hankyoreh

The Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office. (Yonhap News)

One of the things that US President Donald Trump has cited as a basis for claiming that the US presidential election was rigged and refusing to accept his defeat is the so-called “deep state.” Since taking office, he has regularly alleged that there is a “deep state” within the US government that actually controls the country, neutralizing those actually elected to power.

Conveying the idea of a “core” of the country, or a “country within a country,” the term “deep state” presumes the existence of unseen forces deeply rooted within the government. It is an extension of one of the most representative of conspiracy theories: the “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” which claims that a Jewish cabal is plotting to control the world. The term “deep state” appears to have originated with the Turkish military and other security institutions who were colluding with drug rings to round up anti-government forces during the 1990s. It’s a direct English translation of the Turkish phrase “derin devlet.”

A March 2018 poll by Monmouth University found 27% of respondents who said they believed a “group of unelected government and military officials who secretly manipulate or direct national policy” definitely exists within the federal government, while 47% said they think such a group “probably exists.” In other words, 74% of Americans are on board with “deep state” discourse.

There are indeed groups with the state that evolve into “cliques” based on their own interests. The question is whether they are subject to no controls, manipulating the voters and elected officials as they see fit. Many have loudly denounced the foreign policy and national security establishment in Washington — a group that controls not just the US’ fate but also the world’s — as having turned into a deep state. Ben Rhodes, a deputy national security advisor to former President Barack Obama, touched off a major debate when he referred to Washington’s mainstream foreign affairs and national security figures as “the Blob,” painting them as a collective representing entrenched vices.

In a May 2016 piece for the New York Times Magazine, Rhodes explained that the Blob includes “Hillary Clinton, Robert Gates and other Iraq-war promoters from both parties who now whine incessantly about the collapse of the American security order in Europe and the Middle East.” According to him, the Blob — presented as a foreign policy elite transcending factional differences — has parroted banal speculation and principles, all while abusing US power and leading the country into too many messes.

This view critiques the “liberal international order” of the Washington Blob as merely liberal hegemony — the idea that US liberal values must be propagated by force if necessary, a world view adhered to in spite of the failures of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Trump has used them to justify his own America First campaign, saying they have “perfect resumes but very little to brag about except responsibility for a long history of failed policies and continued losses at war.”

Some have said that President-elect Joseph Biden’s foreign policy teams include a lot of experienced foreign policy and national security figures who can remedy Trump’s America First approach, which has caused such discomfort for US allies and the world. But the New York Times warned of the possible “return of the foreign policy ‘Blob.’” University of Chicago professor John Mearsheimer characterized it as “bringing in the usual suspects.” From South Korea’s standpoint, we can only worry that their arrival might turn the clock back on Korean Peninsula issues, miring them once again in endless impasses and confrontation.

So, is there no issue within South Korea about a “Blob” that has become its own deep state? The Moon Jae-in administration’s fumbling prosecutorial reform efforts certainly warrant criticism, but things have reached a serious juncture with the question of just how long we can simply sit around and watch while a group possessing the authority to impose punishments on the state’s behalf turns into its own “clique.” Punishment powers are a core part of state authority. They include the authority to investigate and indict, and prosecutorial reform is about attempting to fix the situation of those two things being entrusted entirely to prosecutors who have exercised them in arbitrary ways.

The roots of the “deep state” expression have also been traced by some to the pornographic film “Deep Throat,” which caused a huge controversy in the US during the 1970s. It’s a typically messy porn film that centers on a character whose erogenous zone is located deep in her throat. Porn ended up precipitating a cultural awakening to the ways in which women were being sexually exploited. Perhaps because of this same controversy, “Deep Throat” has also been used as a code name for key figures in secretive and unexpected places. The secret source in the Watergate scandal that led to President Richard Nixon’s resignation was nicknamed “Deep Throat.” “Deep state” may thus be seen as a contemptuous parody of the “Deep Throat” idea.

If prosecutors are allowed to become a clique that controls state punishment powers based on its own interests, where does that leave state authority? Isn’t that what a “deep state” is, or a shadowy “Blob”?

By Jung E-gil, senior staff writer

Please direct comments or questions to [english@hani.co.kr]