I recently noticed these beauties on a student's motorbike as I walked back to my office from class. The first thing I thought was, of course, "Fantastic. Another total English disaster" and I took a couple of pictures. After that I started to think about the mad cow protests of 2008. It seems much longer ago than that. I remember my wife told me at the time "Korean people are quick to boiling (sic) and quick to calm down". In retrospect it really looks like a storm in a tea cup.
Later, following a link on Korean Rum Diary, I read this letter to the Korea Times asking why there has not been a comparable response to the Cheonan disaster
koreatimesletter . The writer does repeat his point about a hundred and fifty times, but the question he poses is a tough one for politically active Koreans. The simple answer is probably not that Koreans hate America more than North Korea, but that they are more scared of North Korea. However, this attitude does make some of the more hysterical reactions in 2008 look a little bit silly. It also suggests the underlying anti Americanism/xenephobia of the protests.
I think alot of commentators may have missed the point about the protests. Of course, it is never nice to be accused of selling infected meat, but focusing on irrational CJD scaremongering (tampons infected with CJD!) and Anti-Americanism ("I'm from America", says the Mad Cow!) can obscure the real reasons, and even justifications for, the protest.
The first point to make is that the government under Lee Myung Bak is not exactly playing the political game gently. It seems quite brazen about its contempt for popular opinion (
link ), the independent media (
link )and trade union organisations (
link ).
The aggressive prosecution of the previous president was old style Korean politics at it's worst (a traditional Korean expression claims 'Dust will rise from anyone if you beat them hard enough') and helped to destroy a man who, for the most part, behaved like a democrat in office. The reinstatement of the head of Samsung was an absolute scandal, and would have been percieved as such in countries where the 'national interest' is not a get out of jail clause for scoundrels with enough money (
link ). And- guess what?- a huge public gathering took place in Seoul a few weeks ago with no interference of any kind from the police. Why? because they were Christians. Nothing political about that, right? Except the president is a prominent member of some tithing evangelical Church, invites ministers to the Blue House to pray with him and has provoked conflict with the Buddhist community since he came to power (
link ).
So is it right for the organized opposition to seize on and exploit an emotive issue to destablise his government? Although the bogus nature of the health claims will diminish their impact in the long run, the success of the candlelight protests point the way to future demonstrations against the government. 'Politics is the squalid scaffolding of more serious matters'(Tawney) and to criticise the methods used by those behind the protests as unfair or irresponsible is, frankly, naive.
I often wonder whether my American acquaintances and the online commentators I have read at the Marmot's hole etc. see politics as a college ethics class on a grand scale. The extent to which they criticised the protesters and backed the government crackdown on the protests surprised me. Their comments seemed to suggest an unhealthy obsession with balance in political debate, reflecting the 'checks and balances' which apply to their durable political constitution, but not to American economic or social life. "On the one hand the government is wrong for this, on the other hand the protesters are behaving badly... argument A, argument B, conclusion, essay finished.". I think this government shows worryingly undemocratic tendencies and getting people out on the streets in large numbers is a real and effective counterbalance to them. I would argue that the dialectic is a better model than consensus politics in explaining how change occurs, especially in Korea.
The second point is about free trade. If there were health and safety concerns about Korean beef, I would expect American or European consumers to be worried and their governments to consider import restrictions. Clearly the vast majority of Korean consumers were against importing American beef in 2008. However, as part of a Free Trade Deal with the US, Korea is supposed to open its markets- and it is the elites who support the government who stand to gain most from this deal. Whether the benefits of open markets outweigh the costs in the long run or not, easing import restrictions on American beef that year wasn't exactly popular democracy in action. The beef protests were perhaps as much a flashpoint as a flash in the pan.
Korea's development flies in the face of neo-liberal dogma. This country developed as a result of big business and government working together to invest heavily in protected industries. With this historical background it should not be assumed that unrestricted free trade is the best or only way forward for the Korean economy, or that it will improve ordinary Korean's lives. The main benificiaries of more open markets will be the export orientated Chaebols and those that work for them. Consumers may pay lower prices for imports in the long run (assuming the supermarkets/distributors pass on the savings) but Koreans with less economic power are probably going to suffer as a result of increased foreign competition. Part of the reason why the US is pushing the FTA so hard is to deal with Korea's unfair advantage in American markets. If the balance is to be redressed in America's favour in some areas, there will be losers in Korea. The general scepticism in the ROK about free trade is, to a certain extent, understandable and the 'No FTA' campaign that accompanied the beef protests cannot be explained away as a health scare.
I am fully aware that both ends of the political spectrum, and probably most points in between, are resentful of outside influence and, by extension, foreigners living in Korea. There was much to be embarrassed about in the 2008 protests. However, I think this country deserves better than 2MB's government. The beef protests were a bad day for him and his cronies and may even have helped to make a younger generations of Korean's more politically active. Certainly, I don't think many young Koreans will vote for his party next election. That alone (almost) excuses making a big fuss about... nothing.
