July 27, 2003 By MUN YOL TI
ICHON, South Korea Today is the 50th anniversary of the cease-fire that ended the
Korean War. The division of the peninsula by two "liberation" armies - both of which seemed to hold it in no special favor - was an unwelcome gift thrust upon the Korean people, still dazed by the emotions of liberation from Japan in 1945. The intense nuclear anxieties on the Korean Peninsula now demonstrate the lingering effects of this gift.
The regimes imposed by the Soviet Union and the United States on North and South Korea at the end of the Second World War evolved quite differently - and not necessarily in the way Americans assume they did.
One side, thanks to a shrewd, quick-witted guardian, got what it was promised (the North). But the other side, owing to the obtuseness and confusion of its imperial benefactor, failed to develop into the strong democracy it was expected to become.
The Soviets, who had been thwarted by nationalistic sentiments while trying to export the socialist revolution to Eastern Europe in the 1920's, immediately handed North Korea over to the group led by Kim Il Sung and withdrew, leaving no military administration behind. As a result, Kim seized power without serious damage being done to his nationalistic credentials. What's more, the rapid creation of a system of one-party rule formed a good basis for the idolization of Kim Il Sung. For just as the Japanese had replaced Korea's Yi dynasty with their emperor in 1910, Kim Il Sung took the throne left empty by the Japanese emperor, who had been banished by the Soviet troops.
In comparison with what happened in the North, South Korea's search for its proper role was chaotic and drawn out. The American forces arrived as liberators - yet the military government they established in 1945 resembled the heavy-handed one the United States imposed on the Philippines after the Spanish-American War in 1898.
Without regard for the nationalistic feelings among Koreans, the military administration put people who had collaborated with the Japanese in official positions. Only after three years of questionable military rule did the United States approve the establishment of an independent government in South Korea.
Those three years - from 1945 to 1948 - did lasting damage (in the name of democracy), bringing about at least two changes in the consciousness of South Koreans.
First, the idea of a monarchy was completely demolished. While the other East Asian kingdoms saw a restoration of their monarchies after the Second World War, in South Korea the topic was never properly debated. Had a new monarchy been created - or had it even been discussed fully - South Koreans would have had an outlet for their nationalistic sentiments.
Second, there was among South Koreans an unrealistic level of belief in and hope for freedom of expression and thought. (Except, of course, when it came to discussing a monarchy.) As opposed to the North, the government in the South was obliged to permit every kind of political party in the name of democratic pluralism.
These two factors set the stage for the Korean War. In South Korea, the lack of a strong leader and the excessive openness of society enabled the country's Communists to grow stronger and stronger. The chaos they created, the acts of terrorism they committed, made civil war inevitable.
And here we are, half a century later. What has changed? What has stayed the same? North Korea still maintains its hereditary system of rule without any dissent. It continues along its appointed path. South Korea, on the other hand, is struggling to find itself. I have the feeling, if I may exaggerate only slightly, that we are returning to the anxieties we felt before the Korean War.
These anxieties are particularly evident in the vicious battles between left and right in South Korea over reunification and political and economic reform. With greater and greater frequency, demagogues on both sides identify their opponents as evil.
These anxieties are apparent, too, in the widespread and intense anti-American feeling among Koreans. Anti-Americanism has always been around, but until recently it has usually been embraced by a minority only. When we see the lack of outrage among South Korean students at the fatal shooting of five of their number by the North Korean Navy - a contrast to the repeated calls for justice for the two girls killed by American soldiers driving a tank - we must assume there are changes in thinking among these students that go beyond simple nationalistic feelings.
We may never understand why America committed troops to the Korean Peninsula in September 1945. And we may never know, truly, why those troops have stayed here since. But I think we can say with some certainty that America never expected to find itself in its present situation in South Korea, and in particular to be treated as an enemy.
The problem of American policy toward Korea has been endlessly debated and analyzed. Still, if there is anything to add it is this: the American perspective on Korea has changed little since the end of the 19th century. As John King Fairbank,
the historian, made clear in "East Asia: Tradition and Transformation," in the Pacific War America fought Japan for China; in the Korean War, it fought China for Japan.
When I first read these words roughly 20 years ago I failed to catch their full significance, but over time this sentence revealed to me the American perspective on Korea. Namely, even though America's young people fought and shed blood on Korean soil, Korea was not a part of the American consciousness. For America, Korea has always been understood as a part of China or a part of Japan.
It was the same when it came to the armistice. There were more than 3.5 million victims of the Korean War. One in 10Koreans was killed or wounded; one in three was forced to experience the agony of living separated from family, in North or South. Yet when the armistice was signed, although China was there with its North Korean ally (having replaced the Russians), there was no place for Korea. The South Korean representative was the American general acting as commander in chief of the United Nations forces; no South Korean representative was present.
It seems that still now, 50 years later, nothing much has changed. At the recent Beijing talks on the North Korean nuclear crisis, Korea, especially South Korea, was absent. China met North Korea, and America, to discuss nuclear disarmament on the Korean peninsula, but I wonder if even there America, while recognizing the existence of North Korea, did not consider it to be part of China.
There is no more effective way for foreigners to provoke Koreans than to view Korea as part of China or part of Japan. Naturally, from this standpoint it's difficult for Americans to expect a positive response from Korea. Although it is late in the game, America must make space for Korea, and especially South Korea, in its consciousness. In East Asia there is in addition to China and Japan, Korea. A Korea distinct and separate.
Mun Yol Yi is author of ''Our Twisted Hero,'' a novel. This article was translated by Bruce Fulton, Ju-Chan Fulton and Brother Anthony from the Korean.
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/27/opinion/27YI.html?ex=1060427516&ei=1&en=9fc85c83ba3ad67f