hankyoreh

Koh Won, Senior Researcher, Seoul National University’s Institute of Korean Political Studies

The issue of handing over of wartime command of the Korean military is a very important one for the security and national interest of Korea, the last remaining island of the Cold War and one of the world’s only remaining divided nations. That is why there obviously needs to be intense debate about the subject.

The way our society is approaching the issue, however, is a typical example of an unhealthy democracy. The struggle against proceeding with the transfer is being led mostly by conservative figures, who have come out in droves over the issue. I am sure that many among them have joined in because they are truly concerned about the future of the country. But the political effect their collective action is having, regardless of the pure intentions of some individuals, is a very negative one.

The actions of conservative and right-wing groups in relation to the wartime command issue is very much reason for concern. They wield their strength through "conspiracy theory" instead of basing their argument on logical basis and reason. Defense experts and people with no such expertise are mixed together in the same batch to protest the idea, without common principles other than that they are conservative and are vulgar in their choice of words for the president - such as when they compare him to a dog.

The U.S. ambassador to Korea met with the chairperson of the Grand National Party and told him there is no difference of opinion between the U.S. and Korean governments on the issue, and that it would actually strengthen the capabilities of the two countries’ defense and provide for better deterrence if Korea has wartime command of its forces. The secretary of defense in a Neocon administration that attacked North Korea with the words "Axis of Evil" even says that he does not consider North Korea to be an immediate military threat to the South, and one that still gets treated as an equal. The U.S. does not genuinely mean what it is saying, but it has to say such things because Roh Moo-hyun’s government is whining about the issue.

How do you explain the situation when very different high-ranking officials in the world’s superpower talk to the government of Korea, small country that it is, as if they are scripted to speak in a way that sounds nice but still reflects their own interests, while on the other hand making life harder for the conservatives in Korea who so adore them?

This phenomenon basically originates in the "politics of hate" on which these conservative and right-wing elements base themselves. It is a political strategy of unconditional prejudice and hate for the Roh administration. The politics of hate tries to encourage indiscriminate criticism of and extreme hate for authorities relating to the public good and affairs of the state. It works against the political process and therefore paralyzes that process. The American scholar David Easton calls politics "the authoritative allocation of social values." The paralyzation of that process, then, leads to a rupture in national policy and renders useless all policy solutions.

It is in such a political atmosphere that citizens depart from the public sphere and depend all the more on private connections and networks. It makes people aim more for disrupted competition and an attitude that places development above all else. The politics of "get what’s yours" permeates the landscape, and people behave in a shameless and most arrogant fashion. The psychological insecurity resulting from the politics of hate becomes a perfect match with socioeconomic disparity.

The politics of hate are put forth by conservative elements on the one hand, while the GNP, the country’s conservative party, lays low and collects support. Each part is true to its role.

There is one thing these conservatives and the GNP need to remember, however. That style of politics exterminates social resistance despite continued socioeconomic disparity. What you get instead is widespread personal irresponsibility. That, in turn, leads to a conservative slant for the whole of society, and an eventual lean toward fascism.

These conservatives may indeed win back the "ten years lost" and be in power again. But the politics of hate will come back as a boomerang in the form of ruin for the whole of society.