Imagine if former President Dwight Eisenhower ("Ike") had been around to advise President George W. Bush during the 2001 crisis, instead of Dick Cheney.
General Eisenhower ran for President in 1952 and assumed office in early 1953. He was conservative, but he was a calm conservative who was willing to leave most of the New Deal intact. He was anti-communist, but unlike many Republicans of his era he did not believe that Democrats were communists, or that it was impossible to negotiate or even cooperate with communist governments. After President Franklin Delano Roosevelt appointed him Supreme Commander of Allied Forces in the European theater during World War II, Eisenhower had worked with communists, including Joe Stalin himself, to defeat Nazi Germany in battle.
Senator Joe McCarthy, Ike's own vice-president Richard Nixon, and other Republicans (and quite a few democrats, notably John F. Kennedy and Hubert H. Humphrey) had made anti-Communism the center of both domestic and foreign policy. The Korean War was basically in a stalemate, with North Korea and the U.S. facing off near the 38th parallel, roughly where they had been when the war began. Red Scare politicians wanted Ike to conquer the whole peninsula.
Although the U.S. refused to officially recognize the then-popular new regime in China because it was communist, Eisenhower opened secret lines of negotiation. After a couple of false starts, sabotaged by South Korea's fascist leader Syngman Rhee, on July 27, 1953 a truce was signed.
Meanwhile the French were unable to muster sufficient military force to crush the Vietnamese independence movement (which had been pro-U.S. until Harry Truman decided to allow the French to re-colonialize Vietnam after World War II). They wanted Eisenhower to bomb the Vietnamese, and almost all of Eisenhower's advisors thought that was a good idea. But Eisenhower, and General Matthew Ridgeway, thought Vietnam was lousy terrain to fight on.
Eisenhower was a big-picture guy who was willing to let subordinates handle details, unlike most recent U.S. presidents. He understood that Communism had an appeal to some people; it was not just something imposed by Joe Stalin. He did not want to bleed America to death fighting peasant rebellions. He also understood that, even at a time when the U.S. economy was riding high (the only major rival at that time being communist Russia, the U.S.S.R.), military spending had a dark side for any economy.
Even so, Eisenhower allowed the French $385 million in military aid specifically for Vietnam, and the continued use of 200 U.S. Air Force advisors authorized by President Truman.
When Joe Stalin had died, Ike had said:
"The jet plane that roars over your head costs three-quarters of a million dollars. That is more money than a man earning ten thousand dollars a year is going to make in his lifetime. What world can afford this sort of thing for long? We are in an armaments race. Where will it lead? ... to robbing every person and nation on earth of the fruits of their own toil."
So here is what Ike would have told Bush: send in the CIA. Back them up with Special Forces if necessary. But don't increase the military budget, and don't get involved in a ground war in Asia.
Instead Bush listened to Dick Cheney and crew, the spiritual and mental descendents of Joe McCarthy and Richard Nixon. He enlarged the military budget and invented the Homeland Security boondoggle. At the same time he cut taxes on the highest income Americans to the lowest level since 1933, resulting in the highest annual budget deficits ever. Combined with the Clinton-era banking "reforms," this set the stage for the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression.
The thing was, because Americans saw General Eisenhower as one of the greatest military leaders of the era, he was able to resist pressure for military expenditures and unwinnable wars.
Now we are in the second term of the Barack Obama administration, and another weak President has neither the backbone nor the gravitas to do what is right for America. In 2006 U.S. citizens voted to end the war in Afghanistan. Obama bought peace with the Pentagon by staying at war with the Islamic world. He has extended the war to North Africa. He is even looking to evade his won 2014 deadline for Iraq.
Now "everyone" of importance in Washington, Democrat and Republican alike, believes that more economy-crippling military and homeland security spending is justified. Damn the free markets, what business people really want is guaranteed profit government contracts.
I like Barack Obama's speeches, mostly. When it comes to actually doing the job, I Like Ike.
Agree? Disagree? You can leave feedback below.
Note: The Eisenhower quote above is from page 807 of William Manchester's The Glory and the Dream, to which I am also indebted for many of the historic details used in this essay.
Showing posts with label Korea. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Korea. Show all posts
Wednesday, December 26, 2012
Thursday, August 23, 2012
Park Geun-hye, Queen Elizabeth, and King James
Park Geun-hye may be the next president of South Korea. Sixty years old this year, she has devoted her life to serving her country, and has never married. She sees herself as a conscious imitator of Queen Elizabeth of England, the famous Virgin Queen. Given that Korea is currently divided into northern and southern nation-states, another historical analogy jumps to mind.
When Elizabeth was Queen of England, Scotland, of north Britain if you will, was an independent nation. When she died in 1603 James VI was King of Scots. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots, had hoped to displace Elizabeth as Queen of England, and instead lost her head. James was distantly related to Elizabeth, and she was his godmother. She left James the English monarchy in her will, and so he became James I of England. Later Scotland and England were officially united as Great Britain.
South Korea was divided from North Korea after the defeat of Japan in World War II. A united Korean nation has been difficult to achieve over the ages. Korea is blessed and cursed by its position between China and Japan. This has helped Korea be one of the leading nations in technology and culture for most of its history. It has also made it a prize highly desired by both the Chinese (including their non-Han Chinese ruling groups, the Mongols and the Manchu) and the Japanese. In addition, it is mountainous, so it has always been easy to break up the country into rival regimes.
At least twice in history the Chinese tried to invade Japan from Korea. In 1905 the Japanese cut a deal with the U.S.: they would not meddle in our colony the Philippines, and we would assent to their incorporating Korea into imperial Japan.
While Koreans during the Japanese colonial period differed on what kind of government they would like to have, and who would head it, they all agreed that Korea should be independent. They knew that after World War I U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had called for the self-governance (national self-determination) of white (race) countries (hence Poland was created out of parts of Germany and Russia), but he did not push for decolonization, or even grant independence to the Philippines or Puerto Rico.
Nevertheless, as the Japanese started to lose World War II, plans were made for a united Korea (other European colonies in Asia had pretty much the same idea). American rhetoric seemed to favor those plans. But Harry Truman and his advisors did not trust the Japanese enemy, our Russian ally, or the Korean people. Rather than allowing the Japanese soldiers in Korea to ship back to Japan and let the Koreans set up a government, the U.S. decided to encourage the Russians to occupy northern Korea, to make sure the Japanese there were disarmed, while the U.S. did its best to occupy southern Korea and disarm the Japanese who had surrendered there. Frankly, the commonly told U.S. Fairy Tale is not believable. Clearly the Japanese troops in Korea intended to obey their Emperor and abandon Korea; neither U.S. nor Soviet troops were necessary.
Although Koreans almost managed to unite themselves in 1950, through a civil war which the U.S. backed South Korean regime lost, by the end of the Korean War the world again had to recognize two governments in the peninsula.
U.S. troops still occupy South Korea. North Korea is somewhat allied with China. Normally that would encourage an alliance between South Korea and Japan, but the U.S. alliance has replaced.
Park Geun-hye will need to find a James I to reunite the Koreas. Outside forces will pressure her against this. While officially China, Japan, Russia and the United States favor Korean reunification, in reality none of the these nations wants a strong, united Korea for a rival. While the population of a united Korea would only be about 73 million, with 48 million currently in the south and 25 million in the north. That is a tiny number of people compared to China, Japan, Russia, or the U.S., but considerably more than the 60 million of Britain. And Britain used to rule the world, not long ago.
Strangely, to the modern political viewpoint, an arranged marriage might be the best solution for reuniting Korea. Someone from the Park family would marry someone from the Kim family, and the offspring would represent the new united Korea. South Korea has had the benefit of at least a semblance of democratic elections, and the north Korean elite would have to learn the old trick of granting the appearance of self-government without surrendering real power.
I look to a united Korea as splendid member of the family of nations. Both North and South have excellent science establishments. They have the usual human issues to attend to, but they have proven they can contribute to the world. Getting U.S. troops out would help cut the U.S. federal budget deficit, provided they are decommissioned rather than redeployed. While Korea would probably want some sort of self-defense force, the only real defense would be good relations with neighbors.
See also Park Geun-hye at Wikipedia
When Elizabeth was Queen of England, Scotland, of north Britain if you will, was an independent nation. When she died in 1603 James VI was King of Scots. His mother, Mary Queen of Scots, had hoped to displace Elizabeth as Queen of England, and instead lost her head. James was distantly related to Elizabeth, and she was his godmother. She left James the English monarchy in her will, and so he became James I of England. Later Scotland and England were officially united as Great Britain.
South Korea was divided from North Korea after the defeat of Japan in World War II. A united Korean nation has been difficult to achieve over the ages. Korea is blessed and cursed by its position between China and Japan. This has helped Korea be one of the leading nations in technology and culture for most of its history. It has also made it a prize highly desired by both the Chinese (including their non-Han Chinese ruling groups, the Mongols and the Manchu) and the Japanese. In addition, it is mountainous, so it has always been easy to break up the country into rival regimes.
At least twice in history the Chinese tried to invade Japan from Korea. In 1905 the Japanese cut a deal with the U.S.: they would not meddle in our colony the Philippines, and we would assent to their incorporating Korea into imperial Japan.
While Koreans during the Japanese colonial period differed on what kind of government they would like to have, and who would head it, they all agreed that Korea should be independent. They knew that after World War I U.S. President Woodrow Wilson had called for the self-governance (national self-determination) of white (race) countries (hence Poland was created out of parts of Germany and Russia), but he did not push for decolonization, or even grant independence to the Philippines or Puerto Rico.
Nevertheless, as the Japanese started to lose World War II, plans were made for a united Korea (other European colonies in Asia had pretty much the same idea). American rhetoric seemed to favor those plans. But Harry Truman and his advisors did not trust the Japanese enemy, our Russian ally, or the Korean people. Rather than allowing the Japanese soldiers in Korea to ship back to Japan and let the Koreans set up a government, the U.S. decided to encourage the Russians to occupy northern Korea, to make sure the Japanese there were disarmed, while the U.S. did its best to occupy southern Korea and disarm the Japanese who had surrendered there. Frankly, the commonly told U.S. Fairy Tale is not believable. Clearly the Japanese troops in Korea intended to obey their Emperor and abandon Korea; neither U.S. nor Soviet troops were necessary.
Although Koreans almost managed to unite themselves in 1950, through a civil war which the U.S. backed South Korean regime lost, by the end of the Korean War the world again had to recognize two governments in the peninsula.
U.S. troops still occupy South Korea. North Korea is somewhat allied with China. Normally that would encourage an alliance between South Korea and Japan, but the U.S. alliance has replaced.
Park Geun-hye will need to find a James I to reunite the Koreas. Outside forces will pressure her against this. While officially China, Japan, Russia and the United States favor Korean reunification, in reality none of the these nations wants a strong, united Korea for a rival. While the population of a united Korea would only be about 73 million, with 48 million currently in the south and 25 million in the north. That is a tiny number of people compared to China, Japan, Russia, or the U.S., but considerably more than the 60 million of Britain. And Britain used to rule the world, not long ago.
Strangely, to the modern political viewpoint, an arranged marriage might be the best solution for reuniting Korea. Someone from the Park family would marry someone from the Kim family, and the offspring would represent the new united Korea. South Korea has had the benefit of at least a semblance of democratic elections, and the north Korean elite would have to learn the old trick of granting the appearance of self-government without surrendering real power.
I look to a united Korea as splendid member of the family of nations. Both North and South have excellent science establishments. They have the usual human issues to attend to, but they have proven they can contribute to the world. Getting U.S. troops out would help cut the U.S. federal budget deficit, provided they are decommissioned rather than redeployed. While Korea would probably want some sort of self-defense force, the only real defense would be good relations with neighbors.
See also Park Geun-hye at Wikipedia
Wednesday, April 11, 2012
Korea, What is Wrong?
The government of North Korea is trying to launch a satellite into orbit. Since by U.S. definition North Korea is evil, it is assumed by our corporate security state apparatus and their loyal followers that the launch is just a practice for an offensive, inter-continental ballistic missile with a nuclear warhead.
A little bit of historical review may put the matter in perspective. Despite having an advanced civilization, Korea has always been caught between two more powerful advanced civilizations, those of China and Japan. After the U.S. went on a bullying expedition to Japan in 1854 [See Commodore Perry and the Opening of Japan] the Japanese decided they had to modernize or be swallowed up like other Asian nations had been by imperialistic predators.
By then the predators were carving up their rival China, and so Japan took advantage of Chinese weakness to regain "stewardship" [my word choice] over Korea. This took three steps. After Japan won the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, China granted clear independence to Korea. Then Japan won the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, and Japan made Korea a protectorate. The U.S. went along with that because we had just massacred about 2 million people in the Philippine Islands and did not want an increasingly powerful Japan taking advantage of the situation there to gain control of U.S. sugar plantations there. [See U.S. Conquest of the Philippines]
Of course all along most Koreans wanted an independent nation, and multiple underground independence organizations existed. When World War II came along they became particularly hopeful. Their hopes were inflated by promises from the Allies that after Japan was defeated Korea would at last take its place among the world's independent nations.
After the Democratic Party of the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally (they had been trying to surrender conditionally for months), the Japanese military prepared to return to Japan from Korea and Manchukuo (Manchuria). The Korean independence organizations began talking about how a new Korea would be run. U.S. commercial interests, the Pentagon and Harry Truman did not see it that way. U.S. troops were rushed in, ostensibly to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops in Korea. Because Russian troops had been fighting in Manchuria, just north of Korea, the U.S. agreed that they could temporarily occupy the northern half of Korea.
Then the Russians and U.S. each decided that instead of allowing the Koreans to govern themselves in a unified country, the occupiers would pick winners and losers among the political groups in the regions they occupied. Korea was divided in half, which none of the Korean nationalists liked. But Korean communists got control of the north, and U.S. puppets got control of the south. Moderate, pro-democracy groups were shunted aside in both the north and the south.
When the Russians and Americans finally withdrew their troops, the communists in the north decided to re-unite the country. They easily won a civil war with the fascists in South Korea. But that was politically unacceptable to Harry Truman. The U.S. invaded South Korea. We had the blessings of the United Nations, but then again the U.N. had been set up to further the agendas of the U.S., and the French and British empires.
The Viceroy of Japan, Douglas MacArthur, had the Koreans whipped, but made the mistake of moving to invade China to re-establish war lord Chiang Kai-Shek as its, well, war lord. The Chinese reminded Douglas that white people don't automatically win wars (MacArthur had executed a couple of Japanese generals as war criminals for the crime of having defeated him in battle back in World War II.) After a lot of people died, the U.S. ended up with just half of Korea. The Chinese withdrew from North Korea, but the U.S. occupiers stayed.
So you have to ask yourself, even if you are an American, who is in the wrong here? The foreign invaders, the Americans, or the natives? Are North Koreans, or Koreans of any kind, sitting armed to the teeth on America's borders? I know of none. But U.S. troops, armed to the teeth, sit on North Korea's border. Has Korea ever invaded the United States? No, but the United States has invaded Korea.
I admit the communists have made a mess of the situation, but then they were put in a very weird situation. Their country was torn asunder, and most communist soldiers and party members were killed by U.S. troops during the Korean War. In the south communists and even non-communists who did not walk right were simply rounded up and slaughtered. So Kim Il-sung and a bunch of idiots started bossing Koreans around. They had to allocate a disproportionate share of their economy to defending their southern border. There was nothing inherent in communism that led the nation to economic disaster. China's Communist Party has proven that communism can develop an economy just fine.
So Kim Jong-un is now supreme leader. Maybe, instead of being just an idiot with an inheritance, he is smarter than we think. Maybe with his advisors they can figure out a way to make North Korea livable. My point would be that the U.S. has no business there. Let the Koreans in the south work out their future with the Koreans in the north as best they can.
As to nuclear weapons, again I remind you that only one political party on earth has ever used them, and that party, the Democratic Party, used them against large numbers of civilians living in two urban areas. If there were a world government interested in justice and peace (I don't think the U.N. constitutes such a government), its priority would be to take atomic weapons away from the U.S. first. And send all U.S. troops home. And try Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their crews for war crimes.
See also: The U.S. Conquest of Korea
A little bit of historical review may put the matter in perspective. Despite having an advanced civilization, Korea has always been caught between two more powerful advanced civilizations, those of China and Japan. After the U.S. went on a bullying expedition to Japan in 1854 [See Commodore Perry and the Opening of Japan] the Japanese decided they had to modernize or be swallowed up like other Asian nations had been by imperialistic predators.
By then the predators were carving up their rival China, and so Japan took advantage of Chinese weakness to regain "stewardship" [my word choice] over Korea. This took three steps. After Japan won the Sino-Japanese War in 1895, China granted clear independence to Korea. Then Japan won the Russo-Japanese War in 1905, and Japan made Korea a protectorate. The U.S. went along with that because we had just massacred about 2 million people in the Philippine Islands and did not want an increasingly powerful Japan taking advantage of the situation there to gain control of U.S. sugar plantations there. [See U.S. Conquest of the Philippines]
Of course all along most Koreans wanted an independent nation, and multiple underground independence organizations existed. When World War II came along they became particularly hopeful. Their hopes were inflated by promises from the Allies that after Japan was defeated Korea would at last take its place among the world's independent nations.
After the Democratic Party of the United States dropped two atomic bombs on Japan, and the Japanese surrendered unconditionally (they had been trying to surrender conditionally for months), the Japanese military prepared to return to Japan from Korea and Manchukuo (Manchuria). The Korean independence organizations began talking about how a new Korea would be run. U.S. commercial interests, the Pentagon and Harry Truman did not see it that way. U.S. troops were rushed in, ostensibly to accept the surrender of the Japanese troops in Korea. Because Russian troops had been fighting in Manchuria, just north of Korea, the U.S. agreed that they could temporarily occupy the northern half of Korea.
Then the Russians and U.S. each decided that instead of allowing the Koreans to govern themselves in a unified country, the occupiers would pick winners and losers among the political groups in the regions they occupied. Korea was divided in half, which none of the Korean nationalists liked. But Korean communists got control of the north, and U.S. puppets got control of the south. Moderate, pro-democracy groups were shunted aside in both the north and the south.
When the Russians and Americans finally withdrew their troops, the communists in the north decided to re-unite the country. They easily won a civil war with the fascists in South Korea. But that was politically unacceptable to Harry Truman. The U.S. invaded South Korea. We had the blessings of the United Nations, but then again the U.N. had been set up to further the agendas of the U.S., and the French and British empires.
The Viceroy of Japan, Douglas MacArthur, had the Koreans whipped, but made the mistake of moving to invade China to re-establish war lord Chiang Kai-Shek as its, well, war lord. The Chinese reminded Douglas that white people don't automatically win wars (MacArthur had executed a couple of Japanese generals as war criminals for the crime of having defeated him in battle back in World War II.) After a lot of people died, the U.S. ended up with just half of Korea. The Chinese withdrew from North Korea, but the U.S. occupiers stayed.
So you have to ask yourself, even if you are an American, who is in the wrong here? The foreign invaders, the Americans, or the natives? Are North Koreans, or Koreans of any kind, sitting armed to the teeth on America's borders? I know of none. But U.S. troops, armed to the teeth, sit on North Korea's border. Has Korea ever invaded the United States? No, but the United States has invaded Korea.
I admit the communists have made a mess of the situation, but then they were put in a very weird situation. Their country was torn asunder, and most communist soldiers and party members were killed by U.S. troops during the Korean War. In the south communists and even non-communists who did not walk right were simply rounded up and slaughtered. So Kim Il-sung and a bunch of idiots started bossing Koreans around. They had to allocate a disproportionate share of their economy to defending their southern border. There was nothing inherent in communism that led the nation to economic disaster. China's Communist Party has proven that communism can develop an economy just fine.
So Kim Jong-un is now supreme leader. Maybe, instead of being just an idiot with an inheritance, he is smarter than we think. Maybe with his advisors they can figure out a way to make North Korea livable. My point would be that the U.S. has no business there. Let the Koreans in the south work out their future with the Koreans in the north as best they can.
As to nuclear weapons, again I remind you that only one political party on earth has ever used them, and that party, the Democratic Party, used them against large numbers of civilians living in two urban areas. If there were a world government interested in justice and peace (I don't think the U.N. constitutes such a government), its priority would be to take atomic weapons away from the U.S. first. And send all U.S. troops home. And try Barack Obama, George W. Bush and their crews for war crimes.
See also: The U.S. Conquest of Korea
Sunday, January 24, 2010
Okinawa, Japan, and China
At the end of World War II, the actions of the United States of America proved that much of Japanese propaganda about the USA had been true. Not only was Japan occupied, but the U.S. refused to support independence for other Asian nations. Under the scheme devised largely by U.S. and British leaders, China was to be ruled by a coalition of warlords headed by Chiang Kai-shek, an American puppet. South Korea was occupied by U.S. troops who installed a right-wing puppet there. The French were encouraged to reoccupy Vietnam. The Dutch went on another of their murderous rampages in Indonesia. Of the nations granted independence by the Japanese during World War II, only Burma was able to retain its independence.
To this day the Japanese government has never has quite been able to stick up for itself and become independent. That seems to be changing.
If the Japanese no longer want a U.S. military base in Okinawa, the U.S. should just withdraw.
After World War II, the Cold War began almost immediately. Although the U.S.S.R. (Russia) soon withdrew from Manchuria, turning it over to Chiang Kai-shek, and from North Korea, the U.S. kept up an imperialist posture. Japan, so recently an enemy, was well-treated because President Truman and General MacArthur wanted to keep make it an ally against the Russian communists. When China was finally united and independent under their native Communist Party's leadership, the U.S. really panicked. China was not quite united because the U.S. used a fleet of war ships to protect Chiang Kai-shek's last citadel, Formosa (now Taiwan).
Today, however, the old communist/capitalist divide has largely given way to new alignments. The Japanese have lived peacefully since World War II. The Chinese have seen some battles, but seem content within their traditional borders. Most East Asian nations have prospered better than most of the world in the last two decades.
China and Japan appear to be ready to set aside their World War II era quarrels. Russia is not much of a threat to anyone in the Far East.
It is time for America to withdraw its troops and war ships from Asia. This would allow all Asian nations to spend less on their military; it would allow the U.S. to spend less on its military.
We should encourage the unification of Taiwan and mainland China (it really is none of our business; it is an internal Chinese matter). We need to close our bases in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. These bases threaten Asian nations and destabilize the region. They are relics from a bygone era. Barack Obama might want to use this opportunity to earn his Nobel Peace Prize.
Our governments all need to focus on the prosperity of the people and on the grave environmental issues that confront all the species on this planet.
To this day the Japanese government has never has quite been able to stick up for itself and become independent. That seems to be changing.
If the Japanese no longer want a U.S. military base in Okinawa, the U.S. should just withdraw.
After World War II, the Cold War began almost immediately. Although the U.S.S.R. (Russia) soon withdrew from Manchuria, turning it over to Chiang Kai-shek, and from North Korea, the U.S. kept up an imperialist posture. Japan, so recently an enemy, was well-treated because President Truman and General MacArthur wanted to keep make it an ally against the Russian communists. When China was finally united and independent under their native Communist Party's leadership, the U.S. really panicked. China was not quite united because the U.S. used a fleet of war ships to protect Chiang Kai-shek's last citadel, Formosa (now Taiwan).
Today, however, the old communist/capitalist divide has largely given way to new alignments. The Japanese have lived peacefully since World War II. The Chinese have seen some battles, but seem content within their traditional borders. Most East Asian nations have prospered better than most of the world in the last two decades.
China and Japan appear to be ready to set aside their World War II era quarrels. Russia is not much of a threat to anyone in the Far East.
It is time for America to withdraw its troops and war ships from Asia. This would allow all Asian nations to spend less on their military; it would allow the U.S. to spend less on its military.
We should encourage the unification of Taiwan and mainland China (it really is none of our business; it is an internal Chinese matter). We need to close our bases in Japan, Korea and the Philippines. These bases threaten Asian nations and destabilize the region. They are relics from a bygone era. Barack Obama might want to use this opportunity to earn his Nobel Peace Prize.
Our governments all need to focus on the prosperity of the people and on the grave environmental issues that confront all the species on this planet.
Monday, September 10, 2007
Korea: Brotherhood of War Review
Speaking of quagmires (in Iraq), most people forget we (United States citizens) are still bogged down in Korea. We've been in that bog since 1946. Even though South Korea is one of the richest nations in the world and has taken many jobs away from American workers, we still pay a small fortune in taxes each year to keep American troops stationed there. How did this come about, and is change possible?
Most Americans have seen films set in the Korean War. U.S. Soldiers are the good guys, communist North Koreans or Chinese are the bad guys. Some films of this genre are Pork Chop Hill, The Bridge at Toko Ri, Retreat Hell, Men in War and Mash. The historical context is simple: bad people (communists) attacked good people (South Koreans) and the U.S. cavalry rode in to the rescue, with much heroic sacrifice.
I have been studying Korean history lately, and find it fascinating. The Korean film industry makes first class films these days, and one of the best I have seen so far is Brotherhood of War (Tae Guk Gi). We see the war through the eyes of two brothers in South Korea who are "drafted" when the war breaks out (they are captured and forced to fight the North Koreans). They are apolitical; their concerns were about the economic survival of their family. As they fight and fellow soldiers are blown to bits around them (beware, it is hyper-real, along the line of Private Ryan) the older brother becomes a vehement anti-communist. The younger brother toughens up into a good soldier, but loses it after watching his squad murder POWs in cold blood.
What is only slightly unbelievable is that such animosity between the north and south Koreans would have existed in 1950, only four years after an occupation by allies Russia and the U.S. ended a five-decade long occupation by Japan. In 1945 most Koreans were united in opposing the Japanese and believing that if Japan lost the war Korea would be "free at last." The brutal occupation and political suppression (the U.S. had communists, socialists, nationalists, and anarchists suppressed in the south; the Russians promoted communists, who quickly put the screws on everyone else in the north) of 1946 probably pleased very few Koreans.
I thought the war was going to be just another propaganda film, glorifying the South and denouncing the North, but it grew more complex as the plot unravelled. By the end it was hard to sympathise with anyone but the dead.
The acting was top-notch, as was the directing. The pace good and I had only occasional difficulty keeping track of the characters. Brotherhood of War can be watched by war movie enthusiasts, but mostly it illustrates the old adage that war is hell.
I think Korea could be reunited. I believe North Korea has no foreign troops helping it. South Korea is a rich country. It should defend itself until reunification.
For more information on Korea see my Korea page.
For more of my film reviews see my Film page.
Most Americans have seen films set in the Korean War. U.S. Soldiers are the good guys, communist North Koreans or Chinese are the bad guys. Some films of this genre are Pork Chop Hill, The Bridge at Toko Ri, Retreat Hell, Men in War and Mash. The historical context is simple: bad people (communists) attacked good people (South Koreans) and the U.S. cavalry rode in to the rescue, with much heroic sacrifice.
I have been studying Korean history lately, and find it fascinating. The Korean film industry makes first class films these days, and one of the best I have seen so far is Brotherhood of War (Tae Guk Gi). We see the war through the eyes of two brothers in South Korea who are "drafted" when the war breaks out (they are captured and forced to fight the North Koreans). They are apolitical; their concerns were about the economic survival of their family. As they fight and fellow soldiers are blown to bits around them (beware, it is hyper-real, along the line of Private Ryan) the older brother becomes a vehement anti-communist. The younger brother toughens up into a good soldier, but loses it after watching his squad murder POWs in cold blood.
What is only slightly unbelievable is that such animosity between the north and south Koreans would have existed in 1950, only four years after an occupation by allies Russia and the U.S. ended a five-decade long occupation by Japan. In 1945 most Koreans were united in opposing the Japanese and believing that if Japan lost the war Korea would be "free at last." The brutal occupation and political suppression (the U.S. had communists, socialists, nationalists, and anarchists suppressed in the south; the Russians promoted communists, who quickly put the screws on everyone else in the north) of 1946 probably pleased very few Koreans.
I thought the war was going to be just another propaganda film, glorifying the South and denouncing the North, but it grew more complex as the plot unravelled. By the end it was hard to sympathise with anyone but the dead.
The acting was top-notch, as was the directing. The pace good and I had only occasional difficulty keeping track of the characters. Brotherhood of War can be watched by war movie enthusiasts, but mostly it illustrates the old adage that war is hell.
I think Korea could be reunited. I believe North Korea has no foreign troops helping it. South Korea is a rich country. It should defend itself until reunification.
For more information on Korea see my Korea page.
For more of my film reviews see my Film page.
Friday, May 11, 2007
Korea: Time for a U.S. New Policy
When most Americans think about Korea the first thing they think about is North Korea, with its likely atomic bombs, definite missiles, and reputation for being governed by an evil genius. Second on the list is South Korea; few American households don't have at least one device made by Samsung (we have 2 that I know of). Third is probably the Korean War, a bit of cold war history that lingers until today because there are still U.S. troops in South Korea.
I knew very little about Korea six months ago beyond those basics. I began thinking about it when I outlined my The U.S. War Against Asia writing project. I wondered how the Korean War (we Americans call it that because it is the war in Korea we were involved in; Korea has been involved in many more) fit into the big picture. At our local Point Arena library I found a book on Korea that indicated the Korean independence movement was happy to see the Japanese go after World War II, but did not want the Russians, Americans, or Chinese to intervene. I am looking into what extent it is fair to say that the U.S. illegally invaded Korea after World War II. Preliminary results are that it is pretty darned fair to say that.
Knowing the past can give perspective on the current situation, but in itself almost never presents solutions. It appears that in the north of Korea there is a dictatorial, impoverished communist nation, but there is no foreign occupying power. North Korea has China and Russia for allies. Both are geographically close enough that they could send in troops to either aid or subvert the current regime on short notice. South Korea is still occupied by U.S. troops, but whatever the historical origin of that fact, most South Korean citizens don't want to be united by being subjugated to North Korea. South Korea is one of the world's more economically prosperous countries. But sacrifices have been made to achieve that. Friends who have traveled to Korea report levels of air pollution, for instance, that are considered unacceptable in the U.S. Dissidents in South Korea are not very happy with the government's subservience to industrial corporations and their western clients.
Self determination is a good process to fall back upon when not everyone can agree on exactly how things should be. But there are some points of agreement, I believe, among reasonable people in Korea and with those of us outside who care to take a position.
First of all, Korea is a nation. No nation should have to be involuntarily subjugated to some other nation. No nation should have to suffer military occupation or even military pressure.
Second, Korea's division into North and South Korea is artificial. It was created by the needs of cold war rivals, not by the needs of the Korean people.
Third, Korea has a right to self defense. Korea has been invaded in the past by Japan, China, the Mongols, Russia, and the United States. It has been pressured by other Western powers. A self-determined Korea should be able to choose to keep nuclear weapons for self defense as long as its traditional predators have them available.
I believe that most people do not like to live under a dictatorship. I also believe that most people don't want to be second-class economic citizens, even in a democracy.
So I think the ball is in the U.S. court. The first step to getting Korea to where it deserves to be would be the withdrawal of the U.S. military. Since we have bases nearby, in Japan and the Philippines, we would not be at any particular disadvantage compared to Japan, China, and Russia.
At that point we need to see the kind of process in North Korea that brought other communist dictatorships to an end, but without the corruption. Allowing South Korea's predatory capitalists to grab what is of value in North Korea is a bad idea.
Once Korea is a united, self-determining nation, I would hope that the Korean people would strive to be model global citizens, rather than ardent nationalists.
For more information on Korea try:
Basic Korea information at Wikipedia
South Korea (Republic of Korea) official site
North Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) official news site
Korean Friendship Society (adds insight even if you don't want to be friendly with the North Koreans)
III Publishing home page
I knew very little about Korea six months ago beyond those basics. I began thinking about it when I outlined my The U.S. War Against Asia writing project. I wondered how the Korean War (we Americans call it that because it is the war in Korea we were involved in; Korea has been involved in many more) fit into the big picture. At our local Point Arena library I found a book on Korea that indicated the Korean independence movement was happy to see the Japanese go after World War II, but did not want the Russians, Americans, or Chinese to intervene. I am looking into what extent it is fair to say that the U.S. illegally invaded Korea after World War II. Preliminary results are that it is pretty darned fair to say that.
Knowing the past can give perspective on the current situation, but in itself almost never presents solutions. It appears that in the north of Korea there is a dictatorial, impoverished communist nation, but there is no foreign occupying power. North Korea has China and Russia for allies. Both are geographically close enough that they could send in troops to either aid or subvert the current regime on short notice. South Korea is still occupied by U.S. troops, but whatever the historical origin of that fact, most South Korean citizens don't want to be united by being subjugated to North Korea. South Korea is one of the world's more economically prosperous countries. But sacrifices have been made to achieve that. Friends who have traveled to Korea report levels of air pollution, for instance, that are considered unacceptable in the U.S. Dissidents in South Korea are not very happy with the government's subservience to industrial corporations and their western clients.
Self determination is a good process to fall back upon when not everyone can agree on exactly how things should be. But there are some points of agreement, I believe, among reasonable people in Korea and with those of us outside who care to take a position.
First of all, Korea is a nation. No nation should have to be involuntarily subjugated to some other nation. No nation should have to suffer military occupation or even military pressure.
Second, Korea's division into North and South Korea is artificial. It was created by the needs of cold war rivals, not by the needs of the Korean people.
Third, Korea has a right to self defense. Korea has been invaded in the past by Japan, China, the Mongols, Russia, and the United States. It has been pressured by other Western powers. A self-determined Korea should be able to choose to keep nuclear weapons for self defense as long as its traditional predators have them available.
I believe that most people do not like to live under a dictatorship. I also believe that most people don't want to be second-class economic citizens, even in a democracy.
So I think the ball is in the U.S. court. The first step to getting Korea to where it deserves to be would be the withdrawal of the U.S. military. Since we have bases nearby, in Japan and the Philippines, we would not be at any particular disadvantage compared to Japan, China, and Russia.
At that point we need to see the kind of process in North Korea that brought other communist dictatorships to an end, but without the corruption. Allowing South Korea's predatory capitalists to grab what is of value in North Korea is a bad idea.
Once Korea is a united, self-determining nation, I would hope that the Korean people would strive to be model global citizens, rather than ardent nationalists.
For more information on Korea try:
Basic Korea information at Wikipedia
South Korea (Republic of Korea) official site
North Korea (Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea) official news site
Korean Friendship Society (adds insight even if you don't want to be friendly with the North Koreans)
III Publishing home page
Tuesday, April 24, 2007
Korea, Buddhism and Violence
I am writing a "book" tentatively titled The U.S. War Against Asia. I have already drafted chapters on that you can read on Japan and the Philippines. I am currently drafting a chapter on Hawaii and other island territories conquered by the United States, but looking down the road I realized I did not know very much about Korean history or U.S. involvement there. After some preliminary research confirming that the U.S. invaded Korea after World War II, against the wishes of the Korean indpendence movement, I decided to buy a book on the subject. I bought A New History of Korea by Ki-baik Lee, used, for a pittance. It is translated by Edward W. Wagner with Edward J. Shultz, published in English by Harvard University Press, and it is a beautifully bound book with exquisite endpapers.
I have read the first few chapters now, plus the bits on the independence movement before and after World War II. I have been rewarded by some information about another area of interest, the relationship of religion to violence and war. I had noted over my years of reading history that Buddhists, and Buddhist sects, had been very involved in violent feuds and in wars. I also suspected that, like Christianity, Buddhism was spread by getting powerful men to adopt it to be enforced upon their subjects as a means of social control. But I have no notes to use to start writing about that.
In the U.S. Buddhism is often portrayed as a peaceful religion, in opposition to Christianity. Educated people in the U.S. tend to know about European history, and hence about religious wars. But we tend to be ignorant of Asian history, and hence of wars associated with asiatic religions.
I don't doubt that many Buddhists, like many Christians, are sincere advocates and practitioners of peace. But our evaluation of Buddhism, overall, should be based on facts, not wishful thinking. I have some problems with Buddhist philosophy which I will take up elsewhere. Here I am just going to note some indicators of Buddhism from Korean history up to about 800 A.D.
In the early 600s the famed Korean Buddhist monk Wongwang laid out five secular injunctions for young men: loyalty to the king; respect for parents; friendship; to never retreat in battle; refrain from wanton killing [Ki-baik Lee p. 55]. The battle-hardened monk was already a phenomena in China; Tibetan monks would terrorize much of Asia from time to time; and in Korea we see little evidence of pacifism. But there were many Buddhist sects, just as there were many Christian ones; maybe some found the practice of war to be against Buddhism.
Buddhism arrived in stages from China, but also evolved inside Korea. But "In all of the Three Kingdoms the principal initative for the acceptance of Buddhism was taken by the royal houses" [Ki-baik Lee p. 59]
The most popular form of Buddhism, Pure Land, was designed as opium for the masses. It said that life is suffering (a Buddhist tenet), it is a "sea of torment" but that simply by chanting the name of Buddha (Nammu Amit'a Pul) daily, after death rebirth would take place in the paradise called Pure Land. Meanwhile the aristocracy was not suffering; they were living very nicely off the labor of the peasants. They had more complex versions of Buddhism to entertain their minds.
It should be noted that the arrival of Buddhism in Korea did not lessen the steady drumbeat of war that existed pre-Buddhism. Nor did it seem to increase it. The states warred when it seemed advantageous, just as they did under the Catholic Church in Europe during the same era.
As I write more on Buddhism I'll centralize links to the essays at my Buddhism page.
See also my Nonviolence and Its Violent Consequences for my views on reducing violence and war.
IIIPublishing.com
I have read the first few chapters now, plus the bits on the independence movement before and after World War II. I have been rewarded by some information about another area of interest, the relationship of religion to violence and war. I had noted over my years of reading history that Buddhists, and Buddhist sects, had been very involved in violent feuds and in wars. I also suspected that, like Christianity, Buddhism was spread by getting powerful men to adopt it to be enforced upon their subjects as a means of social control. But I have no notes to use to start writing about that.
In the U.S. Buddhism is often portrayed as a peaceful religion, in opposition to Christianity. Educated people in the U.S. tend to know about European history, and hence about religious wars. But we tend to be ignorant of Asian history, and hence of wars associated with asiatic religions.
I don't doubt that many Buddhists, like many Christians, are sincere advocates and practitioners of peace. But our evaluation of Buddhism, overall, should be based on facts, not wishful thinking. I have some problems with Buddhist philosophy which I will take up elsewhere. Here I am just going to note some indicators of Buddhism from Korean history up to about 800 A.D.
In the early 600s the famed Korean Buddhist monk Wongwang laid out five secular injunctions for young men: loyalty to the king; respect for parents; friendship; to never retreat in battle; refrain from wanton killing [Ki-baik Lee p. 55]. The battle-hardened monk was already a phenomena in China; Tibetan monks would terrorize much of Asia from time to time; and in Korea we see little evidence of pacifism. But there were many Buddhist sects, just as there were many Christian ones; maybe some found the practice of war to be against Buddhism.
Buddhism arrived in stages from China, but also evolved inside Korea. But "In all of the Three Kingdoms the principal initative for the acceptance of Buddhism was taken by the royal houses" [Ki-baik Lee p. 59]
The most popular form of Buddhism, Pure Land, was designed as opium for the masses. It said that life is suffering (a Buddhist tenet), it is a "sea of torment" but that simply by chanting the name of Buddha (Nammu Amit'a Pul) daily, after death rebirth would take place in the paradise called Pure Land. Meanwhile the aristocracy was not suffering; they were living very nicely off the labor of the peasants. They had more complex versions of Buddhism to entertain their minds.
It should be noted that the arrival of Buddhism in Korea did not lessen the steady drumbeat of war that existed pre-Buddhism. Nor did it seem to increase it. The states warred when it seemed advantageous, just as they did under the Catholic Church in Europe during the same era.
As I write more on Buddhism I'll centralize links to the essays at my Buddhism page.
See also my Nonviolence and Its Violent Consequences for my views on reducing violence and war.
IIIPublishing.com
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
