As Adrian Hong in the “Born and Raised..” points out current situation in North Korea is one of the worst human rights crisis of the century. And he is right, the international community has not done so much for the sufferings of the people in North Korea. We need attention from the public, actions from the people around the world.

 Dramatic story of Shin Dong Hyuk’s life is both astonishing and tragic. It is almost impossible to fathom the pain he must have endured throughout his life in North Korea. It is also tragic that he is always asked to share the worst part of his life, which is somewhat necessary in terms of advocacy, for people are more likely to be touched by shocking testimonials than explanations with charts and numbers.

  However, to me, it seems like it would just be another video about the dire situation in NK for South Koreans. It does not rock their world up and down. There has always been horrible stories. These horrible stories usually works as a reminder of the obligations and burden that has been cast upon their shoulders. An obligation that has been carried out for certain extent and with no appreciation in return. Like an obnoxious and sick brother in the family, you have to take care of them, but it is frustrating. And especially when neighbours tell you what to do about him, you really want to snap back “what do you know?.”

  Frustration leads to negligence. Not thinking too much about it is a sweet anesthesia. On the bottom of this way of thinking there is the belief that after all he is your brother, your family. I came across a paper (Jung Tae Wook, 1999) on National Security Law and how it is blocking civilian contacts between North and South the other day. What was interesting was that the author was strongly suggesting that it is absolutely wrong to assume that North Korean people feel the same way we feel about them, and of course all the more so when it comes to the political leaders of the regime. He points out that pro-South faction of the NK politics scene had been almost wiped out when Hwang Jang Yeop, a high-profile NK official known to be pro-South, sought political asylum in South Korean in 1997  (pro-South meaning considering South Korea as prime political partner, not supporting the capitalist democratic state). His point was that as long as National Security Law seals the door to North Korea for the civilians, there is less and less chance of creating a pro-South population in North Korea. It goes back to the family analogy. South Koreans believe that when push comes to shove, North Korea will run back to the loving arms of the family bursting in tears. South Koreans believe that they are the only ones that are generous enough to embrace them and that it should be so, because of the strong nationalistic dogma of ”the race becoming one”.

  Looking at diplomacy, it looks quite clear that North Korea has always wanted to create a direct line with US or China and deal with the issues instead of using – or depending on - South Korean liaison to the US. Actually South Korea has been struggling to maintain its position in the negotiation table, not to be excluded from the scene. It starts to seem that our brother does not really want to be part of the family.

  Reunification is not just an nationalistic obligation but a necessity. Many people do believe – or hope – that reunification will eventually take this nation to a higher level. We talk about the cost and benefit of the reunification. We say it’s either absorption or federation. Return of the prodigal brother was a given, and the question was how he would return. Now a new question has to be raised : what if he decides to be adopted in a different family? It is not difficult to imagine that North Korea might feel a lot more familiar with China than with South Korea. It would also serve the regime, for it has strong ties with China which will offer them more room for negotiation for their benefits.  

  In this light, engaging in North Korean human rights issue can be a pragmatic and strategic choice for South Korea. It could also be a different approach to advocating the issue to South Koreans. For now, it might be  more effective and easy to get to people through pragmatism than through moral obligations.

The first one appears around 2:25

“Down with Kim Jung Il !

 People of North Korea, stand up and overthrow the dictator! “

 The second one appears around 3:44

 ”Kim Jung Il and Kim Sung Hyuk murdered Kim Il Sung and Kim Yong Soon

  because they wanted to open up to the world. How longer do we have to 

  starve wrapped up in rags? Where are we being dragged to?

  People of North Korea, fight for free democracy!

                                                                                              – Comradeship of Free Youth ”

  It is encouraging that North Korea has inside movement. It would be a good proof against the claim that all North Koreans actually believe what Kim Jung Il and his regime says. When people see North Koreans on TV and their “strange” actions and language, they begin to see them as fundamentally different to a point where they cannot imagine having a reasonable conversation with them. It also leads to saying “maybe that’s what they want” because they still seem to cherish that dictator in their hearts. Seeing that North Koreans themselves want change can correct this misunderstanding. Especially to South Koreans, seeing posters and slogans in Hangeul criticizing the regime in North Korea could have a deep impact, because that is exactly South Koreans had been doing for decades.

  It is because more than 60% of the vocabulary is made with Chinese characters. Until Hangeul, the Korean characters, were invented in 1443 by the Great King Sejong, Koreans used chinese characters for writing while they spoke their own language. The invention didn’t come as a linguistic revolution because Hangeul was considered “low” and the aristocrats adhered to using chinese characters until, surprisingly, the 19th century. The situation was quite similar to most Asian countries around China such as Japan and Vietnam. They all had their own languages but used chinese characters until they developed their own writing system in 20th century for Japanese Kana, and adoption of alphabet for Vietnam in the colonial era. So back in the days, all eastern asians could communicate through written language.

  So chinese characters, Hanja(한자, 漢字), are familiar to Korean people. Just like english speakers would know anything that ends with -phobia would mean fear against something, Koreans use similar analogy in guessing the meaning of the words, even when they hear or read it for the first time. And since chinese characters, each of them, represent a certain meaning as a word instead of a syllable, this goes a lot further than the relationship between English and Latin.

  For example,

  Korean word for mountain is 산, which is a word from Hanja 山.

  Let’s try making a lot of words with mountain, 산.

  If we add the Hanja for “climb” which is 등 登,

  it becomes 등산, mountain climbing.

  If we add Hanja for “high” 고 高,

  it becomes 고산, a high mountain.

  If we add again “illness” 병 病,

  it becomes 고산병, mountain sickness.

  Again with illness, 병,

  when we add ”house” 원 院,

  it becomes 병원, a hospital.

  When we ”law” 법 法 to “house” 원 院,

  it becomes 법원, court of law.

  Lastly, when we add 복 服 to 법 法,

  it becomes 법복, black robe that judges wear.

  The word 법복 is not something you hear often unless you are somehow involved in the field. However by hearing those two syllables 법 and 복, people easily guess that it is some kind of garment that has something to do with law, and thus the robe that judges wear, since they are the only ones with clothes fancy enough to have a separate term.   

  Not all Koreans are able to read the actual chinese characters. They would not know 服. But when they see 복, in Korean, they would quickly see that it means ‘clothes’ because there are many many words about garments that include the syllable 복. And by using Hanja it becomes easy to put words together and make it into a compact noun form. This works a lot like words in German language. They simply put words in a row to make a new one. But by using Hanja it becomes a lot shorter.

 Let’s take 국가인권위원회, in English, National Committee for Human Rights. In german it would be something that looks like Staatmenschrechtkomitee in one word form all jammed up. (I don’t know german.)  

     국  nation + 가  home  = 국가 nation

    인 human + 권 right = 인권 human rights

    위 delegate + 원 member + 회 gathering = 위원회 committee

  +)____________________________________________   

     국가인권위원회 National Human Rights Committee

  If I’m not using Hanja in naming this organization it would be more like a phrase or a clause instead of being a compact noun form.

  However not all words are made up with Hanja. Those words are called 순우리말 meaning pure(순) Korean(우리말-our language). In the 80s and 90s there was a cultural movement to revive 순우리말 words because they are actually quite beautiful but not often used. It was because many people thought it sounded more intelligent and professional to use difficult Hanja words. Of course it came from the traditional Sino-centric culture, and in the modern days using English words seems to have the same impression. The 순우리말 movement was of course quite nationalistic by nature and it is not surprising that the movement began in the campuses in the 80s by the 386 generation and later by the Hankyoreh newspaper. Actually the name of the newspaper was a sensation at the time. 한겨레 is a 순우리말 word for ‘ ‘one race’. All other newspapers at the time used Hanja names. 조선朝鮮 is the name of the last dynasty, 동아東亞 means East Asia, 중앙中央 means central.

  Regardless of its political implication, the movement brought a lot of almost forgotten 순우리말 words back to everyday use. For example instead of using the English word 클럽 (club), we now use 동아리, meaning group of people gathered for a common interest. With the development of computer technology and internet and its growing importance in everyday lives, people have tried to make up 순우리말 words for the English-dominated field.  ”네티즌 Netizen” is a good example. A new made-up word in English to describe internet users commonly used among Korean speakers (even though english speakers don’t really used them as much). So someone came up with a 순우리말 word ”누리꾼”,  누리 meaning the world, from the “word-wide-web”, and ”-꾼 ” a suffix meaning a person that does something similar to ”-er” in English like “use” and “user”. 

  However, Hanja words are largely used in formal  or academic language and are considered even appropriate. In this respect, law is by far the most conservative field. Learning Hanja words is essential in learning Korean, and as you get used to the system, it becomes much easier to figure out the meanings of words without memorizing them with a list. But learning the 순우리말 words would be the finest art of the language !

  However, it didn’t really come as a shocking revelation. It was different from the time I first read about East Timor or Sierra Leone. Considering the gravity of the situation, North Korea shouldn’t be treated so differently from other tragedies in the world. Then why did it not come so much as a shock or a wake-up call, I kept thinking. To keep the analogy, North Korea feels more like famine in Somalia or poverty in Bangladesh. (Somalia was pretty well known as a hungry country since I was very little, so I guess that’s where it comes from.) South Koreans have been told much about North Korean oppression on liberties and human rights by the government until the 80s and by civil and international society in the 90s and 2000s. It is not something new. Stories and testimonials were told as a propanda until the 80s and as a fact in the 2000s. To a foreign ear, problems in North Korea would come just as alarming as other countries like East Timor or Sudan but to South Korean not much so. South Korean might be reacting callously and thus insensitive, but it could also mean other approaches would be necessary to make South Koreans act.

  And again comes the political problem. The biggest challenge is to bring back the agenda that is dominated by the conservatives and the fundamental christians. Discussing this issue with Garam, I came to a conclusion that the progressives in South have placed partnership of the governments over the human rights of North Korean people by being mute. But whether it is condemnable or not is another question. Progressives must have believed that the only sustainable and fundamental way to bring peace to the peninsula and thus ameliorate the conditions of the North Korean people is to build trust and partnership even if it meant giving blind eye to the pain and suffering for the time being. And it also has much to do with the ideological background with the NLs who place nationalistic self-determination very high among other values. Being friendly in bad times, just like right now when all other countries call them a ”rogue”, could be a good way to exclude imperialist foreign powers from the table and the brothers be one again.

  However things have changed. Even among the progressives, NL idea has become somewhat outdated and is gaining less and less support. In universities NL organizations are winning less and less student council elections, and even the biggest progressive party in Korea DLP has split itself in two because of this exact problem. For PDs keeping silence on the North Korean issue costs a lot. It will compromise legitimacy and justification of their agendas on human rights issues in South, and it actually did so.  

  For questions such as UN resolutions, I am not still sure whether the government should step up and start acting against the human rights issues in North Korea, because I still think that partnership is the best answer we have so far. But now it seems quite clear that the civil sector has to be vigilant and should be creating much more discourse on the issue.

  * Achilles’ Tendon : Money

  Finance is the biggest problem most organizations cope with. One does not expect abundance and prosperity in civil movement, but situation in Korea is quite dire that the movement itself depends on individual devotion and sacrifice of the activists. Particularly after the financial crisis of 1998, donations and support from the public have diminished, and the support from other nations have stopped after Korea signs in to OECD.  Independence is one of the core values of civil organizations. Financial independence is the key. This is why we need to talk about money.

  Most scandals that compromised the moral integrity of the civil sector in the past were about money. Bribes, inappropriate request for donations and such.

  * Government Subsidy

  Pro : Green Peace is pretty much the only NGO in the world that is run solely on donations from its members and supporters. Most other organizations receive aid from the governments, foundations and funds. Reality demands that we receive help from the government, and it doesn’t necessarily mean government control over us, and since we represent and fight for the common good of the community we deserve the taxpayers money.

  Con : It will inevitably compromise the integrity of the movement. It is not about whether we can stay clean or not, it is about the perception. And it is true that government subsidy will lower the level of criticism. Also once we depend on government subsidies the financial independence in long term would be even harder. Subsidies change the structure of the activism, because we would constantly have to get government projects that throw out chunk of money at a time instead of sustainable and stabilized income.

  SO? : It depends on the area the organization is working on. Advocacy groups like PSPD should not take government aid since most of its job is to criticize the policies of the government while it would be okay for social welfare NGOs  to take government aid since they are actually doing government’s job for the community. The government can provide other important aids to NGOs besides direct subsidy. Tax cuts for donations, discount in postal service fees, free advertisement on TV and radio could be of great help to NGOs for example.

 (And then he goes on introducing different laws in US and Japan in comparison with the Korean laws.)

  * Suggestion for the future of Korean civil sector

  -Laws on donations and non-profit organizations.

  -How to manage staff. How to make life of activists sustainable.

    (We’ve seen most of what he said in the other book “the world belongs to..”

   * NGOs are still our Hope

   Jang Won, the leader of Green Korea, was accused of sexual harrassment against a female college student in 2000. He was also a co-leader of the Election Solidarity with Park Won Soon. Bombardment of criticism fell on civil sector from the media. Everything we’ve worked for for the past ten years was about to collapse. It was a fatal blow on the moral integrity. Disappointment from the public was huge. Like Caesar to Brutus, “Et tu, Civil movement?”. 

   But it was also a wake-up call, a precious reminder to us all that when we lose trust we lose it all.  When one of us screw up, we all take the fall together. Civil organizations are tested everyday. Their test scores are the trust that people bestow upon them.

  People could be harsh. They could judge us with one single mistake. But we can’t stop because of that. We have done so much, we have achieved so much. The world we live in right now was something quite unimaginable under Park Jung Hee and Jun Doo Hwan. That is something big. We are all like Sisyphus in a way. But we know change can come.

1. Intro

  Candle demonstrations of 2008 is much more than protest against the import of US beef. The risk of vCJD (varied Creutzfeld-Jacob Desease, aka Mad Cow Desease) itself does not seem to be big enough of an issue to draw hundreds of thousands of people in to the streets for so long. Of course some argue that it is exactly why the demonstrations were pointless and were nothing but an evidence of the danger and harm irrational and ideologically biased ideas could bring to a society. However, looking at it as a trigger or an opportunity for people to speak up and bring out their issues seems to be much more coherent with the bigger picture and thus gives us a better explanation. It was the mad cow, not the mad crowd.

 2. April to May 1

  The talks on beef import between US and Korea was not having much progress since 2007. The import itself was on hold after a piece of bone was found in the meat, which is considered a health risk because of vCJD. April 2008, President Lee Myung Bak visits President George W. Bush in his retreat. April 17, Lee announces that the final agreement was made on beef import allowing practically with no screening. It didn’t make much sense because the very reason the negotiation had been going over a year was that the Korean government had been trying to screen out the risky material in US beef.

  29 April, <PD Note>, a issue-based news documentary program of MBC TV channel aired a feature on the risk of vCJD and how the explanations of the government on the agreement did not quite make sense. The program drew tremendous attention from the already suspicious public. The government defined it accusations groundless and “political”. Major conservative newspapers covered de facto “conspiracy theories” on the intent of the producers.

  At the early stage of the candle demonstrations, high school students were the most active. Previously on April 15, government announced a new education policy giving more discretion to repective schools making the entire process more competitive.  And it was easy to imagine that imported beef would be used for low-cost food business like the ones in school cafeterias. (School food catering system has had a few problems before and has little credit to the public.) What is also interesting is that girls showed more participation than boys. Schoolgirls and young mothers with baby carriages were the icon of the candle demonstrations.

 2. May 2 – May 28

  The first candle demonstration took place on May 2, in front of City Hall, Seoul. People spread words on the internet. Time and location. Teenage schoolstudents came out to the demonstrations in school uniforms. “Daum Agora”, internet forum service provided by one of the biggest portal sites in Korea, Daum, had literally become the “Agora” for people to share ideas. Debate took place online, the result came out offline, and the feedback went back online. The community around the issue was formed both on and offline. The demonstration soon spread out to college students, and to older generations. Civil organizations began to react. Coalition was formed and statements were made. Demonstrations began to form in local cities as well.

  3. May 24 – May 28

  May 22, Lee made a public apology that he regretted that there was a “miscommunication” between the government and the people. The idea itself is true because there is always a possibility of miscommunication when one side simply chooses not to listen. The underlying message was clear. The government had no intention to renegotiate the terms of agreement. Demonstrations began to last longer. Some went home around midnight. But others came at one in the morning. Every second of the demonstration was broadcasted on a wi-fi laptop computer with a digical video camera.  ”Afreeca”, free video service website became the “Candle TV”. 

  The demonstrations were not led by the conventional activists. Instead everybody led themselves. New flags appeared. It used to be the student councils, civil organizations, labour unions that held flags in demonstrations. But now we had “Agora”, users of the forun, “Soul Dresser”, members of the fashion blog community, “Lemon Terrace”, members of the DIY home decorations blog community, cooking recipe blog communities and so on. Some of the blog communities in Korea are so big they have hundreds of thousand viewers. The word got out in their blog and they decided to join. The internet communities partly explain the participation of groups that were conventionally considered politically inactive such as young mothers and mid-aged housewives.

  The government still reponded with childish strategies – which sadly did work to quite a number of people promulgated by the major newspapers. They blamed the irresponsible “pro-communist” teachers (National Teachers Union) who brainwashed innocent students, conpiracy theories of “someone” being behind the scenes. Arrested people were asked who provided the candles for the demonstrations by the police, which was a ridiculous question because it didn’t really work that way. The stubbornness and the ignorance of the government soon became another theme for the demonstrators. Posters and slogans were made in parody. Demonstrations were a huge mock to the misdirected authority of the government.

    4. May 29 -  Jun 1

  May 29, despite everything, the terms of agreement came in effect. Demonstrations grew bigger and bigger. Government reponded with force. Fire engines shot water beams directly to the demonstrators. Riot police beat demonstrators with clubs and shields.  Hospitals around the City Hall area were full.  On the night of the 31st May, 228 people were arrested. Photographs of college student covered in blood were posted in university campuses.

  What really made people angry was the government. A government official said in a TV debate that the chances of getting vCJD was close to being struck by a lightning after a hole-in-one on a golf course. He openly reproached the ignorance of the people for being so easily caught up by a “urban myth”.  Conservative newspapers and the government tried to externalize the issue by employing terms such as “anti-americanist”, “leftist”, and “populist”. What the government failed to understand was that it was not about statistical probability nor ideology. It was about you not listening to me.

    5. Jun 10

   It was the 21st anniversary of the 6.10 movement of the democratization 1987. Religion, labour, and women’s rights leaders made statements and joined the march. Hackers crashed the President’s official website. One million candles were lit that night throughout the nation. The government placed six cargo containers on Sejongro (the boulevard in front of City Hall) to block the road to the Blue House. Demonstrators witfully named it the “MB Walls”. Walls did not only block to road to the president’s office, but also blocked the people from the government. The demonstration was more like a festival, a summer camp for the citizens. Bands played music, people danced and ate. Past midnight, styrofoam blocks were stacked in front of the container boxed making a staircase. Debate went on till 5 in the morning whether they should march over the MB walls or not. Finally people agreed not to. Flags were placed on the top of the wall, and that was it.

 6. Jun 11 – Jun 29

  The demonstration began to absorb other issues around the government. 40th to 48th candle demonstrations held medical service privatization, grand canal project, privatization of water and electricity. Boycott was formed against the products of the companies that has advertisements on Chosun, JoongAng, and DongAh, three major conservative newspapers. Riot police officer filed a lawsuit against the government that being a riot police as a mandatory military service is a violation of constitutional rights because it compels one to  act against his conscience. Army reserves (practically most young men in Korea are army reserves) came to demonstrations in army uniforms. Department of Defense claims it is against the law because army uniforms cannot be worn in disgrace of the armed forces. 

 7. Jun 30 – 15 Aug

  Finally the priests and monks began to act. National Catholic Priests for Justice gives a mass service in City Hall Plaza and went into fasting. 4 July, 1,000 monks and 30,000 buddhist citizens held 108 bowing ceremony in City Hall Plaza. Buddhists had a lot to say since Lee’s cabinet was filled with fundamentalist christians and the discrimination was becoming obvious.

  The last biggest gathering took place on 5 July as more like a festival than a demonstration.  According to the staffs 500,000 people were there. The heat of the demonstrations was beginning to dwindle. The Anti-US Beef Committee seemed to have decided that it would be better to officially wrap the demonstration up before it becomes a long dragging one. Since the Government’s position on the beef issue was firm, it began too seem unlikely that change could be readily achieved by more demonstrations. Also as the fight was beginning to lose its momentum, the critics questioning the validity of the mad cow disease risk were gaining support. After 5 July, small number of demonstrations were held here and there. 

  *Who are the “staffs” ? Usually when there is a big issue, a “committee” or a “forum” is formed. I’m not exactly sure how and who does it, but I’m guessing that activists from different organizations form a temporary meta-organization to organize demonstrations and debates or make statements. 

  8. Outro

     So.. what was it? Was it a massive madness? Was it a renaissance of the glorious victory of 1987? Does it mean people are more progressive than we actually think? Have we achieved anything from it? Questions are easy to pose, but hard to answer. Especially a case like this one, it leaves more questions and answers.

  It came into my mind as a retrospective revelation that the candle demonstrations were not about ideology. Most people in the demonstration did not liked to be labelled with the suffix “-ist”. Activists and the conventional progressives tried to turn the table to their favour since the candle demonstrations were actually a great opportunity to promote their side of the story, but without much success. Many people did not appreciate the presence of “demo-people” (운동권, in Korean, 운동 being the movement 권 being the range. range of people involved in activism. ) Of course, many of the demonstrators in their 30s and 40s had had experience in student activism and demonstrations in their college days, but since back then it was more like a ‘common practice’, and it doesn’t mean they were seriously engaged political activists.

  They say all they are asking is common sense. Beef issue was appealing because it was a health risk. If it’s not good for you, it’s not good for me either. There was no controversy in it. Was the risk overrated? Maybe. But the risk itself was not the core issue. The way the government handled it was the problem. The government was virtually saying  ”If you don’t want it, don’t buy it. Nobody’s making you eat that thing.” Most people wouldn’t have had a problem if the terms of the import guaranteed the same level of caution given to the meat that is consumed in US.

   And there’s the internet issue. The rise of internet as a channel of communication really did show its immense potential in the candle demonstrations. Unlike activism in the past, no one was taking orders from anyone. The political arena and its discourse, be it the street or the political parties, had been dominated by the extremities of the spectrum. Bloody battle of leftists against the ever-strong right. But the internet has given the quiet majority in the middle a voice. They would not have a concrete set of values as a ideological package, but they have ideas. Ideas that matter because they constitute a big part of the population: the democratic legitimacy. The communication on the internet is lateral. It is almost like a perfect competitive market of ideas. And through candle demonstrations, we have witnessed that this communication channel does work in real life. So-called “keyboard warriors” can be a real-life warrior as well.

  Activism in Korea, as a drive for social change, was led by high school students in the 60s. College students took over in 70s and 80s. From the 90s it was the civil organizations, or the NGOs. We might be watching the birth of a new class, a class open for every groups and generations.

9. Aftermath

  Aftermath of the candle demonstration is still ongoing. Soon after the demonstrations stopped, investigations and criminal procedures for those who were arrested on the scene for violation of Demonstrations Act took place. Under the Demonstrations Act, demonstrations after sunset has to be reported beforehand to the police, and the police actually had power to deny or prohibit certain demonstrations that are held after sunset, which is manisfestly against the Constitution.

  A number of Judges in the Central Court of Seoul filed a constitutional review of the statute in Demonstrations Act to the Constitutional Court, and the court proceedings of the cases were adjourned. Problem was that the head of Central Court of Seoul, Judge. Shin sent e-mails to  judges handling candle demonstration cases pointing out that the cases should “be dealt with promptly”. The e-mail was disclosed after his presidential appointment as the Supreme Court Justice. Many judges challenged his appointment questioning his integrity. Despite the public rage and the bombardment from the press, he did not resign. Constitutional Court decision was delivered in November 2009, declaring the statute unconstitutional, but it will have effect until the Legislative come up with a new law to replace it.

  Civil sector was stirred once again when the government announced its fiscal support plan for NGOs for the new year. Most organizations that were involved in the candle demonstrations in any manner were excluded from the governmental support program.

  It was also reported in one of the newspapers that all of the government agencies were buying australian beef instead of U.S. beef for their dining facilities, and the only agency that was supplied with U.S. beef was the Riot-Police department where the entire members are conscripted for their military service in the police force.

10. Why students? Why schoolgirls?

  Grade school students have not been the actors of the movement since the 1960s, mainly because the level of education rose giving the position of “young intellectuals” to the university students. However the role of high school students in the candle demonstration of 2008 was quite eminent, if not central. High school students, especially female high school students became the icon of the candle demonstrations. A girl in school uniform holding a candle was an iconic image that was used in banners, flyers and placards.

 At the beginning of 2008,  Lee’s administration was in the course of implementing controversial education policies  including allowing autonomous curriculum to certain private schools and re-introduction of nationwide standardized test to assess academic achievement of students. These policies were promptly met with strong opposition, since the previous governments of the past 10 years had tries hard to cool down the competition in schools and promote equal opportunity of education to the system that has long been criticized for being elitist. Lee’s new policies were least welcomed by the students who were already moaning under the pressure with university entrance. The “Korean Teacher and Education Workers’ Union” took collective action by sending students on field trips with the consent from the parents on the day that the Ministry of Education held the national test. Conservatives fervently criticized them for ”using” the children for their political purposes, and some of the teachers of KTEWU were dismissed from their positions.

  This backdrop gave students a good reason to be critical of the administration, giving them more reason to be alert to government decisions. And the beef issue was out.

  Most discussions on the beef issue was took place over the internet. Hundreds of thousands  posted their opinions on open fora of portal sites, comments on news sites, and “cafe”s and “club”s. As teenagers are the generation most familiar with online communication, they were one of the main actors in the scene. Another factor is that since 2002 World Cup, people were no longer afraid of going out to the streets. Current high school students grew up seeing that. They do not share the image of bloody demonstrations where riot police shoot tear gas and beat demonstrators down with clubs with the older generation. (And of course, unfortunately, now they do.) This goes to both boys and girls in school. Considering that the conventional idea of gender roles has constantly dismantled, it was not surprising that schoolgirls decided to come out.

  Still, the presence of shoolgirls in the demo scene was new to everyone. They instantly became the icon.  Their party-like manner of demonstration was welcomed. They made songs, characatures, and games. They became the mascot of the parade, the focus of the press coverage. It is probable that this attention encouraged more female students to participate in the demonstrations.

  The opposition was extremely uncomfortable with the presence of students in the scene. The Ministry of  Education gave specific orders to teachers to keep their students from participating the demonstrations. KTEWU was instantly blamed for “brainwashing” young students with their partisan ideas.   

11. What we won, what we lost.

  It certainly was not a landslide victory to either side. Progressives failed to guide the outburst into a sustainable political power. Lee’s administration and the conservatives proved their inadequacy to communicate with the people unleashing the brute force that had been well kept in for almost a decade.

  After the fever, people began asking themselves if the health risk was real.  The fact that international reponse to the fervent Korean refusal of allegedly dangerous US beef was lukewarm promoted more doubt. Yes, it was not the real issue there, but still, it was one of the issues. People did really believe that once the US beef sets its foot in the market, people will die from it. The problem was that they failed to raise the real agenda addressing  the reckless stubbornness of the Government. Controversy on the risk-assessment of the disease was the weak link, and they failed to get rid of it.

  * 93 days of Voter Revolution

  Jan 12 2000, 412  civil organizations formed Citizens Solidarity for National Election(Election Solidarity in short). Hundreds of local grassroot organizations joined and soon it became 859. Any organizations with interest in the election was of course excluded for it would compromise the integrity of our initiative.

  It started with the list of politicians that should not be officially nominated by the political parties. Corruption, violation of election law, history of anti-democratic or human rights violation acts, previous performance in the National Assembly, political integrity (ex. frequent change in party affiliation) and misc info (military service, property). The research had already begun the year before. Based on those information, several committees with different group of people –  sometimes experts, sometimes randomly picked citizens – went through the list to determine the final list.  PSPD had been collecting data on politicians since Dec, 1999, a while before the Solidarity was formed.

  Jan 24, ”100 Voters Committee” comprised of 100 people from different backgrounds, announce the list of politicians that should not be nominated by their parties. Almost every single newspaper and TV stations were at the press conference. Reponse was explosive. Up to 90% of the people were glad to see this happening. The politicians were going frenzy. Of 67 politicians, almost half of them were high-profile politicians running for their at least fourth seat in the National Assembly. Some of the politicians on the list were democratic activists in the 70s and 80s. Many of them tortured and imprisoned under the military dictatorship. Despite the political burden and the internal controversy over the “betrayal” over them, we could not abandon our principles. Selection had to be made on hard facts and hard facts only.  

  However, more than half of the politician on the list acquired nominations from their parties. Politicians started their own PR strategy against our initiative, and we didn’t quite know what to do, because it was the biggest nationawide campaign since 1987 and no one quite had the experience nor the expertise to coordinate a movement of such magnitude.

  The Solidarity suggested 10 guidelines for the parties in nominating their candidiates and organized campaigns to demand repeal of the nominations. The politicians were more stubborn that we thought. Although most of the vote-holders strongly supported the Solidarity, the parties made no changes to their nomination. And the heat was beginning to cool off. Nomination campaign successfully revealed the undemocratic nature of political parties, but the phase was over.   It was time to fight on the streets.

  We organized “Political Reform Camp” in Myungdong Cathedral. It was a basecamp to contact the public. People stopped by to drop some food or donations. We went on tour around the country in a bus to talk about politics and reform. We went to market places, shopping malls, talked to cab drivers and people on the street. Local branches came up with innovative ideas such as 10,000 e-mail campaign in Busan, Car Parade in Jeonju, Balloon Demonstrations in Gwangju.  

  Apr 3, ten days before the election, we announced the list of people that should not be elected by the people. 300 representatives of respective members of the Election Solidarity finally came to an agreement on 86 politicians after long and hard debate. Members were sent to their respective electorates to organize anti-campaigns to the nominees. 22 politicians received “special attention”. They were the ones who really should not be in the National Assembly. I was appointed to Mr. Kim Joong Wi. While I walked around the streets of his constituency talking with people, giving press conferences and bar-hopping, I met Mr. Kim three times. Everytime I saw him, I shook his hand and apologized for what I was doing. It was the right thing to do, but still, personally I felt bad for doing such thing to someone that has done no harm to me at all. 

  68% of the politicians on the list lost the election. In Seoul metropolitan area, 90%. The campaign truly was a success.

  Article 87 of the Election Law prohibits organizations from being involved in election campaigns. Park was charged with violations of Election Law for conducting anti-campaign during the election in the name of Election Solidarity and was found guilty of charge and was fined 5 million won (5,000 USD). Constitutional complaint was filed to the Constitutional Court, but the Court held the provision constitutional. Dec 2008, the Election Committee filed an amendment to Election Law to allow civil organizations to engage in the election process and the bill is still pending in the National Assembly.

 ( not really.. it’s more like “twelve misunderstandings on Civil movement”.. you know )

As long as the criticism on the civil movement is objective and well-grounded, it should be welcomed. Since 1987 June, civil movement has rapidly grown, but for that exact reason it had not enough time to look back and reflect on its previous path. The importance of the 3rd power, the civil sector, will continue to grow, and for this reason now is a good time to correct what was wrong in us and fight off the misunderstandings that have been thrown over us. 

 #1. Civil movement without citizens?

  : I’m really tired of this one. Conservative media has constantly accused of us being ‘a bunch of demo-people’, not representatives of general citizens. It is true that organizations in Korea have a weak support structure. However, it is important to remember that paying attention to social issues has been literally dangerous for individuals in the past thirty years of military dictatorship. It is our job to persuade people to come out and let their voice be heard. And we have done quite well considering all that situation. 

  #2. Department store style?

  : This one goes to the ‘major’ ones, since big organizations pretty much deal with everything that happens in the country. PSPD, YMCA, KFEM(Korean Federation of Environmental Movement), CCEJ (Citizens’ Coalition for Economic Justice) are subject to this criticism. But it would be rash to say that just because we deal with a lot of issues we have become bureaucratic and our identities are ambiguous. We do a lot of stuff because there are nobody else to do it. And yet, each of us still have our own ways to do things and our own voice on different issues. Yes, it is important for an organization to have an area of expertise, but it doesn’t necessarily mean specialization is the number one priority. We need not get rid of the big organizations. We just need to promote smaller ones with specific expertise.  

 # 3. Centralized movement?

  : Same logic. Yes, we’re all Seoul-based and local level activism is weak. But it doesn’t mean we should get rid of the big ones in Seoul, because in many cases you need central organizations to deal with the central government. We just need to try to build local ones. It’s not about which ones better but where we work.

  #4. Large, powerful, and above the law.

  : Is small beautiful? Yes, but not always. Same logic. Conservative media wants us to be smaller, because then we wouldn’t make this much noise and bother them. I love small organizations, but it doesn’t mean we have to shred the big ones into pieces.

   Power? Civil organizations do not aim to ”be” the political power. They just want the ones with power to use them in a right manner. If politicians are under constant pressure from fear of being monitored, and if one calls that a “power”, O yea, we need to be powerful. The power of the civil sector comes from the respect for common good and moral integrity. It does not come from law or physical strength.

  Above the Law? We have fought for rule of law. We guided the National Assembly to make the right laws and correct the wrong ones. We have kept all our eyes on the big businesses to make sure they obey the law. And yes, we were out of the boundaries of law in National Election campaign. But when it’s obvious that the law is wrong, breaking it can be a strategy to chage it. Look back and see what Martin Luther King did with “separate but equal”. Was he in the boundaries?

  #5. Irresponsible? Unchecked?

  “I never voted you to represent me. So stop acting like a legitimate democratic representative of the “citizens” as you like to put it.”

  This is a quote from an internet user’s comment in the PSPD website. This person has misunderstood something. The success or failure of a civil movement group depends on how much support it can draw from the public. It is like the free market of ideas. If it’s a good idea, it will survive, if not, it won’t. That’s why civil movements also take reponsibility for what they do, because when they fail to bring something worth fighting for, they will be forgotten. The society generally asks for much more moral integrity to the activists. An entire organization can collapse with one single screw up. By all means, the responsibility usually is a lot bigger than rest of the sectors of the community.

 #6. Monopoly of justice?

  Many conservatives claim that civil movement has “monopolized” the standards of justice or good. That whoever civil sector dislikes become the enemy, and that whoever stands up against them becomes “reactionist”. This is almost a compliment. We never said we are “the” right answer. We said something and so many people thought we were right. That’s all there is to it. And I see nothing wrong in that.

  #7. Bureaucratization?

  Another big word often used by the media, but what aspect of current civil movement seems bureaucratic? Civil organizations are far more lateral than hierachial compared to any other institutions in the society.

 #8. Totalitarian?

  It is often criticized that organizations form a meta-organization in solidarity for certain issues, especially ones like the anti-corruption campaign in the National Election 2000. Yes, civil movement has to have diversity and creativity. But it doesn’t mean that civil sector has to abandon ‘solidarity’ which is one of the most powerful strategies.

 #9. Pro-government?

 (this one would seem strange, but during Kim Dae Jung and Noh Moo Hyun’s presidency, many of the policy ideas from the civil sector were adopted by the government and the conservative media used to criticize civil organizations for being “pro-government”. Chosun Ilbo used the word “Red Guard” in one of its columns and it became a major controversy.)

  Receiving government subsity does not mean government control. Opposition or support from the civil organizations are only determined by the contents of the policy, not by the political party.

 #10. All we do is PR?

  Some criticize civil movement for  being too “media”-based compared to people’s movement of the past, that civil movement has underestimated the importance of direct approaches such as demonstrations and rallies, statements or signing campaigns. We would have a problem if all we care is how much attention we get from the press when we do things. But in fact, civil movement doesn’t have enough attention yet. Only the big ones are being covered. PR is still important.

 #11. Politics-oriented

  Some say civil movement is too political and does not really care about what is really happening with the “people”. Does this statement even make sense? Isn’t politics about what happens to the people? Also, it is because “advocacy groups” – ones that deal with government policies – are the most frequently covered by the press. There are many more civil organizations that deal with tangible issues of the community. 

 #12. Star Activists

  Some say civil movement in Korea is run by certain “star” activists, steered by the personal goals instead of being the representative of the general public. It would be a problem if it is really so. But when newspapers accuse us of being so it is not appropriate. Everytime they want a story or an interview, they want the leader of the organization instead of the staff member who actually runs the campaign. And soon enough the leader of the organization becomes a celebrity and begins to look as if she or he is running the whole thing in her or his hands.

  Chapter 1 : Unstoppable Locomotive

  * Civil Movement as the forefront of national reformation

  Emergence of civil movement is one of the most important changes South Korean society has seen in the 1990s. Civil movement differs itself from the “people’s movement” in 70s and 80s in that it tries to present a reasonable solution to contemporary issues to create a bigger consensus. Unlike the government-oriented organizations in the past, civil movement organizations have been  vigilant, independent and objective critique to the government. Civil movement is reformative by its nature. It sees what is to be changed than what is to be maintained.

   Role of civil organizations as the source of reformative drive has constantly increased in South Korean society, not only in the public areas of the government but also in private sectors in economy especially in respect to issues of big businesses, Jaebol. The fact that civil sector takes such big of a role is also a evidence that the government has failed to achieve its desired level of competence. The competence of the civil sector comes from: i) Civil organizations work for the general good of the community, ii) despite poor financial conditions, civil movement has a remarkable pool of experts such as scholars, lawyers and accountants as volunteers.

  Civil movement has been involved in all three legislative/judicial/executive branches. PSPD is known to have pioneered effective legislation campaigns. Filing legal cases became common practice in civil movement. Civil organizations have actively produced numerous policy ideas and suggestions, and the government has been trying to incorporate civil sector into their policy making and decision making process through commitees and advisory board members.

  It is true that all this change has been quite encouraging it is far from enough. It is important that the participation and intervention of the civil sector is systematically incorporated into the institution. On the other hand, civil organizations must be very careful and vigilant of their power that has been bestowed in them. Many activists and organization leaders have now become mainstream politicians. It can be either good or bad, and that’s why we need to be careful. Change can be made outside the mainstream political arena.

  Although we find much hope in the civil sector, it is true that more of what we have fought for were not accepted by the government. Intellectuals have greatly contributed to our work, but we do not have the resources to conduct research on our own in a sustainable fashion. We need to improve and empower ourselves to meet the higher standards that will be brought on us in near future. And as John Gardner has said, the role of civil movement is to compliment the existing representative democracy, not replace it. We must stand in the forefront of national reform, empowering and representing the people.  

 * Civil movement and economic crisis 1997 ( in brief.. )

  What caused the crisis?

: Late outbreak of side-effects of government-driven development plans of Park Jung Hee

: Institutionalized corruption

   What did we do?

: Restore monitoring system

: Systemize transparent and tesponsible business administration

 * Engine of the Reform : 7 years of PSPD

  This part we have covered in depth in his other book.

 I probably am the last generation that grew up with anti-communism education. Every June, with Veterans Day and 6.25 Korea War Memorial Day, we drew posters and banners on catching North Korean spies. I remember reading adventure books on brave boys who spotted a strange man living in the woods and reported them to police. In school textbooks, North Koreans or communists had a certain evil look on their faces. 

  I was in the fifth grade of elementary school in 1994, when Kim Il song died. My teacher, Mr. Hwang came in to the classroom and told us in a calm voice that Kim Il Song had died. Spontaneously, the classroom was filled with cries of joy. I remember sitting there, caught up in a bizarre feeling. Orbituary and hurrah didn’t seem to go well together. I wonder now what Mr. Hwang was thinking looking at his class.

  Although I drew a lot of “Catch the Spies” posters in my childhood, I was never convinced of the evil nature of communism. Partly because I grew up in Southwest and Gwangju, where democratic movement and ciriticism against the government was strong. If my mother ever told me to ‘stay away from communism’ it would be because she believed it had already failed, not because it was evil.

  Anti-communism dropped off the textbooks but the ideological victory of the free world was always emphasized. Instead of hating North Korea, we learned how to pity them. By the mid-90s North Korea was strewn by series of drought and flood. Their misery seemed in line with what I’ve been taught in school.

  As I went to college after finishing public education, I started to discover dark side of our own history in South that school textbooks never mentioned. The amount of skeletons in our wardrobe seemed large enough to compromise the moral highground or legitimacy I was taught that we had. Especially how manipulative the government has been on selectively distributing information of North Korea or sometimes false ones. As far as it concerns North Korea, most of what the government said was dishonest or untrue. 

 Also in student activism, North Korean issues or reunification issues were predominated by the NL. PDs were too busy fighting for issues in South Korea, and were more interested in international solidarity than ‘outdated’ nationalism. As a result, reunification discourse was not very active among PDs. There were a lot of agendas that were clearer, more accessible and demanded attention from the people that we knew. The fact that my generation had hardly any connection with the North probably has contributed to this trend. Few of our parents grew up in North Korea or had siblings in North. Seperation of family seems like something of the past. The pain was not palpable. We all saw the family reunion on TV once in a while and of course it was moving, but still, there were lot of sad movies that moved us as well.

  As conservatives began to be involved in the North Korean human rights issue, it became very difficult. Every time North Korean defector does an interview with Chosun Ilbo, I wondered if it’s true or exaggerated. Not because I questioned the integrity of the person, but because that was the way North Korean issues were handled by the government in the past and the conservatives who supported them. US played a bit of a role as well. By employing crude rhetorics as “axis of evil” and “rogue state”, US was doing a great job isolating the already isolated nation and making it even more difficult to carry on the rapport South had built with North. I still knew North Korea had a big problem, and something had to be done. But it wasn’t as clear as other problems. It felt like going to a party of someone you don’t really like.

  Some point in the past few years, as North Korean issue got worse and gained more attention from the international community, and as more North Korean defectors came to South large enough to be seen, credibility was not a problem anymore. Most of the defectors, in the newspapers or the ones I got to meet in lectures or seminars, seemed to say the same thing. The problem was that the agenda was already monopolized by the conservatives, like a busy restaurant where the only way to eat is to share a table with your least favourite people. Majority of people who gave humanitarian aid to North Korea or defectors were politically extreme right or fundamental Christians. Supporting government’s  efforts to build trust and companionship with the North seemed to be the best I could do. Gaesung Industrial Complex looks like a very good model for what two Koreas could do together, benefitting both sides.

  I’m still not sure, if signing the UN resolution is a good choice if North Korea, in response, decides to close Gaesung Industrial Complex because of that. Of course, apparently North Korea is acting like a spoiled child. Of course, it would be nice if people of North Korea unite and stand up against their ‘beloved leader whom they cherish in their hearts’ to end the dictatorship and all the oppression that paralyzes them. But if it’s unlikely, against our wishes, we might still need to encourage that exact same regime to open up gradually in order to achieve our undisputed goal, improvement of  lives of North Koreans and the peaceful reunification of two Koreas.

* Landscape of North Korean Issues 

  Since Korean War, strong anti-communism set in place. They had a good reason to be so. Communists were the ones that waged a war that destroyed everything. Plus, the government had a great incentive to install strong anti-communism since at the beginning stage of both Koreas, North had better legitimacy in respect to dealing with remnants of Japanese domination. South Korean government was full of ex-Japanese officials, capitalists and landowners who clearly did not want anything to do with communists. Many progressive intellectuals left South Korea before the war. South Korean government was corrupt from the beginning. Moreover, until the mid-70s, North Korean economy was better than South, since most of the industrial facilities were built in North Korea during Japanese domination and North had a good start.

  Anti-communism was the only legitimacy South Korean government could find. By defining communist North as evildoers, South Korean government could always wield that magic sword whenever they faced crisis. More importantly, it was very often used to oppress opposition. Challenging the authority of the government was instantly labelled communist. And it worked, in many cases.  

  The progressives of South Korea had to cope with anti-communism because their political ideas were largely socialist or at least strongly influenced by it and they could not agree “wiping out the communist” as a feasible scenario of reunification.  It of course gave all the more reason for the government to label progressive movements “pro-communist” and “pro-North Korea”, even calling them puppets or spies operating under secret orders from the North.  

* Criticizing the North Korean Regime

  While the government tried to build animosity against North Korea and take it to their own advantage, progressives tried to establish their own relationship with North Korea in more collaborative way. Since there were plenty of propaganda against North Korea, the progressives tried to see relatively good things about North Korea, in balance. As as result, left and right wing were sharing the North Korean issue in a dichotomic manner, criticizing each other for being pro-communist and anti-communist.
   As a result, right wing never really had a chance to look into North Korea without biases of anti-communism, and it became difficult to openly condemn North Korea in the left, for it would benefit the other party on the issue.  After the fall of USSR and disasters of the mid 90s that lead North Korea into famine, few people held hopes to the North Korean government. It was not a matter of ideology but how to achieve unification. Left wanted to recognize NK as a partner and build collaborative efforts from there, while right didn’t like the idea of giving any support to the regime in any form such as ‘recognition’.

  However, the reunification was always been an enshrined idea. It is an unquestionable task to all Koreans. It is a dogma, not on an ideological level, but on a historic and nationalistic level. People think of 5,000 years of “Korean Race” splitted on the 38th parallel when they hear the word “reunification”. Everybody agrees that we need to reunify. The question is how.
   It is obvious that both parties, as “one race” harbours great sympathy to North Korean people in pain. Everytime there was a major food crisis, nation-wide fundraising took place to promote humanitarian aid to North. Difference, or conflict lies in the diplomacy of reunification.
 Left places partnership in prior to other issues. Embodied in Kim Dae Jung’s “Sunshine Policy”, South Korea would build its build  trust by standing close to its prodigal brother. That is why South Korea was reluctant to join UN resolutions on North Korea. However, it didn’t necessarily mean to the left or the supporters of the sunshine policy that it is justifiable to give a blind eye to the existing pain of the North Koreans, because they believe in long term view, partnership and trust is the only way to open them up so we could start building a system where pain of the people could be remedied in a sustainable manner.

 On the other hand, right wing wants North Korea to comply with the international standards in respect to nuclear weapons and human rights issues. They criticize Sunshine Policy for being a moral tranquilizer as long as we do not make sure where the aid is going. Just like the dilemma of whether one should negotiate with a terrorist or not, Sunshine Policy will only give North Korea a bad habit of asking what they want and never give what we want. Especially after the crisis in North Korea since the mid 90s, the human rights issue came to international attention. US instantly took it, as they usually do, to pressure North Korean regime. In the same manner, right wing South Koreans perceived it as a manifest evidence that North Korean regime is not worth of the trust that the left wing had given.

  It leaves a bitter taste to the progressives to see the right wing taking the advantageous ground on human rights issue, on which they themselves have fought for so long in South. What was worse was that once it had taken off, it became even harder to say anything about it without compromising their former stance on collaboration which they could not give up. It even began to compromise their human rights agenda in South, since the right wing could always criticize them for turning their backs on huge human rights crisis in North Korea while raising ‘meticulous’ issues in South.

  In practical sense, it boils down to the 6.15 agreement of 2000, an agreement between Kim Dae Jung and Kim Jung Il on terms of reunification as a federation, which gave Kim Dae Jung the Nobel Peace Prize. The 6.15 summit talks was instantly celebrated by all Koreans, but not to last so long. After it was revealed that Kim Dae Jung’s administration had given a large sum of money to make the talks possible, the glory of the historic moment was quite discolored. As Lee Myung Bak takes the presidency, Sunshine Policy was officially over. Attempt to abolish the Ministry of Reunification was not successful but a former army general known for his anti-communism was appointed as the minister. Left is still struggling to find its place in the North Korea human rights agenda.

   Left and right, progressive and conservative, they all want North Koreans to be better. They all want to see two Koreas back in one. It seems like it goes back to priority issue if we are to find where the conflict lies. Whether collaboration comes first, or remedy for the human rights issue comes first. Or, it is this dichotomy that makes it hard to find a mediating resolution, since remedy for human rights issues does not necessarily mean pressuring the regime, and collaboration would not always mean standing by them or keeping silence when they really screw up. As is life, the answer is not to be found in the extremeties of the spectrum.