Kang Jeong-koo: meta-coverage
I’ve been wanting to write something about the whole Kang Jeong-koo (강정구) affair for a while, but in true Korean style things keep happening so fast that every time I’m about to write I realise I have to read another stack of articles. So in the true tradition of blogging I’ve decided to offer a brief synopsis and some coverage of coverage (or commentary on the commentary on the coverage if you prefer).
So here’s my ultra brief version of the affair:
Leftwing professor at major Korean university declares in article on internet that the Korean War was a war for unification and that most Koreans wanted communism rather than capitalism. This provokes outcry from the right, leading to prosecution investigation under archaic National Security Law, which prohibits anything deemed to be an expression of support for ‘the enemy’ (that’s North Korea, please keep up). Then the twist: last week the justice minister of Roh Moo-hyun’s centre-liberal government overrules the chief prosecutor and orders that Kang should not be detained while he is investigated (as would normally be the case under the NSL). This leads to apoplexy among the prosecution (a privileged group in their own right) and the resignation of the the prosecutor general. Cue massive outrage from ‘conservative forces’ calling for a struggle to save the country, democracy and humanity in general from the Roh dictatorship.
Oranckay has a very worthwhile post on the latest developments.
On Antti’s Korean History course blog, he links to a whole load of material about this topic.
There have even been a couple of posts on this at the Marmot’s Hole, which predictably have brought forth some wonderful material from the irrepressible ‘Baduk’ in the comments section, complete with floridly violent descriptions of what he would like to do to Prof. Kang.
As for the newspapers, the Korea Times has provided one or two of its usual insightful editorials*. The paper did also have a halfway decent round up of the situation with some analysis of the underlying faultlines.
The Hankyoreh published an interview with Kang in which he clarifies his views. It’s in Korean, but someone thoughtfully provided a rough translation for the comments on the last Marmot post.
Oh My News reported on the broad support Kang received from his students at Dongguk University.
‘Commie’ internet newspaper Voice of People has had some funny cartoons on the story. My favourite:
The unseen handler urges the knackered old dog (representing the National Security Law) to “introduce yourself to the professor”.
Finally, my Jerry Springer-style wrap up:
Although I don’t agree with everything that Kang says myself, I do find the red-faced, blood-spitting state of apoplexy into which he sends rightwing Americans and Koreans rather amusing. Anyone would think they really felt threatened by this ageing academic. I also have to agree with the view, expressed eloquently in the latest issue of Ta Hamkke, that whether or not we agree with what Kang says, anyone who is in anyway progressive (or even liberal) must defend his right to free speech. It’s in all our interests. Simple as that.
To be honest, while there are things that I think Kang is just simply wrong on (basically his support for North Korea and his rosy view of Soviet imperialism), the comments which started this whole controversy are really not that controversial: Yes the Korean War was a war for unification from the point of view of the DPRK (what else could it have been?) and yes the majority of Koreans in the late 40s probably did envisage the future of their country in some way as socialist or communist (this was completely usual in countries where there had been a struggle for national liberation).
So what is this controversy really about? Basically what this is all about is the old Korean conservatives attempting to use a fairly minor issue to reestablish their hegemony over Korean politics, just as they tried (and failed) last year with the attempted impeachment of Roh. What they need to realise is that there is already a ‘new right’ in Korean politics. Just as in the UK where New Labour has taken the centre-right ground and demolished the Tories in the process, so the Roh government, as inept as it may be, reflects in my opinion a much more fundamental shift in Korean politics from an old establishment to a new one. There may be some differences with the new 386 generation elite, but basically they will represent the new, slightly more acceptable face of South Korean capital. They have been and will continue to be willing to help out the Americans when necessary (Iraq) and to crackdown on the labour movement when necessary to defend foreign and domestic capital. The only difference may be a slightly more independent foreign policy, but even that is a matter of debate.
*for the sake of clarity please note sarcasm intended here
In the light of Kang’s right to free speech, his own take on the desirable direction of Korean Studies (or actually, view on DPRK in general) takes quite an ironic twist: he is not that welcoming for views other than unification-directed, as his contribution to a conference a few years ago shows.
Finding the direction and methodology for Korean Studies in the post-cold war and unification era (탈냉전과 통일시대에 즈음한 한국학의 지향과 방법론 모색: 인문사회과학을 중심으로)
For some reason, in the concluding remarks of a conference paper about Korean Studies he discusses the issue of the DPRK dam (from 1986!), Suzy Kim spy forgery case (from 1987!), the US satellite pics of alleged nuclear installations, and the Japanese “security hystery” after the DPRK launching of the “satellite” in 1998 as distorted views on DPRK. The final paragraph:
위의 네 가지 보기에서 우리는 북한에 관한 한 한국, 일본, 미국에서 모두 “저놈들을 잘 안다. 저 놈들은 그런 놈들이다”라는 상투화 된 냉전낙인론과 냉전심성이 곧 바로 작동되고 있음을 확인할 수 있다. 이러한 낙인론은 경험적이고 구체적인 자료에 의하여 입증된 과학적 지식에 뒷받침되지 않고 있음을 알 수 있다. 그러므로 북한은 으레 저런 것이라는 냉전심성과 의식, 곧 대북한 오리엔탈리즘은 아예 과학적 근거가 필요 없을 정도로 맹목성을 띠고 있다. 이를 허물지 않고는 진정한 남북화해와 협력의 기반이 조성되기가 원천적으로 힘든 상황이다. 따라서 탈냉전시대와 통일시대의 과제를 수행하기 위해서도 한국학은 바로 이 냉전성역 허물기를 기해 우선 우리 속에 있는 냉전심성, 의식, 문화 등을 치유해야 한다. 이를 바탕으로 일본과 미국의 맹목적인 대북한 냉전낙인론이 우리 민족의 자주 평화통일에 걸림돌이 되는 것을 막을 수 있을 것이다. 우리 한국학 연구자들이 이 냉전성역 허물기를 단순히 연구대상으로서 대상화할 것이 아니라 내 자신과 동일시하는 것, 곧 나의 일, 내가 해야할 일, 또는 내 것 화 하는 것으로 격상시켜야 할 것이다. 바로 이것이야말로 탈냉전과 통일시대가 요구하는 시대적 요청일 것이다.
He leaves the reader with the impression that all views critical of DPRK are “cold war stigmatism.”
Comment by Antti — October 21, 2005 @ 10:18 am
Basically Kang is a Stalinist/Nationalist and quite a bit of what he says about the North is just wrong on a purely empirical level. However, that doesn’t exclude the possibility that there may be things on which I agree with him and it certainly doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t defend his right to free speech. What Kang actually said here is clearly not the issue, this is the Korean right attempting to use this to regain some of their lost hegemony.
I agree that the views expressed above are strongly disagreeable, but he is not advocating the idea of locking up the rest of us who think differently as his opponents on the right want to do to him. These are issues in which we should engage in debate with him on, as the people at 다함께 have been doing for some time.
Comment by kotaji — October 21, 2005 @ 11:05 am
Oh, I hope I didn’t sound like comparing his take on the desirable view on DPRK to attempts to lock him up. It’s just that Kang seems to be doing so much damage to the left.
And as someone who almost attended the conference in 2002 where the above presentation was given (but chose to attend another one), I feel that he’s misusing his position and the forum of Korean Studies.
We should be able criticize both Kang and the proponents of his prosecution (but also the OOP which hasn’t done much to get rid of the National Security Law.)
But on the other hand, I don’t think all the flak that’s coming from the right on him is trying to deny his right to express opinions. And I also necessary don’t fault the right to use this case in order to regain its positions, as long as it takes place using reasonable arguments and recognition of free speech.
Comment by Antti — October 21, 2005 @ 12:23 pm