INTERVIEW 2013: First year for Korean
peace By Christine Hong
Marking the 59th anniversary of the
Armistice Agreement, a ceasefire signed by all
major parties to the 1950-1953 Korean War (except
South Korea), the "7/27" candlelight rally in
Seoul at the end of July brought the ongoing
reality of the Korean War to light.
The
organizers behind this year's 7/27 rally
highlighted the militarized implications - in a
word, the peacelessness - of the armistice regime,
now 59 years old. Envisaged as an interim measure,
the July 27, 1953 Armistice Agreement stipulated
that within three months of its signing, "a
political conference of a higher level of both
sides" be convened "to settle through negotiation
the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces
from Korea, [and] the
peaceful settlement of the Korean question."
But with no final settlement ever reached,
the Armistice Agreement has yet to deliver on its
promissory note, and the Korean peninsula remains
technically at war. As the longest war in US
history - predating America's ongoing quagmire in
Afghanistan by over half a century - the Korean
War points to permanent conflict as the
discomfiting, long-run truth of US
interventionism.
The latest flashpoint in
the ongoing war is Jeju, an island off the Korean
peninsula's southern coast where villagers are
resisting the construction of an intrusive naval
base in the village of Gangjeong. Centering their
message on the undemocratic nature of the project,
the rally participants proclaimed solidarity with
the Gangjeong villagers. Reproducing a view of
Gureombi, the smooth volcanic rock formation that
stretches along the Gangjeong coastline, the
banner behind the rally stage evoked an ocean
panorama once seen daily by village residents but
now obscured behind high construction fences. The
lettering on the banner read: "Stay strong,
Gangjeong! Let's secure peace!"
Seated
near the rally stage was a familiar face at such
peace gatherings: Kang Jeong-Koo, a longtime
activist-scholar and a steadfast champion of
peace. This year may signal the 59th anniversary
of the signing of the Armistice Agreement, yet
according to South Korean peace activists like
Kang, it signals the last year of war on the
Korean peninsula.
I spoke with Kang
recently at the Solidarity for Peace and
Reunification of Korea (SPARK) headquarters in
Seoul. For "peace-loving and peace-making
organizations," he said, "the 60th anniversary of
the Armistice Agreement" next year will mark "the
inaugural year of peace" - much as the 60th
birthday, according to Korean custom, is "a
milestone that signals the commencement of a new
life."
Addressing the US military "pivot"
to the region, the nearly 30,000 US forces still
stationed below the 38th parallel, and the
struggle of Gangjeong villagers against the
construction of the naval base, Kang outlined the
prospects for Korean peace when war remains the
volatile substrate of US-North Korea and
intra-Korea relations.
Christine
Hong: Could you say a few words about
SPARK - its history, goals, and motivating vision?
Kang Jeong-Koo: SPARK was
established in 1994. Many Koreans believed that it
was high time for us to end the division of Korea,
to realize a reunited state, and to get foreign
troops out of the Korean peninsula. Never in our
history have foreign troops been stationed in the
Korean peninsula for as long as US troops have
been here - over 65 years. China, during the Tang
dynasty, stayed only nine and a half years. During
the colonial period, the Japanese military was
here for almost 40 years. In 1958, the Chinese
army withdrew from North Korea. By contrast, that
same year, the United States deployed up to 1,300
nuclear bombs here in South Korea, only removing
its nuclear arsenal from South Korea in 1991. If
we think the South Korean people panicked when
North Korea had five or six nuclear bombs, how did
the North Korean people feel from 1958 through
1991?
CH: There are voices
within the US national security establishment who
assert that at various historical moments the
United States has wanted to withdraw its troops
but that South Korea urged them to remain. What is
your response to this claim? KJK:
Who are these experts? When they speak of
the Korean people, they mean the ruling groups of
South Korea. When South Koreans are surveyed, more
than 65% want US troops to withdraw from our
country. But these ruling groups - political,
economic, cultural - are positioned in a relation
of virtual serfdom to the United States.
CH: In US policy circles,
Obama's stance toward North Korea is often
referred to as "strategic patience". Many people
understand this to mean that he has done very
little. Can you elaborate on US military strategy
toward North Korea?
KJK: It
is not true that [US President Barack] Obama has
done very little toward North Korea. During the
last stage of the [George W] Bush administration,
President Bush announced a US commitment to
realizing a peace agreement between the US and
North Korea. The task for the Obama administration
was to continue that policy by making progress
toward a real peace agreement between the two
countries, but Obama failed to move forward on
negotiating a peace agreement.
In 2004,
the Bush administration proposed Conceptual Plan
[CONPLAN] 5029 to the Roh Moo-hyun regime. This
provocative plan was aimed at "responding" to
crises in North Korea, including internal regime
change, an internal coup, export of WMD, South
Koreans held hostage in North Korean territory, a
massive exodus of refugees from North Korea, and
even large natural disasters like floods and
earthquakes. In the event of such crises, the
United States envisioned sending US and South
Korean special forces to North Korea to quash the
Korean People's Army and to capture Pyongyang. In
short, this was a plan for regime change. Under
the Obama administration, the United States has
put this plan into practice in war exercises like
Ulchi Freedom Guardian. In light of this, who can
say that the Obama administration has done little
toward North Korea?
In March of 2010, the
Cheonan incident occurred. The Lee
Myung-bak regime followed with sanctions against
North Korea and the United States intensified its
coalition war exercises with South Korea. That
year, the United States held more than 10 times
the usual number of coalition war exercises with
South Korea. Moreover, the United States used the
incident to justify conducting joint war exercises
with Japan, the Philippines, Australia, and India.
In this transitional period in which the election
of the Democratic Party in Japan challenged US
domination, the United States was able to reverse
the trend in the wake of the Cheonan incident.
CH: In the past year, we
have heard announcements by Obama and key members
of his administration, Secretary of State Hillary
Clinton and Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta
among them, of a US "pivot" to the Asia-Pacific.
What dangers does the concentration of US military
resources and forces in the Asia-Pacific pose to
the people of the region?
KJK:
To reverse its loss of power, the United
States has targeted global weak points: the
divided Korean peninsula and the Middle East. From
the perspective of US foreign policy, conflict in
the divided Korean peninsula offers an opportunity
for staging a power transition within the arena of
global politics. From the perspective of US
strategic interests in the region, Korea can serve
as a facilitator or a delayer, a weakener or a
strengthener.
In the greater Asia-Pacific
region, we're seeing the United States attempt to
preserve its hegemony by using the resources of
allied countries. This reminds me of the Libyan
war. In the initial stage of the Libyan crisis,
the United States intervened but then withdrew. It
did not wish to waste its money. Instead, it
wanted France, England, and Italy to underwrite
the costs of the intervention. The exact same
policy applies to South Korea, Japan, India, and
Australia.
CH: Say more. How
is the policy the same?
KJK:
Because of its own economic problems, the
United States wants Korea, Japan, Australia, and
India to encircle China with their money, not US
money.
CH: How does the
Gangjeong naval base down in Jeju fit within such
a scheme?
KJK: The naval
base at Gangjeong is not against North Korea. If
the strategic purpose of the base were truly to
check North Korea, the naval base should be
located near North Korea. But Jeju is located in
the southern part of South Korea. There is no
other reason for this base other than to surround
and encircle China.
And it doesn't matter
that the naval base is, in name, South Korean. The
United States, according to its Status of Forces
Agreement and its Mutual Defense Treaty with South
Korea, can use at whim and at will any South
Korean base.
The Korean people know that
the naval base at Gangjeong is not for the South
Korean Navy but for the US Navy. Look at the
Pyongtaek base. Pyongtaek is the nearest US
military installation to Beijing and Shanghai. It
is only one or two hours away by civilian
airplane. Firing a missile would take no time at
all. So the US military installations that are the
closest to China are the Pyongtaek and Gangjeong
bases, which the United States wishes to be built
at Korean expense. The same is true of Japan,
Australia, Singapore, and India.
CH:
Would you describe this as a neo-Cold War
policy toward China?
KJK:
Yes.
CH: Can you
address the perils of peace advocacy in the
current moment?
KJK:
Statistics on the National Security Law
indicate that red-baiting and anti-North Korea
rhetoric sharply intensified under the Lee
Myung-bak regime. In 2010, under Lee, more than
140 Koreans were investigated and prosecuted,
whereas in 2006 and 2007 under the Roh Moo-hyun
regime, only 35 and 39 Koreans respectively were
prosecuted in alleged violation of the National
Security Law. As a representative of SPARK, I was
interrogated and investigated simply because SPARK
sent a letter calling upon the United Nations
Security Council to discuss the Cheonan incident
with fairness and objectivity. Moreover, our
office was raided this year and the Korean CIA, or
the National Intelligence Service as it is now
called, interrogated some leading members of our
organization for allegedly praising and
sympathizing with North Korea.
There is no
doubt that the authorities targeted SPARK, one of
the organizations at the forefront of the
resistance, to discourage and suppress strong
protest against the construction of the naval base
at Gangjeong in Jeju. All those who have been
investigated and indicted are peace and
reunification organizations, like SPARK, and the
activists and advocates from these organizations.
So far, approximately 300 residents of Gangjeong
involved in the resistance to the construction of
the naval base have been detained at least once;
four of them have been given suspended sentences
and four are still in jail. Fines of approximately
$400,000 have been levied upon them. The situation
has been far worse in the case of non-village
peace activists and advocates.
CH:
In the United States, the Korean War -
often called the "Forgotten War" - is almost
invisible as a political issue. People don't know
that the war isn't over, and they're consequently
apathetic. Why should the Korean War be brought to
an end?
KJK: It is high time
for the United States to end the Korean War by
reaching a peace agreement. Only such an agreement
can bring peace and denuclearization to the Korean
peninsula.
The stationing of US troops on
our soil and South Korea's military alliance with
the United States have proved to be the most
formidable obstacles to the struggle for peace.
It's for this reason that anti-Americanism -
understood critically as a people's struggle for
the withdrawal of US troops - increases as each
day passes. Our country is a sovereign country. We
do not want to remain in a subservient or
sub-imperial relationship to US military empire.
It is both foreseeable and inevitable that in the
near future, our people's power will make it
impossible for US troops to remain on our soil.
CH: Switching gears, I'd
like to ask you to place the issue of North Korean
human rights into historical and geopolitical
perspective. As you know, the media depicts - and
the world largely perceives - North Korea in
pathological terms. They see it as a dangerous
security threat, a weapons producer and an abuser
of human rights.
KJK: The US
North Korean Human Rights Act of 2004 was not a
law for human rights, but a call for regime
change. This legislation, and US-based North
Korean human rights advocacy more generally,
tellingly neglects the fundamental right to life
and peace. In the case of North Korea, we should
ask: who is the main violator of the North Korean
people's right to life and peace? By threatening
war, the United States endangers the North Korean
people's right to live a life free from war.
Next year marks over six decades of
unending war on the Korean peninsula. Many
progressive South Korean organizations, however,
refer to 2013 as "the first year of peace" on the
Korean peninsula. What does this mean and how can
it be realized?
In Korea, the 60th
birthday has traditionally been characterized as a
milestone that signals the commencement of a new
life - one that is qualitatively different from
that of the previous 60 years. Life expectancy in
the old days was often far shorter than 60 years.
Likewise, peace-loving and peace-making
organizations are determined to mark next year -
the 60th anniversary of the Armistice Agreement -
as the inaugural year of peace, and to realize a
peace agreement that has been overdue these past
six decades. We will arouse public opinion, call
upon the main parties to the Armistice, conduct
and perform campaigns, mass marches,
demonstrations, candlelight rallies, and so forth.
For almost six decades, peace has been deferred
because of US imperialism. Isn't it now high time
for us to conclude peace through our own efforts?
Christine Hong is an assistant
professor of critical Pacific Rim studies at UC
Santa Cruz. She is a fellow at the Korea Policy
Institute and a member of the coordinating
committee of the National Campaign to End the
Korean War. She thanks Suh Bohyuk for generously
facilitating this interview and Mark Selden for
offering his keen feedback.
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
