Do you choose Pyongyang or Tokyo?

Courtesy of Jonathan Greenaway

By David A. Tizzard

My friend opened up her phone as we waited for our food. “Arrgh!” she screamed not three seconds after looking at it. She had just seen a photo of President Yoon Seok Yeol and that alone was enough to drive her to anger and frustration. It didn't necessarily matter what he had done, what he had said, or what policies the article might be about: simply seeing a photo of him turned her to rage. The emotion was palpable across her face and stayed there for a good while until, distracted by a fruit juice and humus, she returned to normalcy.

She is not alone in feeling or acting like this. Any thread or online comment section about the President will see people throwing around words such as “fascism,” “Trump,” and “idiot.” And this is before we even get started on the attitude people take towards the first lady and the glee taken in speculation around her past. Social media obviously exacerbates the reaction but there is a palpable hatred that accompanies any discussion or the mere sight of his face.

By the same token, I know people, some of them respected academics, who will scowl whenever the opposition party is mentioned. Any suggestion that the Korean left has done a good job is met with howls of refutation. “Communists!” they spit. “Trying to sell out our country to China and doing deals with North Korea!” Bringing the last opposition presidential candidate into the equation, Lee Jae-myung, makes an already highly volatile conversation border on rabid. Again, it doesn't seem to matter what the conversation might center on, the mere mention of the Democratic Party of Korea and their leading figures is enough to get certain people riled up.

Two parties. Two ideologies. The exact same reaction.

The center is lost

And then there I find myself. Lost. Looking for a political home in Korea. Trying to find a group that represents my own values and ideals. And, at the same time, realizing the necessity of needing to know exactly what I think about various things. Despite my qualifications, years of study, and connections with people close to various seats of power, I'm still not exactly sure about stuff. Of course when I was young, everything seemed so clear cut and easy. There was no doubt in my mind about the right approach. It was, naturally, the approach that I favored.

That all changes the more you read, the more you think, and the more you discuss things. The trouble is, however, that as the above reactions to political opponents become more entrenched day by day, any opportunity to actually consider things and learn is sadly lost. Discussion is replaced by dogmatism. Listening is substituted for libel.

More experienced people than me suggest that at the turn of the millennium, the Kim Dae-jung era was the most liberal in Korean society. It was a time when conversations and ideas were shared across the political spectrum. Not perfectly of course, but it was a high watermark. Go back any further and you quickly enter the era of military dictatorships and ran the risk of being sent to Namsan for any opinion slightly left of center.

Liberation and its discontents

Fast forward to the current age and now, like many other countries around the world, Korea faces extreme polarization. The results of the last election showed a fine line driven down the middle of Korean society and people on either side forced to choose between two political opposites, often despite not really favoring either of them. The same exogenous cataclysm that divided the Korean Peninsula into opposing communist and capitalist camps is now being seen again here in the South (though with obviously marked differences). Hegemony is the name of the game. And it was hammered home even further by President Yoon's Liberation Day speech. This was not oratory designed to build bridges and seek reconciliation but rather to divide and antagonize. And, it seemed to work. Supporters loved it and opponents hated it. Everyone else was left feeling a little embarrassed by the extreme emotion.

There are people dying in the world. There are great vast injustices being carried out. And here we are, on Facebook and Twitter, half an eye on Netflix and worried about our hairlines, acting as if political rhetoric is Auschwitz.

So why is all of this a problem? And where does the current hegemony leave a more centrist voter or undecided resident?

Tokyo or Pyongyang?

I “think” (I use the word here to suggest that I am open to this position being changed as time develops, just as it has already changed over the years) that ex-president Moon was right and that we should engage North Korea and promote discussion with them. I do not think, however, that we should willingly offer them all manner of concessions, aid and support without careful consideration first or any reciprocity from Pyongyang. After all, history, complex as it is, shows us that North Korea is often insincere in many of its agreements and seems more than willing to renege or disregard promises and treaties to suit its own national interest or once it believes the deal is no longer desirable.

I also think that President Yoon is right, and that Tokyo and Washington are important allies. Northeast Asia is a volatile part of the world and democratic friends are in short supply. It makes no sense to antagonize democratic Japan when the Chinese Communist Party and Stalinist North Korean Workers' Party are on your doorstep. America, for all its faults and missteps, has played an important role in securing South Korea's freedom and democracy. It is a prisoner of history in Korea, unable to leave because of decisions made decades ago. Nevertheless, it has been a cornerstone for security and economy. But should Korea bend over backwards for either the U.S. or Japan? Should it just forget Japan's behavior during colonization? Should it allow Washington to bully it in exchange for the security of the nuclear umbrella? No, of course not.

It's no surprise one agrees with both Yoon and Moon on these matters. They were, after all, on the same team. They have also had the same goals at some point. Both wanted and swore to move out of the Blue House during their term. One of them did it. The other's promises forgotten.

Hegemony now

The hegemonic line drawn down the middle of Korean society, Tokyo or Pyongyang, is an artificial one and designed to keep politicians in control of the country, Of course history and emotions are real. But those with genuine influence and power will often find agreement on things. The most important being that their antagonist positions towards each other keep both of them as the dominant forces in Korean politics. Knowing this, they then fire up the oppositions emotions' and ensure that photos and headlines garner hatred while, at the same time, making sure nothing actually changes. We'll just keep going back and forth between the left and right with little really ever happening. This is not what Fukuyama meant by the “end of history.”

Imagine that Korea suddenly adopted a position where, like many centrists, it realized Japan was an essential partner but had done some wrong things in the past it needed to more adequately address, and North Korea was a sovereign country which should be recognized and engaged with, a victim of history and part of the Korean story, yet its actions and clear human rights violations were abhorrent. If that was the position, and people could move forward, what would the focus be on next? It would surely require a new hegemonic line to be drawn. The powers that be would not like that, however.

Two years ago, when America left Afghanistan, we witnessed shocking scenes at Kabul airport as people clung desperately to the wheels of airplanes taking off. Now, reports are that women in the country are denied education and confined to the house. Their liberties stripped away while the world sighs and shrugs its shoulders. Putin's Russia has invaded Ukraine and bombed parts of the country in an attempt to redraw the geopolitical map.

This is what happens when people take things to the extreme. Korea can and should offer people a more centrist path not dominated by two opposing antagonists. The person able to do that, to navigate Pyongyang, Washington, and Tokyo will not likely win victory in an election. But, more than ever, their voice is needed. At least so my friend can enjoy her lunch and the academics will stop spitting.

Dr. David A. Tizzard (datizzard@swu.ac.kr) has a Ph.D. in Korean Studies and lectures at Seoul Women's University and Hanyang University. He is a social/cultural commentator and musician who has lived in Korea for nearly two decades. He is also the host of the Korea Deconstructed podcast, which can be found online.