SPEAKING FREELY US stuck in deaf dialogue in Korea
By Dallas Darling
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
The French have a name for the aggressive discourse now taking place between North Korea and the US over nuclear weapons. It is known as un dialogue des sourds, meaning dialogue of the deaf, in which senders often assume if they spend much time and effort designing a message calibrated to convey a particular meaning, the receiver will necessarily understand it.
However, "messages" are not often read as intended, let alone
properly understood, whereupon warnings are not heeded, and the sender may even blame the receiver (unjustly) for intransigence or hostility. [1]
In the past, numerous miscommunications have taken place to the extent that bloody conflicts and wars have ensued, such as the Franco-Prussian War, Spanish American War, the dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan, and the Cold War. The ongoing belligerency between North Korea and the US - which backs South Korea - is no exception. Not only was the US unprepared and insensitive to Korean aspirations after World War II, but in the early stages leading to Korean War (1950-53) the US sent both North and South Korea many mixed verbal signals and physical miscues.
When Korea was liberated from Japan, the US focused on subduing former enemy territory. It was mostly interested in militarily occupying and rebuilding Japan. Koreans understood this to mean that they were peripheral to the main event, even marginalized, which has reverberated throughout US-Korean relation since 1945. This attitude was reinforced when Washington attempted to shed the responsibilities for Korea it inherited as a consequence of victory over Japan. Even after having finally created an interim Korean Legislature, the US still remained reluctant to become overly committed.
Washington's half-hearted approach towards Korea was made worse when US secretary of state Dean Acheson testified to Congress that Korea was outside the United States' Pacific defense perimeter. As a result, the North Koreans, not understanding that Acheson's words were intended only for economic and domestic consumption, felt emboldened to attack South Korea. Meanwhile, the Cold War in Europe, between the US and Russia, quickly contaminated circumstances in Korea, causing North-South frictions to deepen. Both North and South Korea became superpower proxies.
Many North Koreans (and some in the South) understand that if not for the Cold War that erupted in Europe, along with the hardening of political ideologies between the US and Soviet Union, Moscow's role in Korea might have been benign. Actually, many blame the US as a party to the division of the Korean nation as much as, or more than, the Soviet Union. [1] Over the years, then, US miscommunications, its ambiguity, and sundry actions have earned the unmitigated animosity of the North Koreans. North Korea too must share some of the blame and find a solution to its nuclear weaponry.
Just before the Korean War, the Joint Chiefs of Staff advised president Harry S Truman that "the US has little strategic interest in maintaining the present troops and bases in Korea." [2] Yet, and at the start of the war, General Douglas MacArthur declared, "If we lose the war to Communism in Asia the fall of Europe is inevitable." [3] In a post-Cold War world and with a modernized China and Japan and Russia near Korea, should the US re-evaluate its Asian-Korean policies? Especially since wars fought with a "dialogue of the deaf" have no ending, as in the case of the Korean conflict.
Still, the US knows all about preemptive wars and nuclear strikes, having been guilty of committing both.
Dallas Darling is the author of Politics 501: An A-Z Reading on Conscientious Political Thought and Action, Some Nations Above God: 52 Weekly Reflections On Modern-Day Imperialism, Militarism, and Consumerism in the Context of John's Apocalyptic Vision, and The Other Side Of Christianity: Reflections on Faith, Politics, Spirituality, History, and Peace. He is a correspondent for www.worldnews.com.
Notes:
1. Barash, David P. Introduction to Peace Studies. Belmont, California: Wadsworth Publishing Company, 1991., p. 238.
2. Jentleson, Bruce W and Thomas G Paterson. Encyclopedia Of US Foreign Relations, Volume III. New York: Oxford University Press, 1997, p 26.
3. David, Saul. The Illustrated Encyclopedia Of Warfare: From Ancient Egypt To Iraq. New York: Dorley Kindersley Press, 2009, p 217.
Speaking Freely is an Asia Times Online feature that allows guest writers to have their say. Please click hereif you are interested in contributing.
Head
Office: Unit B, 16/F, Li Dong Building, No. 9 Li Yuen Street East,
Central, Hong Kong Thailand Bureau:
11/13 Petchkasem Road, Hua Hin, Prachuab Kirikhan, Thailand 77110
