CINA

본문

From today's (bourgeois) newspaper Korea Times:

DLP Leader Apologizes for Violent Acts

 
Democratic Labor Party (DLP) Chairman Rep. Kang Ki-kap offered a public apology Monday for swearing at National Assembly Speaker Kim Hyong-o and destroying equipment in Kim's office on Jan. 5. (*)

"I sincerely apologize to the people for causing grave concern,'' Kang said in a press conference. "I should have been more patient, but I couldn't. It is heartbreaking that I made a deep scar on the hearts of people wishing for a mature democracy.''

Kang's apology came after the governing Grand National Party (GNP) and the Secretariat of the National Assembly sued the lawmaker for his violent acts...

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/01/116_37735.html

Reformist dweeb!!

* Korea Herald (01.07): Swearing while kicking doors and furniture, Kang, 55, created a violent commotion Monday at the offices of the Assembly speaker and secretary-general after security officials moved to disperse his party members at the hall in front of the Assembly's main chamber.

본문

IMC South Korea Reactivated!!

Since late 2004 we - a (really!!) small group of activists - Koreans, migrant workers and "foreigners" -  were discussing about the possibility (necessity!!) to establish a South Korean section of the int'l IMC (Independent Media Center) network. In spring 2005, after several weeks of discussions we created the - for the time being provisional - blog "imc korea". But - unfortunatelly - just a short while later our efforts fizzled out..

Now, since recently, a group of activists want to "reanimate" the idea for a South Korean IMC... (well, great..!!)
Last Thursday (01.08) they had their first open meeting.
Here you can read the..
☞ ..Minutes of the Session

Related stuff:
☞ The Ongoing History of IMC Korea

본문

Asia Times (HK) y'day published following highly speculative/theoretical - but nonetheless interesting and readable - article (written by D. Kirk):

North Korea sees an opening

As the United States focuses on the new Israeli war, and president-elect Barack Obama prepares to take office, North Korea is revving up its rhetoric against South Korea and ailing leader Kim Jong-il has visited military units in a worrying display of intimidation.

For the first time in 14 years, Kim chose to visit a military unit on New Year's Day, as noted by South Korea's Unification Ministry, rather than go to a factory or pay homage at the memorial bearing his father Kim Il-sung's remains. The emphasis on the North's military-first policy was accompanied by a particularly ferocious attack on the South's conservative government as "the fascist rule of the sycophantic and treacherous conservative authorities".

While the US and South Korea negotiate a timetable for withdrawal of the US military headquarters in Seoul to a base south of the capital, the US fixation on the Middle East has provided an opening for North Korea to exploit. The North's aim, as seen in Pyongyang's avoidance of anti-American rhetoric, is to drive a wedge between the US and South Korea and ultimately achieve its goal of destroying the alliance.

In that context, the Israeli invasion of Gaza carries grave implications for Korea that are easy to overlook in the frenzy of "breaking news" from the region and the worldwide response to the Israeli pummeling of Palestinians.

It would be absurd to try to compare conflict in the Middle East to the Korean War or the confrontation of forces that has prevailed on the Korean Peninsula since the signing of the armistice in July 1953. They are totally different, but they do have one common denominator - the military and diplomatic role of the United States.

Like it or not, the United States is completely committed to Israel to an extent that far exceeds American bonds with South Korea.

The planes, the tanks and virtually all the modern weaponry deployed by Israeli forces are either American-made or purchased with American funds. Israel is by far the largest recipient of American aid. The American passion for Israel reflects the belief in the right of Jews to their own homeland after the killing of more than 6 million in Nazi Germany's concentration camps as well as complicated US interests in the Middle East and the power of American Jews, whose political and economic influence far outweighs their numbers.

Now the question is whether the United States, while supporting Israel to the hilt and waging wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, will have the means or the stomach for a potentially far worse conflict on the Korean Peninsula.

Would American leaders, and the American people, ever muster the same passion for the defense of South Korea as they do for Israel? For that matter, would the US stand up in a second Korean War as it did in 1950 when a severely depleted American military establishment built up quickly enough to drive out the North Korean invaders and then, after the Chinese entered the war and drove the Americans and South Koreans from the North, finally drove the Chinese from the South.

The United States today has about 28,500 troops in South Korea, far more than the 500 or so advisers in the country when the Korean War broke out in June 1950, and South Korean forces are vastly better equipped now than they were in June 1950. The bottom line, though, is does the US have the will for a Far Eastern war while involved in unpopular flare-ups from Israel to Pakistan?

In the outburst of publicity over the Middle East, few if any Americans are aware that war on the Korean Peninsula would be far costlier, and bloodier, than anything seen so far in the Middle East, including Iraq. A second Korean war, moreover, would carry the risk of a regional holocaust, with the Chinese and Russians rushing to the aid of North Korea and Japan, the one-time colonial occupier, joining the fray against historical foes. That scenario, far-fetched though it may seem, lingers in the minds of those with memories of the horrors that engulfed the peninsula from mid-1950 to mid-1953.

The United States, as it enters the Obama administration, is not capable of fighting on two broadly separated fronts without reverting to the draft of young men, and possibly women, which was abandoned after popular revulsion over the Vietnam war. If Americans are not nearly so hostile to their military establishment today as they were at the height of the Vietnam War, the reason is the absence of fear among young people of having to join the army whether they like it or not.

Americans, moreover, are far more concerned about problems on their own home front than anywhere else. No American units are going to accompany the Israelis in Gaza. Israeli forces, fully equipped with American weaponry, have no problem roaring over Palestinians, whose rockets attacks are like bee stings in comparison with the shelling, strafing and bombing of Israeli tanks. Hamas, which is responsible for instigating attacks against Israel, is basically a terrorist organization that does not have the support of the majority of Palestinians, including probably the 1.5 million living in Gaza.

The North Koreans would be a far more formidable foe. Quite aside from their nuclear warheads, which they may not know how to deploy, they have a great many artillery pieces and infantry weapons, a product that the North's decrepit industrial base still manages to manufacture.

The North also has biological and chemical weapons, a navy that includes submarines and lesser submersibles, and an air force whose old-model MiGs can still fly. On paper, South Korea is far stronger in all but one important aspect. North Korea has twice as many men under arms, well over 1 million compared to 600,000 in the South, and the North Korean troops by and large have served far longer, under more severe circumstances, than those in the South.

The real imponderable, though, is whether the US, in the crunch, would rush to defend the South with all the arms it needed, as well as an infusion of troops, if North Korea were to take advantage of America's relationship with Israel and the Middle East to stage a surprise attack. Would Obama as president respond as stubbornly as did Harry Truman, the American president when the Korean war broke out?

And how would the crucial American Jewish community feel about a war in which Jewish interests were not at stake as in Israel? The views of Jewish neo-conservatives and liberals on Israel may vary widely, but they all support the Jewish state's right to exist. What about if the Republic of Korea were imperiled? For Americans, modern Korea is just about as easy to forget, in time of crisis elsewhere, as the "forgotten" Korean war.

The best hope is that all such questions will remain abstract and theoretical, raised for discussion but never put to the test. Still, headlines, news alerts and bulletins on the war for Gaza force everyone to ask, Can it happen here - and what if it does?

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/KA07Dg01.html

본문

The S.K. ruling class and its state/gov't (MoJ/public prosecution dept./police..), according to yesterday's Korea Times (K.T.), would like to "delight" the progressive and labor movement with a very special "New Year Gift":

Communist Sympathizers, Strikers Face Crackdown
 

The nation's top prosecutor said Friday in his New Year's message that the prosecution will eradicate leftists spreading communist ideology.

Prosecutor General Lim Chae-jin said, "Those who deny the nation's pro-democracy identity and attempt to destabilize society are to be punished.''..

The chief prosecutor stressed harshness in punishing laborers organizing or participating in illegal (*) collective actions such as unauthorized strikes...

http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/01/117_37259.html

* Surprise, surprise!! K.T. forgot (^^) to mention, that only the ruling class and its flunkies (i.e. the S.K. state/gov't..) defines what's "legal" or "illegal". Certainly, in case of doubt: Everything what comes from the "left", incl. the labor (and any other resistance) movement, is - as a matter of course - ILLEGAL!!

Somehow related:
☞ Police and protesters clash at weekend rally (Hankyoreh, 01.05)

본문

About one week ago Taru Taylor (Professor of English at Semyung University, Jecheon, S.K.) contributed following remarkable article to Korea Times, but finally the bourgeois newspaper refused to publish it (*):

Imperial Korea?

South Korea has learned well from Japan, its onetime imperial master—how to be an imperialist. Witness the recent deal between the Republic of Korea and Madagascar, brokered by Daewoo Logistics, for a 99-year lease of 3.2 million acres, half of Madagascar’s arable land. “The Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere” indeed! Except South Korea, too, is now a master.

One might have thought that the suffering endured under Japanese imperialism had taught Korea to sympathize with poor and oppressed peoples. That, in the person of U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, South Korea pointed the way to equity between the white bourgeois and the colored proletarians and peasants of the world. As a Black American who has suffered from the tyranny of the white majority, I thought Koreans might prove soul mates. But Korean employers requiring photos to screen out Black applicants like me exploded that wishful thought.

Nevertheless I eagerly applauded the Seoul street protests last spring, apparently against American beef but really against Anglo-American imperialism and its chaebol and yangban flunkies. President Lee Myung-bak apologized to the people. I felt humble before the might of the ordinary Korean. They truly seemed the beacon of the true democracy necessarily anchored in the proletariat and the peasantry.

I sought historical perspective for the beef protests and found it in the “Tonghak” (“Eastern Learning”) of native Korea as opposed to the “Western Learning” of Europe. Its slogan: “Drive out the Japanese dwarfs and the Western barbarians, and praise righteousness.” Its author: Choe Cheu, a wandering peasant martyred in 1864. He inspired the Tonghak rebellion of 1894, which compelled the Korean aristocracy to bring in 1500 Chinese troops to suppress it. He inspired “Chondogyo” (“Society of the Heavenly Way”), the indigenous religion of Korea that had changed its name from Tonghak in 1905. The first signer of the March 1, 1919 Declaration of Independence from Japan was Son Pyong-hi, leader of Chondogyo, which provided 15 of the 33 signers.

Choe Cheu—author of Tonghak and of Chondogyo—is the true hero of Korea. His Tonghak philosophy and his Chondogyo religion seem the portals for discovering Korean identity. When, last summer, I described the beef protests as a 2008 Tonghak rebellion, I meant that Choe Cheu still lived as the archetype of modern Korea. Just as Luke Skywalker led the Rebellion against Lord Vader’s Empire, the specter of Choe Cheu haunted the “new world order” from the streets of Seoul.

But South Korea lately seems more like Park Chung-hee, the mastermind who modeled South Korea after Japan. He epitomizes the Korean bourgeoisie even as Choe Cheu epitomizes its proletariat and peasantry. In America, Thomas Jefferson had advocated agrarian democracy and limited government—states’ rights—as against monopoly capitalism as commandeered by the imperial government of Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton won the debate, for first president George Washington sided with his Secretary of the Treasury against his Secretary of State.

Although not contemporaries like Jefferson and Hamilton, Choe Cheu and Park Chung-hee are the grand interlocutors of Korean destiny. Tonghak is one portal; imperialism is the other. The “Republic of Korea” and “Imperial Korea” are the terms of the debate between the agrarian hero and the capitalist dictator. The beef protests argue for Choe Cheu; for Tonghak; for Korea as Luke Skywalker, Jedi Knight. But the Madagascar deal argues for Park Chung-hee; for Imperial Korea; for Korea as Anakin Skywalker nee Sith Lord Darth Vader.

“Imperialism,” of course, is a heavy word, perhaps the heaviest word of current political discourse. Before we proceed with the question of Imperial Korea we would do well to come to terms with it. For, as Confucius reminds us in Book 13 Chapter 3 of “The Analects,” semantics are the essence of sound government. Asked by Tzu-lu the first thing the governor must do, Confucius replies “rectification of names.” He explains: “If names be not correct, language is not in accordance with the truth of things. If language be not in accordance with the truth of things, affairs cannot be carried on to success.” So without further ado let’s rectify “imperialism” and thus put South Korea’s deal with Madagascar in perspective.

According to Merriam-Webster, “imperialism” is “the policy, practice, or advocacy of extending the power and dominion of a nation especially by direct territorial acquisitions or by gaining indirect control over the political or economic life of other areas.” V.I. Lenin’s economic treatise, “Imperialism: the Final Stage of Capitalism” (1916), expands this definition. He first of all insists that imperialism is in essence economic, a mere function of finance capital. That imperialism is “monopoly capitalism” writ large. That imperialism is “parasitism” whereby the ruling class of the oppressor nation uses colonies to enrich itself at their expense. That imperialism has for its complement “opportunism,” that is, corruption of the elite bureaucrats of the proletariat by means of bribery. That imperialism creates privileged sections of the proletariat who thus detach themselves from the proletarian and peasant masses, what we would call tokenism.

Is there really any doubt, given the above rectification of “imperialism,” that South Korea is not now colonizing Madagascar? That it is not now Imperial Korea? That the bureaucrats of Madagascar who are making this deal aren’t Uncle Toms selling out their people just as Esau sold out his birthright to Jacob? Interestingly, Lenin cites Japan as an example of imperialism for its then recent annexation of Korea. History has come full vicious circle, for now Korea is exhibit A of imperialism for its annexation of Madagascar.

* T. Taylor's comment in IMC (12.24):

"The article ... entitled 'Imperial Korea?' was published and then unpublished by The Korea Times.

What I mean is, it was put up onto the website Thursday afternoon, then taken down a few minutes later. The executive managing editor of The Korea Times said to me Friday morning that it had been taken down because the issue of Madagascar and Korea had been discussed in The Financial Times already. He told me that my piece was not "original".

The only reason I knew about it having been published in the first place was that someone emailed me to compliment me on the 'Imperial Korea?' article Thursday at around 4 pm. I then read it online on The Korea Times website. There were even two very critical comments, by a different reader, on the article in the commentary section beneath it. I remember him saying that my argument would've been stronger if I had not brought in Lenin and Confucius, if I had just analyzed the situation in Madagascar on the ground with more facts and details.

The article ... was published by The Korea Times. Then, I say again, it was unpublished.

It would've been OK if I had been told weeks ago, when I first submitted the article, that it would not be published. I can live with rejection. I understand that it's a provocative piece. But to be told on two different occasions that it would be published, then to actually have it published, then to have it unpublished.... an outrage!

Censorship.

Indeed, Orwellian."

http://www.indymedia.org/fr/2008/12/918255.shtml

And - finally - here's my "comment":
What a surprise! The author is quoting Lenin's “Imperialism: the Highest Stage of Capitalism” and the bourgeois newspaper is refusing to publish the piece.. (^^)
Has the author ever heard about anti-communism in S.K. in general, and the "NSL" in particular??

본문

During the last few days Jinbonet/NewsCham and MTU published articles written by the Internet Broadcasting for Migrants in Korea/IBMK (이주노동자 방송국).

IBMK's self-conception: "A borderless network among migrants and migrant workers in the world!" (more about it you can read here).

But what - TFH - is happening with them?

Since last October (at least) on their English section you can find two "top contributions", written/produced by IBMK, promoting (in my opinion) propaganda for the (clerical-fascist) Unification Church (통일교회, aka the Moon sect):

☞ Students welcomes Vice President of Purbanchal Univeristy..

☞ Video: Mass Wedding Ceremony (*)

Questions?

Don't ask me! You better ask IBMK!

* You really should "enjoy" it!! ^^ (That's just the ultimate distastefulness!! Disgusting!!)

본문

JoongAng Ilbo has been - hitherto - characterized (by the left/progressive circles) as one of the three most reactionary newspapers in S. Korea (alongside Chosun Ilbo and Dong-A Ilbo)!
But last Friday (12.19) it published following very interesting and what's more, really surprising editorial (Wikipedia: "An editorial is an article in a newspaper or magazine that expresses the opinion of the editor, editorial board, or publisher"):

Ending discrimination

 
Dec. 18 is International Migrants Day. In an age of globalization, when the labor force roams the world with far fewer restraints than before, each nation should protect the rights of migrant workers and their families.

Unfortunately, Korea is still a backward country when it comes to human rights as illustrated by the crackdown on illegal migrant workers announced just in time by the National Human Rights Commission of Korea.

More worrying, a survey of migrant workers at four detention centers in Korea reveals a spate of human rights violations, such as officials not identifying themselves properly or not fully explaining to workers why they have been detained, and women being denied use of the bathroom or reportedly getting sexually harassed.

It seems clear that officials are ignoring a basic international standard concerning the human rights of illegal migrant workers caught up in crackdowns.

But the number of foreigners staying inside the country has continued to grow and as of the end of October stands at 1.17 million people, including 210,000 who are here illegally. Some migrant workers have Korean spouses and now form an important segment of Korean society. Should they be treated like this?

Our society has clearly not yet matured enough to be called a multicultural society. In August last year, a United Nations subcommittee on the elimination of human rights discrimination reprimanded Korea following illegal crackdowns on migrant workers, unfair labor practices and domestic violence that foreign spouses and their children experience. The warning is an official confirmation from the international community that Korea discriminates against foreigners.

To rid this country of this dishonorable distinction, we have to break the practice of exclusivity and so-called pureblood values. We have to embrace people who look different from us and who speak other languages.

We support the city of Ansan in Gyeonggi, home to the largest foreign population here, for setting up regulations on human rights of non-Koreans and for stating that it will protect the rights of migrant workers.

Let’s hope that more provincial cities follow in Ansan’s footsteps. We can’t continue to condemn foreigners who are our neighbors in a world where they are denied basic human rights.

Discrimination has no place in this country anymore.

http://joongangdaily.joins.com/article/view.asp?aid=2898799

MTU published a Korean version of the text:
☞ "외국인 노동자 차별하고 따돌리는 인권 후진국"

본문

In the beginning of the last century V.I. Lenin (*) characterized the parliament (of the bourgeois democracy) as a place for palaver (the German translation: "Schwatzbude").
  But for the S. Korean parliament, the National Assambly (NA), Lenin's characterization reflects not the complete reality.. The NA is also a place for good fights (between the "ruling" forces and the parliamentary "opposition")! As you can admire here (last Thursday, representatives from GNP vs. DP/DLP rep's):

Here you'll see some more impressive pics about the event:
☞ Violence erupts in Korean National Assembly (Guardian/Photo Gallery)

For more informations/"backgrounds" (if you really want to know..^^) about the event:

☞ Assembly in FTA Conflict (Korea Times, 12.18) 

☞ Melee ensues as FTA advances (JoongAng Ilbo, 12.19)  

☞ National Assembly is still under siege (Korea Herald, 12.20)

☞ Democrats storm speaker’s office (JoongAng Ilbo, 12.20)

☞ Assembly speaker apologizes for GNP’s unilateral actions (Hankyoreh, 12.20)

* in:

본문

본문

Ten days (*) ago I wrote, related to Hankyoreh's report "Progressives launch coalition..", that "my comment" would follow soon...

Well, there will be NO comment! But some questions:

The proposed "alliance" includes the Democratic Party (DP), i.e. Roh Moo-hyun's former governing party "Uri-dang" (later UNDP and now DP)..

How about the responsibility of their countless attacks against the struggling parts of the S.K. working class (during the Roh/Uri-dang administration)???

How about the decision to send S.K. troops to Iraq (against the will of the majority of the people in S.K.!!)???

How about all the efforts by the Roh gov't, i.e. the current DP staff, to deport "undocumented" migrant workers as much as possible and to exterminate the ETU-MB/MTU???

etc, etc, etc...

Related stuff by Hankyoreh:

☞ Progressive and reformist forces meet to chart economic alternatives (12.12)

☞ Progressives struggle to build framework for solidarity (12.6)


* '민주대연합' #1