dictators like Chun Doo Whan". It is true 
that Kim once admitted that he got political donation for Roh 
Tae-woo, and in the 1997 election he made a convenient political 
alignment with Kim Jong-pil in order to attain his objective. Kim is 
a pragmatic politician, and no one in the list ever argued that he 
was a saint.Your arguments did not touch the fundamental objections 
raised by me or David McCann.
As You showed abhorrence (or was it cynicism?) at all forms of 
dissidence in tyrannical regimes in Asian societies, I asked you to 
state your position on the 1989 Tiananmen incident. You wrote
" The situation in China is worlds apart from that of Korea during 
the 50s/60s/70s and even 80s, in my "observation." China is not 
divided into two separate states each looking and making 
opportunities to overcome the other.  Think about this.  If the 
displayed upheaval at Tiananmen Square was successful and the 
communist regime collapsed at that time, would the opposition have 
been able to assume the role of government and maintain order?  Do 
you think they had a plan to "govern?" The effect, which was  to make 
an international statement, sufficed for that time in history."

Despite the overwhelming evidence that the PRC faced major threat 
from the U. S. and its surrogate powers in the 1950's and from both 
the U.S and the USSR in the sixties, you brushed aside this 
significant dimension, perhaps, to argue that Korea's dictators whom 
you call 'nation-builders' were more legitimate in crushing 
opposition forces than their Chinese counterparts. As regards your 
line of argument in relation to the Tiananmen incident, it is too 
original to deserve a rebuttal. Any observer of China knows that 
modern protests are different from peasant rebellions in the 
traditional times which catapulted their leaders on the Dragon 
Throne. Modern protests are meant to bring about reforms and change 
and for reflection of the will of the governed in the government 
policies. Peaceful protests do not inevitably result in chaos--did 
the June 1987 protest in Korea find its culmination in Chaos? Chinese 
students did not want to rule the country. They aimed at bringing 
about a gradual transition of China towards a participatory political 
process and a more transparent system of government.

I do not have time to take up and disassemble many of your other 
points, but I will take up your last point. You wrote: " And, if I 
might add, don't just rely on Western sources nor only on sources 
written in English.  Read some original documents written by Koreans 
themselves in Korean-most enlightening". There was no need for you to 
bring language ability in the debate in order to establish 
superiority of your argument.  Besides, there was nothing in my post 
which demonstrated that I rely only on sources written in English, 
and for that matter, there is nothing in your posts which demonstrate 
that you have based your understanding on some original documents 
written by Koreans themselves in Korean. I believe that one has to 
handle  original sources in Korean dealing with contemporary Korea 
with extreme care and caution. As regards secondary sources in Korean 
on contemporary Korea, one needs to remember that Korean students and 
scholars were not allowed to touch these sensitive themes until very 
recently. A handful of scholars belonging to the so-called 'chaeya 
sahak' group violated the government instruction and faced 
retribution. Some of my classmates at the Seoul National University 
have recently published insightful and useful works on contemporary 
Korea, but I find works by Gregory Henderson, Bruce Cumings, John Lie 
or Wada Haruki as enlightening and interesting as those written by 
Korean scholars in Korean language.

Pankaj Mohan
-- 
Dr Pankaj N. Mohan
Teaching Fellow
Department of Asian Studies
University of Copenhagen
Leifsgade 33, 5, Københavns S., DK-2300
Tel: +45 35328844 (Work) +45 32584310 (Residence)
email: mohan at hum.ku.dk
____________________________________________________________
If our server rejects your message to me, please try this address instead:
mohan at spam.hum.ku.dk
or
Pankoji at hotmail.com