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

[David C. Kang]

The discussion on the list about beef and LMB is quite interesting, 
although I'd note that it appears the protests are as much about LMB's 
style in general and have moved beyond concerns solely about beef.

It is also interesting to see how this issue is viewed in the U.S. While 
there is plenty of hand-wringing about emotional/etc. Koreans, Paul 
Krugman takes a different, "lefty" perspective. Readers may find this 
interesting:

NYT, June 13, 2008:

Paul Krugman, "Bad Cow Disease."

“Mary had a little lamb / And when she saw it sicken / She shipped it 
off to Packingtown / And now it’s labeled chicken.”

That little ditty famously summarized the message of “The Jungle,” Upton 
Sinclair’s 1906 exposé of conditions in America’s meat-packing industry. 
Sinclair’s muckraking helped Theodore Roosevelt pass the Pure Food and 
Drug Act and the Meat Inspection Act — and for most of the next century, 
Americans trusted government inspectors to keep their food safe.

Lately, however, there always seems to be at least one food-safety 
crisis in the headlines — tainted spinach, poisonous peanut butter and, 
currently, the attack of the killer tomatoes. The declining credibility 
of U.S. food regulation has even led to a foreign-policy crisis: there 
have been mass demonstrations in South Korea protesting the pro-American 
prime minister’s decision to allow imports of U.S. beef, banned after 
mad cow disease was detected in 2003.

How did America find itself back in The Jungle?

It started with ideology. Hard-core American conservatives have long 
idealized the Gilded Age, regarding everything that followed — not just 
the New Deal, but even the Progressive Era — as a great diversion from 
the true path of capitalism.

Thus, when Grover Norquist, the anti-tax advocate, was asked about his 
ultimate goal, he replied that he wanted a restoration of the way 
America was “up until Teddy Roosevelt, when the socialists took over. 
The income tax, the death tax, regulation, all that.”

The late Milton Friedman agreed, calling for the abolition of the Food 
and Drug Administration. It was unnecessary, he argued: private 
companies would avoid taking risks with public health to safeguard their 
reputations and to avoid damaging class-action lawsuits. (Friedman, 
unlike almost every other conservative I can think of, viewed lawyers as 
the guardians of free-market capitalism.)

Such hard-core opponents of regulation were once part of the political 
fringe, but with the rise of modern movement conservatism they moved 
into the corridors of power. They never had enough votes to abolish the 
F.D.A. or eliminate meat inspections, but they could and did set about 
making the agencies charged with ensuring food safety ineffective.

They did this in part by simply denying these agencies enough resources 
to do the job. For example, the work of the F.D.A. has become vastly 
more complex over time thanks to the combination of scientific advances 
and globalization. Yet the agency has a substantially smaller work force 
now than it did in 1994, the year Republicans took over Congress.

Perhaps even more important, however, was the systematic appointment of 
foxes to guard henhouses.

Thus, when mad cow disease was detected in the U.S. in 2003, the 
Department of Agriculture was headed by Ann M. Veneman, a former 
food-industry lobbyist. And the department’s response to the crisis — 
which amounted to consistently downplaying the threat and rejecting 
calls for more extensive testing — seemed driven by the industry’s agenda.

One amazing decision came in 2004, when a Kansas producer asked for 
permission to test its own cows, so that it could resume exports to 
Japan. You might have expected the Bush administration to applaud this 
example of self-regulation. But permission was denied, because other 
beef producers feared consumer demands that they follow suit.

When push comes to shove, it seems, the imperatives of crony capitalism 
trump professed faith in free markets.

Eventually, the department did expand its testing, and at this point 
most countries that initially banned U.S. beef have allowed it back into 
their markets. But the South Koreans still don’t trust us. And while 
some of that distrust may be irrational — the beef issue has become 
entangled with questions of Korean national pride, which has been 
insulted by clumsy American diplomacy — it’s hard to blame them.

The ironic thing is that the Agriculture Department’s deference to the 
beef industry actually ended up backfiring: because potential foreign 
buyers didn’t trust our safety measures, beef producers spent years 
excluded from their most important overseas markets.

But then, the same thing can be said of other cases in which the 
administration stood in the way of effective regulation. Most notably, 
the administration’s refusal to countenance any restraints on predatory 
lending helped prepare the ground for the subprime crisis, which has 
cost the financial industry far more than it ever made on overpriced loans.

The moral of this story is that failure to regulate effectively isn’t 
just bad for consumers, it’s bad for business.

And in the case of food, what we need to do now — for the sake of both 
our health and our export markets — is to go back to the way it was 
after Teddy Roosevelt, when the Socialists took over. It’s time to get 
back to the business of ensuring that American food is safe.

More Articles in Opinion » <http://www.nytimes.com/pages/opinion/index.html>




Alice S. Kim wrote:
> 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.  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).
>
> 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?
>
> (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.  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). 
> 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).
>
>> 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"  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.
>
> The most popular song at these protests is "South Korean Constitution 
> Article 1" (대한민국의 헌법제1조), which begins:  "South Korea is a 
> democratic republic...".
>
> 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").
>
>
> Alice S. Kim
> PhD Candidate
> Department of Rhetoric
> 7408 Dwinelle Hall, #2670
> University of California
> Berkeley, CA 94720
> kimas at berkeley.edu <mailto:kimas at berkeley.edu>
> kim.alice.s at gmail.co <mailto:kim.alice.s at gmail.co>m
>
>
>
>
> policebus6.10.JPG
>
> the poster reads: Public Enemy (middle);  
> top left in red: All country Mouse/Rat catching day; (nickname for LMB) 
> 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 
>> <mailto: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.
>>>
>>>                         *  *  *  *  *
>>>
>>> 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/
>>
>