[KS] candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef deal issue

[David Scofield]

Alice -
I'm not suggesting that Korean beef, chicken, etc poses any threat to
consumers...I have no knowledge one way or they other.

The point I was making relates to the tone and tenor of the latest round of
demonstrations. Or, more precisely, the consistency of the demo message over
time: a foreign threat (read: US) is trying to undermine Korea in some way,
encouraging and rallying the forces of Korean nationalism across the country.
These movements are usually orchestrated, or at least broadly encouraged,
through campaigns of selective (dis)information (ex. like presenting a video of
downer cow as one of cow with mad cow disease to reinforce the idea that US
beef is dangerous; or presenting the views of a NY expat, with no knowledge of
the beef industry or associated regulations, to declare US beef over 20 months
old to be "illegal" in the US...nonsense, but the fact it came from the mouth
of an American makes it very useful). And if you look back you'll see these
street demos often lag the offending event by many months. Take for example the
large demos that clogged the streets of Seoul when two middle school girls were
run over by a US armored vehicle in 2002. There was little initial interest
among Koreans - the great outpouring came about months later when certain
groups released the political capital that could be made of it.

High level discussions concerning the import of US beef have been occurring
since the ban was enacted in 2003. Indeed, limited importation began in April
2007 and continued until October, yet this didn't trigger the events we see
today...why do you think that is?

In this instance, no one is suggesting that South Koreans be somehow compelled
to buy US beef. Koreans' claim they may, unknowingly, consume US beef as
wholesalers/retailers will mix it with other beef. Given that South Korea is
democracy, why would the people not then demand - through protest in necessary
- their elected officials pass a law compelling all retailers and purveyors of
meat to provide the source country for the meat they sell? Then those who don't
want it, won't unwittingly consume it. Asking this, quite obvious, question
would certainly have made the initial article far more balanced and
compelling.

David

Quoting don kirk <kirkdon at yahoo.com>:

> One element that seems to have been lost here is that U.S. beef would cost
> less than one third Korean beef, and the protest has the fervent
> organizational support of farmers and commercial interests that distribute
> their products and were not at all happy about the popularity of U.S. beef
> when sold in Korea from 2001 to 2003. The same activists who have been
> opposing the FTA have been extremely astute in working with these interests
> and spreading the word on the internet etc. that the U.S. wants to export
> beef that Americans won't eat. The word is out that the U.S. would ship off
> to Korea the kind of SRMs -- specified risk materials -- that are banned in
> the U.S. Actually, SRMs are banned under the beef agreement. The word also is
> out that beef sold in the U.S. is from cattle less than 30 months old when
> actually 20 percent of beef sold in the U.S. is from cattle above that age --
> mainly used for hamburgers. And it's also forgotten that no case of Mad
>  Cow disease has been found in anyone in the U.S. That's partly because feed
> made from animals -- in other words, feed that turns cows into cannibals --
> has been banned in the U.S. for more than ten years ever since it was found
> to be one root cause for the spread of Mad Cow disease in the UK.
> The issue of exporting Korean beef to the U.S. is interesting. One has to
> wonder if that would be profitable considering how much more Korean beef
> costs in Korea than beef from Australia and NZ -- from "grain-fed cattle" --
> and how much higher it would cost than U.S. beef.
> It's also interesting that the KCTU and AFL-CIO (and others) share common
> cause in opposing the FTA. The reasons for their opposition are diametrically
> opposed. The KCTU believes FTA would hurt Korean workers and farmers, and the
> U.S. trade unionists and politicians say a flood of Korean imports will hurt
> American workers. One other difference is that the KCTU is dominated by
> leftist leadership that opposes the whole U.S.-Korean alliance whereas the
> AFL-CIO is essentially conservative.
> Don Kirk
> 
> 
> ----- Original Message ----
> From: Alice S. Kim <kim.alice.s at gmail.com>
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 6:07:00 AM
> Subject: Re: [KS] candlelight demonstrations in Korea and the beef deal issue
> 
> Dear David,
> 
> 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:
> 
> , David Scofield wrote:
> 
> I second Scott's observations.
> 
> 
> It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the
> trade
> 
> issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free of
> 
> foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the US.
> They
> 
> are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the import to
> 
> the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a free
> 
> trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver list.
> 
> These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for the
> 
> South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations.
> 
> 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. Â 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). Â 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. Â 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).
> 
> 
> 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. Â 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!" Â 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: Â the premise of your argument being - Koreans can't actively
> participate in a democracy because they have a follow-the-leader mentality.
> Â 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?
> 
> 
> (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.)
> 
> 
> 
> I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that
> 'spontaneous'
> 
> outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.
> 
> Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death of
> the
> 
> two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo - fiasco...),
> 
> these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop by
> 
> certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic
> media
> 
> in S. Korea.
> 
> 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. Â 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! Â 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. Â 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. Â 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). 
> 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. Â They are the rearguard in
> these protests (pragmatically and literally).
> 
> 
> The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more than
> 
> enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem not
> to
> 
> be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the
> 
> political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as people
> 
> perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as providing
> 
> useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in the
> 
> minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from
> outside
> 
> Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean politicians
> 
> since the Korean war, perhaps before.
> 
> Considering modern South Korean history and the many protests "deemed not to
> be in the government's interest" Â that were violently 'put down' Â 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. Â 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. Â 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
> ì  ). 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 - Â 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.
> 
> 
> The most popular song at these protests is "South Korean Constitution Article
> 1" (대한민국의 í—Œë²•ì œ1ì¡°), which begins:  "South Korea is a
> democratic republic...". 
> 
> The second most common is the newly coined song/jingle "Leave office/resign
> Lee  Myung Bak" - 이ëª
박은 물러나라/물러가라 (repeated to the
> melody of "ìš°ë¦¬ë“¤ì€ì •ì˜íŒŒë‹¤").
> 
> 
> 
> Alice S. Kim
> PhD Candidate
> Department of Rhetoric
> 7408 Dwinelle Hall, #2670
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> kimas at berkeley.edu
> kim.alice.s at gmail.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> policebus6.10.JPG
> 
> the poster reads: Public Enemy (middle); Â 
> top left in red: All country Mouse/Rat catching day; (nickname for LMB)Â 
> bottom in white: Opposition to Privatization of water, education, health
> insurance, public service
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Jun 10, 2008, at 12:46 AM, David Scofield wrote:
> 
> I second Scott's observations. 
> 
> It would also be helpful if the article touched on the other side of the
> trade
> issue: South Korea is asking, for example, that the US declare Korea free of
> foot and mouth disease and to allow the import of Korean beef into the US.
> They
> are also seeking agreement on the relaxation of restrictions on the import to
> the US of canned ginseng chicken. And of course the larger issue of a free
> trade agreement with the US and Korea's inclusion on the visa waiver list.
> These street demonstrations - like so many in the past - are a way for the
> South Korean government to leverage the US in negotiations. 
> 
> I sense the author is new to Korea and may not be aware that that
> 'spontaneous'
> outpourings of emotion by Korea's netizens are anything but spontaneous.
> Rather, as in the past (the 'poisoning' of the Han; the accidental death of
> the
> two middle school students; Onno; the Liancourt rocks - Dokdo - fiasco...),
> these demonstrations are the result of careful and deliberate agit prop by
> certain groups (PSPD, Green Korea, Korea teacher's union) and sympathetic
> media
> in S. Korea.
> 
> The author would do well to bear in mind that the Korean state has more than
> enough riot police and soldiers to put down any demonstration they deem not
> to
> be in the government's interest...these street demos happen because the
> political establishment is not at all threatened by them (as long as people
> perceive the enemy to be beyond Korea's shores), and see them as providing
> useful leverage against the Americans, while reinforcing the notion in the
> minds of many young Koreans that threats to Korea always originate from
> outside
> Korea - it's a useful distraction that has been used by Korean politicians
> since the Korean war, perhaps before.
> 
> A final thought. In July 2000, when the furore centered around the dumping of
> 20
> gallons of formaldehyde into a drain at US Camp Humphries (the embalming
> fluid
> was then processed through two separate treatment centers before reaching the
> Han river), headlines screamed that the US army was "poisoning the Han
> river"...street outrage ensued, prompted by Green Korea, the PSPD among
> others.
> But what wasn't discussed, aside from the fact the chemical had been twice
> treated and posed no threat to the river as a result, was that S. Korean
> hospitals and clinics routinely dump chemicals like formaldehyde in a similar
> way. Nor was the fact that lumber companies upstream of Seoul dump TONS of
> formaldehyde untreated into the Han every year discussed. Neither point was
> allowed to distract Korea's netizens from their rightful rage.
> 
> David
> 
> Quoting "J.Scott Burgeson" <jsburgeson at yahoo.com>:
> 
> 
> 1. `While cows 30 months of age and older at the time of slaughter are in
> 
> general not allowed to be sold for food consumption in the US and elsewhere,
> 
> the agreement between the US and South Korean government included the import
> 
> of beef from cattle over 30 months old.`
> 
> 
> Q:　Can you provide a reliable and up-to-date source for the first part
> of
> 
> this statement? I have read elsewhere that beef over 30 months old is widely
> 
> used esp. for hamburger meat in the US. 
> 
> 
> 2. `A video of a cow in the US that was unable to walk but was passed as
> 
> acceptable to be slaughtered and its beef included in the human food supply
> 
> was distributed on the Internet by netizens.`
> 
> 
> Vague attribution. What was the source of this video? MBC`s PD Such`op? And
> 
> did that cow actually have BSE (I have heard otherwise)? Please provide a
> 
> clear reference if possible.
> 
> 
> Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â * Â * Â * Â * Â *
> 
> 
> Your article implies that there is insufficient democracy in South Korea but
> 
> does not really explain why so few people chose to participate in the
> 
> Presidential election of Dec. 2007 and thereby register their democratic will
> 
> at the institutional level. Political apathy is distinct from lack of
> 
> democracy. One might also note that the GNP won a majority of seats in
> 
> Parliament in April, yet your article does not account for this phenomenon
> 
> either (beyond perhaps objecting to it on ideological grounds). Up until
> 
> recently the Korean electorate was seemingly conservative, which again is
> 
> distinct from lack of democracy.
> 
> 
> ChoJoongDong have their biases but many of the left-leaning sources you site
> 
> approvingly in your article have their biases as well, which renders the
> 
> persuasiveness of your analysis somewhat less than it might otherwise be.
> 
> 
> --Scott Bug
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Commercial Property Research
> Department of Town and Regional Planning,
> University of Sheffield,
> c/o 220 Sable Creek Drive
> Alpharetta, GA
> USA, 30004
> 
> T: +1 770 676 7463 
> M: +1 678 602 0753
> Department website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/


-- 
Commercial Property Research
Department of Town and Regional Planning,
University of Sheffield,
c/o 220 Sable Creek Drive
Alpharetta, GA
USA, 30004

T: +1 770 676 7463 
M: +1 678 602 0753
Department website: http://www.shef.ac.uk/trp/