Q&A: Anti-Americanism in South Korea (dprkstudies.org)

QUESTION & ANSWER:
ANTI-AMERICANISM IN SOUTH KOREA

While most Americans know relatively very little about South Korea - except memories of the 1970s MASH TV series, and perhaps a vague knowledge that Hyundai, Kia, and Samsung are Korean made - the U.S. looms large in the lives of South Koreans. This reflects the importance of the U.S. as the number one South Korean military and economic supporter over the past five decades, particularly 1945-1980. The U.S. maintains 37,000 troops in South Korea besides thousands of DoD civilians, contractors, and family members, although the number of troops will be 25,000 by 2008.

Many Americans, therefore, would be highly surprised to learn of the pervasive anti-U.S. sentiment many South Koreans exhibit. But it is there, and there are reasons. Not necessarily good or logical reasons, but reasons nonetheless. The extreme hate pertains mostly to a highly vocal minority, but the fact that most South Koreans consider the U.S. more of an enemy than North Korea is troubling.

On Jan. 20, 2004, an article by Cho Se-hyon in the Korea Herald reported that "...39 percent of South Koreans cited the United States as the nation that is threatening the security of the country most." Only 33 percent saw North Korea in the same light. Even worse, "58 percent of those in their 20s said that the United States posed the greatest threat to the country while a mere 20 percent thought North Korea" was.

QUESTIONS:

QUESTION: WHY ARE SOUTH KOREANS ANGRY – AND ENRAGED – WITH THE U.S.?

ANSWER: There are many historical reasons used by radical groups to foment anti-Americanism, however most recently anti-U.S. sentiment has grown due to the overall U.S. policy towards North Korea, which many feel de-railed the South’s “Sunshine Policy” of engagement, and two incidents. The first is the case of a South Korea speed-skater was disqualified in the 2002 Winter Olympics, and the second, and much more serious, is the case of a tragic accident in which two South Korean teenaged girls were killed by a U.S. Army AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge). The most serious element with long-term effects, however, is the South Korean governments portrayal of North Korea in relation to the Sunshine Policy. The Kim Dae Jung administration had for years been portraying the North as the “brothers and sisters” of the South, and that they do not want to harm the South at all. While true in the larger sense, the regime, not the people, of North Korea poses the problem. This has led to the view of the U.S. as an impediment to reunification, rather than an ally, and an obvious undermining of the U.S.-ROK strategic relationship. Additionally, many South Koreans do not really appear to be overly concerned about the North’s’ nuclear program. One theory is that once Korea is reunified, “Northern” bombs will become “Korean” bombs." Kim Dae Jung could and should have altered his failed Sunshine Policy long before his term ended, and he is directly responsible, at least partly, for the anti-American sentiment in South Korea presently. The current South Korean president, Rho Moo-hyun, won the election largely on promises to continue the Sunshine Policy (sometimes referred to as the "Moonshine" policy), and to create a "more equal" relationship between South Korea and the U.S. Note that these are only some of the most recent reasons, and there are historically many more - some real, mostly perceived - that will not be covered in this brief Q&A page.

QUESTION: WHAT U.S. POLICY SPECIFICALLY?

ANSWER: Presidents Bush’s suspicion of the Sunshine Policy was a major issue, and many South Koreans felt that Bush snubbed President Kim Dae Jung on the subject. After the historic North-South accord in June of 2000, South Koreans were euphoric about he possible cooperation between the two nations, and deeply offended by Bush’s skepticism. We now know that even as Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jong Il signed their agreement in 2000, North Korea was secretly working on a uranium enrichment program (which was independently confirmed by Pakistan). In effect, Bush has been vindicated. However, many South Koreans still feel that not confronting North Korea and giving nearly unconditional aid, as called for by the Sunshine Policy, is the only way to approach North Korea. In reality, that approach has only enabled the perpetuation of the North Korean regime, and the Sunshine Policy failed because the North never reciprocated the South’s cooperative initiatives. The real victims are the North Korean people.

QUESTION: WHY WOULD A SPEED-SKATING INCIDENT CAUSE ANTI-AMERICANISM?

ANSWER: Many Korea-watchers have asked the same question. There is no logical answer, but there is an emotional one. And the issue is not just something to be brushed aside. The controversy started when South Korean Kim Dong-sung was disqualified for blocking (a.k.a. cross-tracking) American Apollo Ohno in a 1,500-meter race, giving Ohno the gold, and Kim nothing. South Koreans immediately rejected the ruling that Kim had broken any rules, despite film evidence. Although the judge was Australian, it was quickly labeled a conspiracy to appease the Americans after 9/11. Kim was on a victory lap with a South Korean flag when the announcement was made, after which he slammed the flag down in disgust. The result, besides a display of bad sportsmanship and disrespect for his own national flag, was a huge swelling of anti-Americanism in Korea, a call to boycott the rest of the 2002 Olympics, and hate mail and even death threats from thousands of Koreans to Ohno. This was the primer for what was to come.

QUESTION: HOW DID U.S. SOLDIERS KILL THE TWO GIRLS, AND WHO WAS AT FAULT?

ANSWER: To begin with the second question – it was a tragic accident, but what Americans might call a “no-fault” type of accident. On June 13, 2002 two U.S. army sergeants, Fernando Nino and Mark Walker, hit and/or ran over two 13-year-old Korean girls with an AVLB (Armored Vehicle Launched Bridge - often referred to as a "tank" in the press), who were walking along side a U.S. Army convoy. The drivers of such vehicles have a poor range of view, so a spotter is positioned on top. The driver can listen to radio traffic from the convoy, but when the spotter speaks to the driver (keys his mic), the driver should hear only the spotter. However, on June 13 the communications equipment failed, and despite frantic pleas from the spotter, the driver did not hear him and struck the two girls, killing them. Although several investigations, including by South Korean investigators, revealed the intermittent problem in the equipment, the two soldiers were charged with negligent homicide by the Army, and later acquitted, enraging South Koreans and causing even more anti-U.S. demonstrations. Since then, there have been several attacks on U.S. service members in Korea, and an officer was recently attacked and stabbed. Many white foreigners - Brits, Australians, etc. - have been mistaken for Americans and treated badly as well, although since late 2004 and into 2005 such incidents have become increasingly rare.

QUESTION: IF THE DEATHS OF THE TWO GIRLS WAS AN ACCIDENT, WHY ARE SOUTH KOREAN PROTESTING?

ANSWER: The U.S. utilizes a rational-legal law system, while South Korea has more traditional elements in its legal system. Therefore, South Koreans look more for appeasement of the sentiment rather than fairness. They see two dead girls and ask "if the two soldiers are not responsible, who is?" There are no "no-fault" accidents in Korea. Under the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), the U.S. has the right to try soldiers who commit crimes while on-duty, and South Koreans try those who commit crimes while off-duty. The South Koreans also consider the SOFA to be unfair (relative to U.S. SOFAs with Germany or Japan) and are calling on the U.S. to revise the SOFA and allow South Korea to try the two soldiers there. Of course this will never happen – the U.S. realized that the soldiers would never get a fair trial. Many South Koreans are also angry that the two soldiers have now left Korea – but either ignore the fact that the two sergeants received death threats, and one group had offered a bounty for their capture. (refer to the additional links below for more background).

QUESTION: IS THE U.S. SOFA WITH SOUTH KOREA UNFAIR?

ANSWER: No. The section dealing with the jurisdiction of accused criminals is the same as the SOFAs the U.S. has with Japan and Germany, although most South Koreans are completely unaware of this due to the propagandist nature of the press.

QUESTION: WHIS IS SUCH MISINFORMATION NOT CHALLENGED?

ANSWER: The South Korean press, like that of most other nations, seeks headlines. What is missing in most instances, however, is an ethic that ensures accuracy in reporting, or any sort of consequences for inaccuracies, or even fabrications. The vast majority of South Koreans, while generally knowing more about the international world that most Americans, are woefully ignorant when it comes to actual facts when it comes to the U.S. military in Korea, leading to misperceptions and anti-Americanism. Most South Korean newspapers have an obsession with depicting Korean's standing in the world relative to other nations, which Western foreigners usually pick-up on right away, and the vast majority of such reports are lopsidedly positive rather than critical. South Korean politicians, rather than setting the record right, are silent, or even cash in on the sentiment, as did South Korea’s new president-elect, Roh Moo-hyun. It also moves the focus from the problems of the South Korea economy to another area. In short, the U.S. makes a handy scapegoat for South Korea.

QUESTION: WHAT OTHER ISSUES CAUSE ANTI-AMERICANISM IN SOUTH KOREA?

ANSWER: The above issues are only some of the more recent issues – there are many more, some of which are covered in the links below. Also, please note that the above answers are only of the briefest sort and are not indented to be ultimate answers. Indeed, many appear to be rather one-sided, but the fact is that most answers deserve several pages to be adequately addressed. If you have any specific questions please email the editor for more information.