Stop the Witch-Hunt Against KDLP!

Five people have been arrested on charges of violating the National Security Law, including Korea Democratic Labor Party Deputy Secretary-General Choi Ki-Yung. The right-wing described it as potentially “the biggest spy case since Kim Dae-Jung’s presidency.”

However, none of the allegations made by the National Intelligence Service against the so-called ‘Il-Shim-Hoi’ (‘Organization of One Mind’ the alleged pro-NK group) has been substantiated.
That’s why the prosecution, instead of arresting them for spying, did so on the grounds that they met NK operatives in China – for ‘contacting and communicating with the enemy’, forbidden by the National Security Law.

This is a blatant double standard. When senior government officials, politicians, and chaebol presidents travel north to meet NK ‘officials’ – there’s no criteria for distinguishing ‘officials’ from ‘operatives’, by the way – it’s called ‘North-South cooperation and exchange’; when it’s KDLP members doing the same thing it’s called ‘serving the interests of the enemy.’

Moreover, 1.2 million South Koreans have visited NK since the June 15 Summit of 2000, and currently there are 300 thousand South Koreans every year who either visit NK or meet North Koreans in China.

The NIS’ investigation is based on reports allegedly written by Chang Min-Ho and Sohn Jung-Mok. (two among the five arrested). But Chang denies he has ever joined the NK Labor Party, and even said “Deputy Secretary-General Choi has nothing to do with Il-Shim-Hoi.”
NIS is said to have threatened Chang that he would be “sent to Guantanamo Bay”. Choi’s wife testified that the NIS hurled “sexual insults” at her husband.

They say Il-Shim-Hoi received instructions from Pyongyang to ‘find out how the motion to impeach Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-Ung failed’, to ‘think of ways to draw NGOs into the anti-American movement by implicating environmental issues’, etc. These are hardly ‘state secrets’. One only needs to surf the internet or read the newspapers to find answers to these riddles.

Nevertheless, the Grand National Party and the right wing insist that “if the 386-generation (the generation who went to university in the 80s and were involved in the pro-democracy movement) activists are guilty of spying, they ought to be punished severely.” The Grand National Party condemns even KDLP parliamentarians’ official visit to NK in an attempt to thaw the recently hardened inter-Korean relations. The same people who cried war in reaction to the NK nuke test are now leading a crazed witch-hunt against progressive forces.

The conservative media reported that Choi and the rest were involved in the movement protesting the deaths of the two middle school girls, the protests against US bases, against the Korea-US FTA, etc. The intent is to slander the movements against imperialism and neoliberalism by putting a ‘pro-North’ label on them.

In response to such crazed agitation from the right, the Presidential Blue House spokesman Yoon Tae-Yung said “investigation on the spy organization will continue regardless of whether the NIS Chief Kim Seung-Kyu retains his post.”

Meanwhile, the ‘386-generation’ parliamentarians in the ruling Uri Party (to say nothing of the party’s right wing) are behaving in the most cowardly and opportunist manner. Uri spokesman Woo Sang-Ho backed the witch-hunt by saying “the NIS wouldn’t build a spy case out of thin air.”

As KDLP Representative Moon Sung-Hyun pointed out correctly, this is Roh Moo-Hyun’s version of framing activists for espionage, a tactic that used to be the preserve of former authoritarian regimes. The NIS, moreover, seems bent on enlarging the case even further, to include NGOs and politicians among its list of suspects. The likelyhood of there being more spy cases waiting in the pipeline is increasing.

Faced with such a threat, the South Korean progressive forces have to put aside political disagreements and put up a united struggle against the witch-hunt driven by the regime and the right.

Unite against authoritarian onslaught

The number of people arrested for breaking the National Security Law went up for the first time in 10 years this year. Right wing forces are once again wielding their traditional weapon against their scapegoats for the NK nuclear crisis.
This weapon is no doubt also helpful for Roh Moo-Hyun who, with his 10% approval rating, also needs a scapegoat for the dire political crisis he’s facing.

Roh is following the precedent of his predecessor Kim Yung-Sam, who remarked that “Once in office, I could see the necessity of keeping the National Security Law.”
Therefore it’s not just paranoid right wingers that cling to the National Security Law. The majority Uri Party, the Grand National Party, and the Democratic Party all wish to retain the Law in more or less its present form.

In other words, the National Security Law has been, and will continue to be, a favorite weapon of this country’s rulers regardless of their party affiliations.
The resigned NIS Chief Kim Seung-Kyu revealed the true nature of the Law when he said the following: “We are facing an unprecedented national security crisis, which calls for the NIS to concentrate ever harder on our original duty of capturing spies.”

Right now, the tip of their sword is pointed at the DLP. They wish to discredit the DLP and the anti-FTA and anti-war movements it is leading by making the Party look like ‘a sanctuary of spies receiving directions from the North.’ It is also an intimidation tactic aimed at blunting the impact of the People’s Rally and the KCTU(Korea Confederation of Trade Unions) strike planned for November.

The Chosun Daily has been particularly swift in exploiting divisions within the DLP on this issue. It reported: “As it became known that the arrested people had links with NK, NLs [left nationalists] and PDs [‘People’s Democracy’] got divided over how to respond.”

Under the circumstance, the accusation that ‘Autonomy and Solidarity’ threw at their persecuted fellow party members of “blindly collaborating in NK’s outdated, manipulative operations in South Korea” will only serve to boost the right wing’s confidence.
NK phobia and sectarianism against the NLs has turned ‘Autonomy and Solidarity’ so politically blind as to be incapable of telling friends from foe.
Looking at them, one gets reminded of such American intellectuals as Max Shachtman who, seeing Stalinism in the 1940s as a greater evil than free market capitalism, turned to social democracy and later to ‘liberal anti-communism.’

Equally puzzling is the silence of such influential party opinion groups as ‘Jonjin’ (March Forward), at a time when the Party is facing the gravest persecution in its history. Their spectator-like attitude is unbecoming of a ‘Leftist’ group. They ought to step out and defend their comrades against attacks, whatever their opinion on the NK nuclear test.

The right wing media are intentionally using terms like ‘spying’ and ‘serving enemy interests’ to whip up anti-NK and anti-communist scare among the masses.
But KDLP’s participation in the anti-FTA, anti-war, and electoral campaigns are neither ‘pro-North’ nor ‘serving enemy interests.’

Progressive forces should fight back aggressively, not quiver, at this witch-hunt.
We should remember how the hysteria of McCarthyism that began in the early 50s weakened substantially towards the end of that decade when it met popular resistance.
Martin Luther King Jr. and SNCC activists in the 60s weren’t intimidated by accusations from the conservative media that they were influenced by communists.

The following words by SNCC activist Charles Sherrod shows us how we ought to respond to the witch-hunt taking place here and now:
“I don’t care if you’re the devil’s emissary. I will welcome whoever is ready to stand with me on the frontline till the end.”

No to UN sanctions against North Korea

Roh should partake neither in PSI nor in sanctions

On October 14, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a resolution calling for sanctions against North Korea. As we had expected, military options were not included among the punitive measures. This is primarily due to the Bush administration’s inability to fight another war in another front.
Immanuel Wallerstein, during his recent visit to South Korea, really hit the mark when he said:

“The US is facing an enormous military, political, and psychological problem regarding Iraq. This is the number one concern for Americans at the moment.
“Realistically speaking, the US has neither the political nor the military energy to intervene or to generate conflict in regions outside Iraq. As regards the Korean Peninsula, there’s not much the US can do, other than taking ‘verbal actions’ such as issuing condemnations”.

The recent publication of Colin Powell’s biography aroused concern as to whether Rumsfeld’s quoted remark that “the goal of the US is the fall of the NK regime, not dialogue with Kim Jung-Il” was indicative of the Bush administration’s future response to NK’s nuclear test. But such hard-line attitude of neocons towards NK is nothing new. More interesting is the fact that the Bush gang, including Rumsfeld himself, failed to achieve anything it wanted regarding NK over the last few years.
Bush tried to paint the resolution as a success by saying it showed “the world is united in our opposition to its [NK’s] nuclear weapons plans.” But beyond opposing NK nuclear weapons, the resolution only revealed disagreements between Russia, China, and the US on how to respond.
Moreover, it also revealed the sheer impotence and hypocrisy of an administration that had invaded a country on the basis of fabricated intelligence that it possessed WMDs, but couldn’t do anything about a country that proclaimed to have WMDs and even detonated one.

UN sanctions – a proven means of mass murder

Although the Security Council resolution does not include military measures, it does include severe economic sanctions designed to strangle NK. Economic sanctions will worsen the lives of North Koreans who are already suffering under a regime that value weapons over living standards.
The UN has a record of killing 1 million Iraqis through 13 years of economic sanctions. Half of those Iraqis were children.
This time, the resolution included “luxury goods” on the list of banned items, to give the impression that they were targeting NK ruling elites, not ordinary people.
However, the clause that prohibits “other items, materials, equipment, goods and technology … which could contribute to DPRK’s nuclear-related, ballistic missile-related or other WMD-related programmes” could be stretched to mean anything.
As Yeon-Cheol Kim (Professor at Korea University) points out, “determining dual-use items is usually vulnerable to arbitrary judgment.” For instance, the argument that rice could be used as military rations persists over a decade after South Korea began supplying rice to NK. Petroleum could easily power military equipments such as missile-carrying trucks. Other essential goods for modern life – machinery, electronic devices, chemicals, etc. – could just as well be classified as dual-use items.
After the nuclear test, the Grand National Party hissed that “the money we gave NK to pay for sand ended up in the army”, but the argument (that cash flow into NK finances WMD development) could be applied to all forms of economic transactions. Indeed, the UN resolution bans provision of money, as well as nuclear weapon and missile-related material, to NK.

Economic sanctions will only hurt ordinary North Koreans

The actual impact of sanctions will depend, to a certain extent, on how China implements them. The Chinese authorities are unlikely to enforce sanctions too hard for fear of causing chaos in NK, but nevertheless they feel they have to “take necessary countermeasures.” They have already erected fences along the border to contain a possible wave of defection that might be triggered by sanctions.
China has a record of cutting its supply of crude oil to NK early in 2003 as a way of pressuring NK to come to the tripartite talks in Beijing. This was done despite the fact that NK depended entirely on China for its petroleum. In 1994 China closed the Dandong Customs Office, its principal trade route with NK, demanding Pyongyang accept nuclear inspections.
According to a study, the increase in Sino-Korean trade between 2000 and 2004 boosted NK’s growth rate by 3.5% annually (Yung-Hoon Lee, ). A reduction in Sino-Korean trade will deal a serious blow to the NK economy.
The UN Food and Agricultural Organization estimated that NK would suffer an absolute yearly shortage of 42 tons of food, even with imports and humanitarian aid. Imagine what might happen when economic sanctions are added to the equation.
Article 8, clause f of the UN resolution also calls for maritime vessel searches which, if seriously implemented, could lead to accidental military clashes. NK stated it would consider sanctions a declaration of war.
Sanctions are not the solution. It will merely serve to consolidate the hostile symbiosis between the US and NK: in other words, it will only strengthen NK’s military-first policy and force the populace to rally behind the regime.

This article appeared in Counterfire No. 16 (Special Issue on NK's Nuke Test) on October 21.

Statement on NK's Nuclear Test

On October 9, North Korea announced that it had just conducted a nuclear test. The test came just six days after an official statement by the Foreign Ministry that NK would proceed with such a test. Experts had warned unequivocally that Pyongyang wasn't simply bluffing this time. But the Bush administration, by ignoring such warnings and responding with the usual blackmail, practically asked for this to happen.
Leon Sigal, the author of Disarming Stranger, recently noted that "the only way to stop NK's nuclear test would be for the US to negotiate seriously with NK ― a prospect that seems remote at the moment."
The NK nuclear test, therefore, was a very predictable outcome. When the US continued to ignore NK by refusing dialogue and maintaining financial sanctions despite NK's proclamation of nuclear statehood and test-firing of missiles, Pyongyang turned to nuclear testing in a last-ditch attempt to be taken seriously.
NK's nuke test is the culmination of 5 years of the Bush administration's policy towards NK. Up until the year 2002, NK had been freezing its plutonium reactor and reprocessing facility, in compliance with the Agreed Framework. It was only after October 2002, when Bush's special envoy James Kelly went to Pyongyang to pick a fight, and only after November 2002, when the US stopped supplying NK with heavy oil (in violation of the Agreed Framework), that NK withdrew from the Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and restarted operation of its nuclear reactor in Yongbyon.
Even as the invasion of Iraq reinforced the perception that countries actually need weapons of mass destruction to deter US aggression, people like Richard Pearle publicly bragged how "we've already smashed the Iraqi Republican Guard. We can do the same with NK's army."
Moreover, the US listed NK among its potential nuclear strike targets, in the Nuclear Posture Review submitted to the Congress in December 2001. A threat of this kind against a non-nuclear state clearly violates the Nonproliferation Treaty.
By leveling such naked threats for years and years against a NK that had acquired plutonium reprocessing capability, Washington was in effect begging NK to develop nuclear weapons.
As a matter of fact, nuclear blackmail against NK has been ongoing for nearly half a century since 1957, when the US, in violation of the Armistice Agreement, brought nuclear bombs, missiles and mines into South Korea.
Although the Bush Administration, along with the South Korean, Japanese, and the Chinese authorities, is currently condemning NK's nuclear test, the International Court of Justice said in a 1996 ruling that it could not "determine categorically whether the use of nuclear weapons by a state would be unlawful even under extreme circumstances in which the very survival of the state is at stake." In a way, Bush's NK policy served merely to strengthen NK's missile and nuclear capabilities without being able to replace the regime.

UN sanctions are not the solution

The aftermath of NK's test has become the subject of utmost interest. Pyongyang apparently wishes to gain de facto recognition as a nuclear power, or to gain a more potent leverage for negotiation. This is one possible outcome, but the immediate effect would be a tightening of sanctions through the UN.
The Bush Administration is obliged, by its own fierce rhetoric of the past, to show a tough response to NK's test. And yet "there's really nothing much the US can do in the event of a nuclear test by NK other than to issue condemnations through a new UN resolution", as Professor Don Oberdorfer of Johns Hopkins pointed out.
Washington can't take the military option for three reasons. First, the administration's hands are tied to Iraq; it has to deal with Iran on top of it. As strong as the US military is, it can't afford to pick another fight in another front. This must have been part of Pyongyang's calculation. Even a limited, pin-point strike on NK nuclear facilities could easily escalate into a far wider conflict. General Gary Luck (ret.) who commanded US forces in Korea in 1994 estimated that if the US strikes NK nuclear facilities, a full-scale war would erupt in which "one million lives would be lost, including those of 80 to 100 thousand Americans; material costs would exceed $100Billion." Second, the US must take into account how China and South Korea would react. The two might agree on UN sanctions (albeit not on their intensity), but they are not likely to support military action. For China, the prospect of having US forces right across the Chinese border is unacceptable; for South Korea, the scale of the destruction that would result from war with NK could be crippling beyond recovery.
According to a study released in 2005, a surgical strike on NK's nuclear facility, at worst, can turn the entire Korean Peninsula into a radioactive desert for 10 years. At best, 80% of living organisms within a 10~15 kilometer radius of the strike will die in a couple of months, and the radioactive fallout will travel up to 1400km ― enough to cover Seoul.
If Washington presses NK too hard, South Korea could move closer to China, which in turn would hurt US hegemony in Northeast Asia. Preserving US hegemony in the region has been the preoccupation of US strategists like Brezinsky ever since the end of the Cold War. US is in the difficult position of having to play NK's threat as a means of bolstering the US-Korea alliance, and at the same time avoid escalating the tension too much.
Third, US public opinion against war (which has now moved to the mainstream) is making it even more difficult for the administration to resort to military action.
In the given circumstances, the Bush administration is likely to apply pressure on NK through UN sanctions first, and then wait and see how things develop, trying to figure out how to respond. An administration that has been incapable of devising a unified policy on NK for the last 5 years is unlikely to have suddenly found one in the course of a few days.
The progressive forces in South Korea must oppose UN sanctions as well as military action by the US, for the sanctions themselves could further de-stabilize the situation. We shouldn't lend our support to the South Korean government's plan to support UN sanctions. Sanctions will only make ordinary North Koreans suffer. The only way to stop nuclear proliferation is to force the US to quit threatening NK.

A dangerous game

NK claims its nuclear test would "serve to defend peace and stability in the Korean Peninsula and the region surrounding it." That is just false. Even if there's no immediate military action from the US, NK's test will serve to intensify tension in Northeast Asia.
NK's test will encourage Japan to go nuclear, which will then encourage South Korea and Taiwan to follow suit. The result will be a Northeast Asian region living in constant fear of thermonuclear war.
From the point of view of NK state officials, nuclear arms may seem the only possible deterrent against Washington's aggression. But from the perspective of the ordinary people of Northeast Asia, NK's nuclear test is a dangerous gamble with their lives which has nothing to do with socialism. It could also have a negative impact on people's movements in South Korea, Japan, etc.
The logic of MAD can ensure neither peace nor the survival of the regime. Humanity went near the brink of thermonuclear war during the Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Only 4 years ago, India and Pakistan came close to waging nuclear warfare over Kashmir. Threatening the workers and the people of other countries with nuclear weapons will only serve to whip up fear and thus damage their real potential to defeat imperialism.

October 9, 2006
All Together

Statement by Giles Ji Ungpakorn (Thailand)

Declaration by Associate Professor Giles Ji Ungpakorn

According to news reports, a certain Mr Chaiyong Rattanawan has made a formal complaint about me to Police General Sompong Samranjai at the Dusit Police Station in Bangkok. I would like to explain below that if the Thai State accepts this complaint and decides to proceed with this prosecution, it will stimulate a number of legalistic and political arguments, both inside and outside the country.

I, and all those who oppose the military coup of the 19 th September believe that the 1997 Constitution is the legitimate constitution today. This constitution was drawn up after much discussion in all sections of Thai society. Participation in drawing up this constitution was unprecedented in Thai history. Article 65 of this constitution states that it is the right of all citizens to peacefully oppose those who take power by unconstitutional means. Article 66 further states that it is the duty of citizens to protect democracy. The 1997 Constitution came into force after it was sign by the Head of State.

On the 19 th September 2006 a group of military officers decided to stage a coup and tore up the 1997 Constitution. Those who understand democracy will see this as an illegal act according to Thailand's legitimate constitution. More than that, the military junta decided to draw up a so-called "temporary constitution". This turned out to be a short document of only a few pages. This so-called "constitution" was not drawn up through any participation by the citizens of Thailand. Worse still, it does not guarantee basic democratic rights. This temporary constitution also came into force after it was signed by the Head of State.

The basic argument here is: which Constitution has legitimacy and is democratic? The 1997 Constitution? Or the Junta's temporary Constitution? Further more, which constitution conforms to basic moral principles of governance? We must not forget that the issue of morality and destruction of democratic rights were the basis for the anti-Thaksin movement.

Given that both Constitutions were signed by the Head of State and that both Prime Minister Thaksin and Prime Minister Surayut received Royal endorsement, those who are holding guns to our heads in Thailand should consider what image they want to portray to Thai society and the international community. Do they want to show that the Head of State is neutral and above politics or do they want to imply that the Head of State is one and the same as the military junta? If the Thai state interprets the law to say that any criticism of the military junta is automatically a criticism of the Head of State, then people will naturally come to the latter conclusion.

Any case against me will be a case against all those who support democracy. Democratic principles state that citizens must respect the wishes of the majority. It is not the duty of citizens, however, to follow orders from a small self-appointed group who take power by the gun without a democratic mandate. I subscribe to those democratic principles.

There are those who would want to dirty the good name of our country by implying that Thailand "does not have a democratic tradition" like the West or like civilized countries. I beg to differ. The Thai Peoples Movement has a long and honourable tradition of fighting to expand the democratic space. This, in my mind, is the true Thai political culture.

If the Thai State chooses to proceed with this court case, let it be absolutely clear that the arguments will not be confined to mere legalistic details in the court room. But let us think about legalistic issues for a moment. The choice facing us in Thai society is between the rule of just laws and the rule of the gun and the tank.

Democracy can only truly exist if we respect the poor who make up the majority in Thai society. Democracy has no meaning without social and economic justice. If we are to kick out the corporate-backed, human rights-abusing Thaksin government, which at the same time paid attention to the plight of the poor, we have a duty to offer something better. It is time to propose a welfare state, funded through progressive taxation of the rich. Thailand has too many millionaires. Thai society would indeed be beautiful if this vision of democracy were to come about.

Another World is Possible
3 October 2006

Appeal for website closure protest (Thailand)

Dear Friends,

Midnight University, a program of popular education based at Chiang Mai University in Northern Thailand, is appealing for support from university and media colleagues and activists all over the world to oppose the closure of its website on September 29, 2006, by the Ministry of Information and Communications Technology by order of the leaders of the military coup in Thailand.

http://www.midnightuniv.org/ is visited by over 2.5 million users per month. The closure means the loss of access to over 20,000 pages of 1,500 or so papers and articles in the fields of Science, Social Science, and Humanities, including 1,300 items on the Bulletin Board. This major encroachment on academic freedom and curtailment of freedom of information of a greatnumber of the Thai population cannot be tolerated. See the statement belowfor more details.

To denounce the website closure, please send your full name to midnightuniv@gmail.com, attention: Mr Somkiat Tangnamo, Webmaster.
Thank you,
Chanida, Focus on the Global South

Statement of the Midnight University

"Opposing the Closure of Channels of Free Communication"
Beginning on Friday September 29th, the Midnight University's website has been blocked by the Ministry of Information and Communication Technology (ICT), Thailand. However, ours was not the first one to be blocked or tampered with by the power of the Coup Council. The Midnight University's considered reaction to the September 19th coup is strong disapproval of such a reckless solution to the nation's political problems. Nonetheless, we also realize that it is too late to reverse it and the only way out is to lend a hand in pushing our country back onto the path of democratic development.

The Council for Democratic Reform (CDR) has claimed that this coup is the beginning of a political reform process which includes the drafting of a new constitution. And yet, the provisions concerning the drafting of a new constitution and political reform in the Provisional Constitution of the CDR do not allow the full and free exercise of political rights and civil liberties by the people, which is the key condition for a successful political reform. Popular participation does not simply mean being selected to sit in a constituent assembly, but also denotes the opportunity for mutual learning and free exchange of ideas. Therefore, an atmosphere of subjection and control by the military under the CDR will rule out any possibility of genuine political reform.

For that reason, the Midnight University held a press conference on September 28th, to oppose the political reform process as stipulated in the Provisional Constitution and propose an alternative that would allow for the full restitution of rights and liberties to the people. To get ourpoint across, we performed a symbolic act of tearing up copies of the Provisional Constitution and posted a report of the said event on the Midnight University's website.

Hence, the ICT's immediate imposition of a blockage on our website. Actually, it is not hard for the Midnight University to overcome this technical difficulty. We have indeed received various offers from foreign servers to host our website. Be that as it may, we are of the opinion that the problem of availability of a public space is not technical in nature, but essentially political. And it has arisen because the self-proclaimed "Council for Democratic Reform" has used its coup-begotten power to impose a blockage on public space. Therefore, we need to fight this illegitimate power together right here in this land rather than evade it and find a new public
space elsewhere.

As the Midnight University has earlier warned, political reform couldn't be realized in an atmosphere shorn of people's rights and liberties. That the Coup Council has thoughtlessly closed down websites that expressed dissenting views on the coup shows that it is incapable of leading a political reform that is free and equally open to all. To bring this power to an end peacefully, Thai society must not submit to it. Instead, we should together pressure it to stop the violation of people's rights and liberties at once.

It is true that, given freedom, there will be some who would exploit it to try to destroy or disrupt political reform. And yet, only the full exercise of rights and liberties can enlighten and empower a society to fight the lies and half-truths of corrupt politicians seeking a return to power. On the contrary, a society whose learning and communication is kept under tutelage will remain weak and unable to resist them.

In place of an arbitrary and selective censorship based on a subjective feeling of distrust and animosity of the censors, the complete and indiscriminate opening of all channels of communication will result in a free, fair and predictable rule of the game for all, thus rectifying thearbitrary, unchecked and uncontrolled exercise of power
that is a major weakness of all coup-makers. By guaranteeing the equal rights and liberties of the people to information, the Coup Council will be able to tap into the real source of power far greater than whatever it can get from its illegitimate coup.

30 September 2006

No to the Coup in Thailand

On the morning of September 29, 2006, a little less than 100 people from various civic groups and social movement organizations gathered in front of the Thai Embassy to protest against the military coup that ousted Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra and revoked the Thai Constitution of 1997 on September 19. They chanted “Stop political intervention now!” “Restore the Constitution now!” and “Protect basic democratic rights now!”


A speaker from All Together, an anti-war and anti-capitalist workers’ organization in South Korea, said

“It is a total nonsense when the military junta proclaims they are for democracy
in Thailand. A coup d’état is an enemy of democracy. If they are for democracy,
why are they banning peaceful demonstrations and protests against the coup and
revoked the Constitution of 1997.”

Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra is not without controversies but he is a democratically
elected prime minister. Perhaps the South Korean protesters know better than anyone else that it is the people who have the right to bring down their prime minister and not the military junta.
When the organizers of the protest contacted the Thai Embassy to arrange a delivery of the statement against the coup, the Thai Embassy refused. But the Thai Embassy was surprised to find a big crowd of protesters today. They quickly changed their mind and accepted the protesters’ statement against the coup. This is a small example that the people have the power for genuine democratic change, not the politicians and certainly not the military.



In the end, the protesters agreed that they will continue to build solidarity with the Thai people against the coup. An organizer of the protest reminded everyone that th Thai people's actions will undoubtedly accompany tremendous danger since they live under the constant threat of military repression. This is why building strong solidarity movements home and abroad are crucial. Every cheered when a solidary message from the '19 September Network Against Coup d'etat' was read aloud.
Such a task is especially important for the Korean people who had had suffered under the military dictatorship and had brought down the military dictatorship through struggle.
On that note, everyone at the protest strongly warned the Thai military junta that if they do not step down from the power immediately, they will face once again the great power of the Thai people.
The South Korean protesters also demanded the following.

1. The military junta immediately stop its political intervention!
2. Immediate restoration of the Constitution of 1997.
3. Protection of basic democratic rights including the freedom of press. Guarantee of safety to the demonstration on October 6 and the Thai Social Forum.

Sept. 23 Anti-war Protest in Seoul, South Korea

Bring the Troops Home Now!

On a beautiful fall day in Seoul, 1,500 anti-war protesters gathered in front of the Seoul Station. There were old faces and flags like the Korean Democratic Labor Party, left nationalists, All Together and gay and lesbians with their anti-war rainbow flag. But there were also new faces which go to show that the South Korean anti-war movement is gaining its momentum again.
Today, we were joined by two inspiring groups.


One is a delegation from the US Veterans for Peace. 5 delegates, most of them with gray hairs, shared their experiences of war, the Korean War and the Vietnam War, and reminded us that the war is not the answer and we, the people and not the governments, are the one who can stop war. One of the delegates got a biggest cheer when he told the crowds that thousands of Americans are demonstrating against the war on Iraq on the same day and the majority of the American people are against the war.
Second group is the youths against the war group composed of high school and below students. In a clear and strong voice, one of the members spoke on the stage. She said that the most common victims of wars are children and they are dying because the US considers profit first before human lives. “We must come together and speak out,” she said.
The protesters unanimously resolved a declaration stating that they will continue to build the anti-war movement and struggle against the South Korean government’s attempt to extend the troops deployment in Iraq through the parliament. Moreover, they will strengthen the anti-war movement in solidarity with the international anti-war movement to end the US occupation of Iraq and stop the US attack on Iran.

The protesters then marched from the Seoul Station to Gwanghwamun where the US embassy is located demanding the return of Korean troops from Iraq, the end of the US occupation of Iraq, No Korean troops to Lebanon, don’t attack Iran, and no to the relocation of the US bases to Pyeongtaek.

Six Party Talks – One Year On

When the September 19 Joint Declaration in Beijing was adopted at the Six Party Talks a year ago, many people were swept by euphoria. The prevailing mood was that the Declaration marked a major step forward in resolving tension in the Korean Peninsula.

The mood in the progressive camp was no different. Many leaders in the left nationalist movement appraised the September 19 Declaration as “the defeat of the US policy of antagonizing the North” and a victory for North Korean diplomacy. Gone were the predictions about an impending war in the peninsula; instead an optimistic outlook for “the establishment of a framework for peace in the peninsula” gained currency.

Looking back a year later, it isn’t difficult to see how shortsighted such forecasts really were. Tension in the peninsula is far from resolved – in fact, it has hardly even relaxed. Following the North Korean missile tests, there are now rumors of an underground nuclear test in preparation.

Responsibility for the current state of affairs should be laid squarely at the feet of the US. The Bush administration almost literally trashed the Declaration before the ink even dried.

The US, having agreed in the Declaration to “discuss the issue of providing DPRK with a light-water reactor at an appropriate time”, declared at the end of that very same conference that it will dismantle the KEDO (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization: the international consortium commissioned for the building of the planed light-water reactor). Even after the Declaration, US sanctions against North Korea continued to be imposed indiscriminately against all financial transactions, legal and illegal.

However, simply blaming Washington for the betrayal of post-September 19 hopes is not enough. We also need to consider whether an agreement by the “six parties” itself would be a feasible solution for establishing peace in Northeast Asia.

Those who support the Six Party Talks as a way forward invariably call for the resumption of the talks, implementation of the Declaration, and for the South Korean government to assume the leading role. But even if the six parties meet again and adopt another declaration, would the US act on it? Was it really so difficult in the first place to foresee Washington’s refusal to honor its commitments?

Baffled expectations

Professor Lee Yung-Hee, the prominent progressive commentator who has witnessed over half a century of turmoil in Korean history, said in a lecture immediately after the September 19 Declaration that not once had he seen the US honor a treaty. He warned that Washington could ignore the September 19 Declaration as well, even if for the time being “the warmongers in America had to settle the Northeast Asian issue in the way it was determined at the Beijing talks” because of the “Vietnamization of Iraq”.

“We need to keep in mind Washington’s record of honoring treaties when we make judgments on the future of Northeast Asia and the Korean peninsula.
“[We ought not] base our judgment on a piece of paper that is the Beijing Agreement.”

Professor Lee added that “while the media and academia tend to portray the joint Declaration as a huge step forward, I am rather worried”, for he still saw “an ever-present threat of war between China and the US-Japan military alliance jostling for hegemony in Northeast Asia.”

To a certain degree, Professor Lee’s clairvoyance stems from his understanding of Korean geopolitics in a wider, international context. Indeed, it is virtually impossible to understand the “North Korean question” without first understanding the post-cold war reshuffling of power in the Far East and Washington’s response to it.

The US wanted to maintain its hegemony over Northeast Asia even after the end of the cold war; North Korea offered an excuse for continued US presence in the region. Today, Washington’s strategy in the region is basically to co-opt India and to pit Japan against China. This strategy is the source of the ongoing instability in the region.

Once we understand such relations of forces, we can see what nonsense it is for the very agents of instability to come together and forge a peace deal. Of course it is better to engage in dialogue than to see tensions going up, but we shouldn’t expect genuine solutions to come out of such talks.

In recent years the mood within the Korean progressive camp has been alternating, in periods of several months, between dread of another Korean war and high hopes for the Six Party Talks. But the Bush administration itself is neither willing to take military action against, nor to negotiate with Pyongyang. This is because the administration is too preoccupied with the Middle East to be able to deal with North Korea.

If we can grasp the worldwide context in which Washington’s strategy is being played out – and how it is facing a terrible crisis – we need not get carried away either by irrational fear or unfounded optimism. Instead we should be able to take dead aim at the Achilles’ Heel of the US’ strategy: burying Bush’s war project in the sands of Iraq.

This article appeared in Counterfire No. 12 issued on September 16.

Victimization of HUFS student

Vicious attacks are being waged against students in South Korean universities. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies (HUFS) is the scene of the latest such attack. On the 18th of August, the school administration unilaterally announced its decision to indefinitely suspend Cho Myung-Hoon, a student member of All Together. His crime: ‘tarnishing the school’s reputation’ by distributing leaflets that exposed the administrative faculty’s sexual harassment of staff workers who were on strike.
The HUFS staff workers’ union strike, which continues to this day, began in response to an attempt by the administration to effectively uproot the union. This is a union that had won an agreement from the school in 2004 to ‘regularize’(i.e. grant stable employment with full benefits) its ‘irregular’ employees(workers on precarious, short-term contracts). Moreover, this is a union that led the university-wide campaign in the second half of 2005 for a democratic election of the next president in which the student community, the staff, and faculty could all participate. The campaign did not succeed, and the new president eventually got elected at a clandestine meeting of a few dozen professors gathered in a hotel room.
Pak Chul, the new president, set out to weaken the union as soon as he took office at the beginning of 2006. When it came time to renegotiate the collective agreement, the president took issue with the union membership of 48 staff workers in the position of section chief or higher. “It violates both law [not true] and principle”, he said. On the 14th of March, the administration unilaterally declared it would not honor the current collective agreement. Then it sent threatening letters to the families of the 48 union members in question, urging them to forfeit membership. Their expulsion had now become the precondition for any further negotiations. On the 24th, the school sacked 6 irregular workers.
On the 6th of April, the union went on strike. In the few rounds of negotiation that were held since, the administration showed little sign of conciliation. Quite the contrary: on the 5th of June the president fired 3 of the 22 section chief level workers still retaining membership. On the 8th, he tried to punish another 15 workers for ‘taking part in an illegal demonstration’. On the 26th, administrative professors assaulted a procession of workers making routine rounds around the campus; one of the professors struck a worker in the face with his palm; another did the same with his fist; they hurled insults and sexually harassed female workers by saying dirty things like: “I can see your breasts – keep them out of sight, will you?”
The All Together group in HUFS, which had been siding with the union throughout the whole time, responded in the usual way: by posting wall papers and distributing leaflets denouncing the conduct of the professors. But this time, they not only distributed them to HUFS students but also to high school students and their parents visiting HUFS to apply for the school. In this seemingly minor detail the school authorities saw an opportunity to crack down on All Together. They singled out Cho Myung-Hoon, the leader of the group in HUFS. On the 7th of August Cho received a phone call from a member of the school’s disciplinary committee instructing him to appear before the committee scheduled to meet the very next day. Asked what for, he answered: “must have something to do with the leaflets you distributed on the 24th… I’m not sure”. Cho protested and demanded his ‘trial’ be postponed until the beginning of the new school term in late August. This the authorities could not do, since their intent was to conclude the matter as swiftly as possible so that by the time students came back from vacation their crime would go largely unnoticed. So the committee meeting was postponed by a mere 3 days, to the 11th of August. But Cho was not about to walk silently into the hyenas’ den. On the morning of the 11th, he showed up at the designated building along with 30 other angry students. In a brilliant show of solidarity, 150 union members showed up as well. It was learned at the meeting that Cho’s official crime was that he had disseminated ‘fabricated stories’ to ‘people outside the school’, thus ‘tarnishing the school’s reputation’.
The same day afternoon, Cho found out from an internet news brief that the committee decided to suspend him indefinitely. On the 18th, the president ratified the decision and posted it on the school’s web page. Not once was Cho informed of the process. Later it was discovered that the disciplinary committee had not even convened properly because, according to regulations, the committee has to include the dean of the department where the student in question belongs - in Cho’s case the English department. Instead the dean of the Western Languages department had shown up. It didn’t matter to the president.

On the 21st of August, Cho held a press conference in front of the main gate in which 40 students and 200 workers took part. Messages of support began pouring in from human rights organizations and progressive formations including the Korea Democratic Labor Party. On the 31st of September, 70 students and 70 union members demonstrated against his victimization. Meanwhile Cho requested a meeting with the president 3 times, but every time the president refused. Could it have been guilty conscience? On the 6th of September it was revealed – to everyone’s shock – that as early as August 11th, the school administration had called on the police to investigate Cho on charges of defamation. The discovery came when Cho received a phone call from the police notifying him of an impending investigation. This shows just how far the administration is willing to go in order to silence dissent. Of all the recent attacks on student rights in Korean universities, HUFS’ was the most naked. The outcome of this fight will have ripple effects way beyond the HUFS campus.

Support our struggle
Please send messages of solidarity to: krchun_4@hotmail.com
HUFS Workers and Student Committee to Defend Cho Myung-hoon