So U.S. President George W. Bush has arrived in South Korea on the first leg of his trip around Asia...
...and the protesters are ready to go after him.
Challenge time: Name two topics that these South Korean rent-a-mobs, er, protesters will be ranting about and why for each.
Hint: I'm NOT talking about protesting anything about the ongoing American or NATO wars.
Give it a go, won't you?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
44 comments:
American Beef and American basing.
Where I live now I am surrounded by very sober Koreans doing their daily business, and some fashionable but quiet teens. They seem content to be here.(Few non chains have English Signs in my neighborhood) I am not sure why those in the old country are so opposed to the basing, but the beef issue I have heard is more about national identity and the romance of native foods and farming than it is about BSE.
Score one for karl: American Beef is one of the two.
American military basing and SOFA status is an ongoing issue, but not a particular hot button for this trip, sorry.
I have to go with Karl-- the US beef issue--Mad Cow- although, I wonder if this is just an excuse for the discontent in which the direction their country is taking?
karl lives in South Korea? Well, he would know what is going on there!
Was there a protest where 35,000 or so were up in arms because of this beef issue-- July 5th or around that time?
chara-- I was going to say american basing too-- as the younger generation wants the US troops out--
hmm???
anything to do with North Korea?
@Susan
"karl lives in South Korea?"
--heh, not exactly...
re: the second item --Nope, nothing to do with North Korea (this time). Yelp if you need another hint.
Play on words here-- the beef there in South Korea has to do with the President wanting to make all these changes as turning South Korea into a capitalist gov't--
this came from global voices-
1. privatize the health care system - going for “the American style.” Unbelievable.
2. privatize the water/electricity/gas supply, postal service, .
3. privatize other state-owned enterprises including the Seoul Metro, public bank(the Korea Development Bank) and other institutions in which public funds are invested.
Daewoo Ship-building & Marine Engineering - which produces submarines, destroyers, battle ships, submarine rescue vessels, AUV,
and other specialty vessels - is one of them; and it is going to be sold via Goldman Sachs Korea - in which the president’s nephew has
been lately hired as the chairman - to a private corporation or, possibly, to “China.” Obviously, this is going to be an enormous threat
to national security.
4. make a huge canal across the country - which, even before the last presidential election, was highly controversial and severely
criticized by intellectuals, environmentalists and the public, etc, for its environmental and even economic risks.
5. erase the “Japanese colony era” from textbooks, claiming we must forgive them and get over the past. As you might know, there still are a number of issues left unsolved about the historical tragedy, such as the ‘comfort women’ issue. The president was born in Osaka, Japan.
hai LDG?
and waiting
(Heh, I get e-mail notice if you post, Susan...)
You have added nicely to karl's score about the Beef. Yes, it is a cover for nationalist and anti-government issues inside South Korea.
But the second point is still open, although you were tantilizingly close to noticing it in your lengthy quote... not that it says so directly, of course.
Concern about the Free Trade and Koreans being screwed over?
nope. There is support for the Korea FTA, and there is dissent, pretty much divided by political party.
But this *is* about a certain perception that the U.S. failed to take S. Korea's side in a matter late last month...
anti-Bush and anti-Lee Myung-bak-- protests--
A) People upset because of beef health hazards--Mad Cow
B)Failure to consult with citizens
Yes on (A).
No on (B) as those would be protests against President Lee, not the Americans.
Hint time?
Did Bush cancel a trip to South Korea last month?
karl--help!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What happened last month?
anything to do with banking? money?
I need to go!!!!
LDG-- I am not giving up!!!
quick hint!!!
Quick Hint:
It has to do with Rocks.
...very specific Rocks.
Liancourt rocks?
"Liancourt rocks?"
*ta da!*
Yes!
so what about them did the U.S. to upset South Koreans?
the age-old dispute between Korea and Japan regarding the ownership of Dokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks burst out once more, as the Japanese government made an official decision to state in its textbooks its alleged ownership of the disputed territory.----
hai-- US failed to take sides here with South Korea?
I am not giving up!
"hai-- US failed to take sides here with South Korea?"
hai sou desu. ganbatte
(Yes, that's right. Keep at it!)
Bush-
requesting U.S. government institutions to use the name Dokdo rather than Liancourt Rocks
"...requesting U.S. government institutions to use the name Dokdo rather than Liancourt Rocks"
that would be taking South Korea's side...
(if you found that as a quote, source it please.)
while at the annual G8 summit in Hokkaido, President Lee and Bush did not do much about this contraversial dispute-- so Bush's indifference is not taken lightly?
Dokdo comment--
The Korea Times Nation News
http://www.democracykorea.org/519
I have been over here on this one as well, reading
The Korea Times quote is about *what the Koreans want now*, not anything President Bush said.
Here is where you should be looking:
U.S. State Department, 28 July.
scroll down it to the Japan/South Korea item.
Wiki--Liancourt Rocks
I don't understand-
In July 2008, the U.S. Board on Geographic Names (BGN) changed the name of the country that Liancourt Rocks belong to from South Korea to Undesignated Sovereignty. Responding to this change, Gonzalo R. Gallegos, Acting Deputy Spokesman of the U.S. State Department, said on July 28, 2008 that the United States has long maintained a policy stance of neutrality on the islets, and that the latest change does not represent any policy change within the U.S. government.[57]
The same change that classified Liancourts Rocks as Undesignated Sovereignty in the BGN database was reversed on July 30th under the order of U.S. President George W. Bush, once again marking the status of Liancourts Rocks under South Korean control.
Sounds like Bush is on Korea's side--
well-- that should have been my answer-
US does not take sides! either side-
what is the deal though on July 30?
NEVER quote wiki-p on controversial items!
That has been the subject of an "edit-war" with partisan hacks writing what they want to.
-more in one minute. wait please-
well--
this was fun-- waiting for your next comment so I can depart as they say in Japan!
You know me-- I love these type of exercises!!! If anything, keep the blog going for me and just post an exercise! (grin) I learn better from doing exercises! I like the geography which gets into these exercises-- I had no clue as to this dispute or the location of the Liancourt Rocks-- (shame on me)
xxx
Just because you live in Japan, I think Japan should keep Liancourt Rocks-- do they call this Miss Kitty?
Here is a reprint of the 30.July DeptState briefing:
State Presser, reprinted at scoop.co.nz
Here's the key exchange:
***
QUESTION: Can I ask you a question on South Korea?
MR. MCCORMACK: Please do.
QUESTION: Regarding Liancourt Rocks, yesterday, the South Korean Ambassador Lee Tae-sik met with the President, President Bush. And the Ambassador passed the concerns of the South Korean people about the recent BGN's change of the classification of Liancourt Rocks from South Korea to undesignated sovereignty. And President Bush responded by saying that he had told Secretary Rice to look into this matter. What kind of measures are you talking, discussing right now?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, first and foremost, I would urge everybody to consider one fact, and that is that our policy hasn't changed, even before this group of technical experts, I guess you could call them, met with regard to the map designation. I restated what our policy is, and that is for the two countries to work out what is a disputed claim. That has been our policy for many, many years.
We certainly regret that there's any misunderstanding of that, and we're trying to convey as clearly as we possibly can to the South Korean people and the Japanese people that there is no change in our policy, notwithstanding this, I guess, step these technical agencies took.
QUESTION: So that means right now, at the State Department, no measures are being discussed right now?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, again, I get back to the core fact here, and that is that the policy hasn't changed. There's an understanding here among the Korean Government as well as the Japanese Government that this is an issue for those two governments to work out themselves.
QUESTION: Are the two presidents, President Bush and President Lee Myung-bak of Korea, going to discuss this matter when President Bush visit (inaudible)?
MR. MCCORMACK: Well, I'll leave it to my White House colleagues to describe the President's meetings, but, you know, given the attention that this particular issue has received in South Korea and the public, I would be surprised if it didn't come up.
***
That straightforward enough?
"Just because you live in Japan, I think Japan should keep Liancourt Rocks-- "
...clearly my vile propaganda campaign is working. ((grin))
Time for me to go rest too, Susan.
oyasumi nasai
well-- that sure clarified Bush's position--
thank you!!!!
it is quite time for your oyasumi nasai! and for me also--
great fun!!!!
xxx
most welcome.
((departs for now))
LOL!!!!!!!!!!
(vile propaganda)
xxx
Marie--
if you come in here-- keep working on our bourkhas-- with the built in fans!
I just read this-
The Bush administration was basically blind-sided when the little-known US Board on Geographic Names decreed that sovereignty of the islets was "undesignated" and wanted to call them the Liancourt Rocks after the name of a French whaling ship that ventured on them in the 19th century.
The suspicion is that Japanese diplomats and scholars had subtly gotten through to members of the US geographic board, unbeknown to the US State Department or the White House. If the islets could not go by the Japanese name of Takeshima, as Japan identifies them, then the Japanese at least wanted recognition that their status was "unsettled" and the name Dokdo represented only the Korean side of the argument..
The Korean Embassy in Washington was caught by surprise. With the ruckus over Dokdo likely to ruin Bush's visit to Korea, the White House had the sense to reverse the geographic board's decision and have the islets listed as firmly under South Korean control.
Dokdo, for all the headlines, was easy. The White House will have more trouble with beef.
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/JH05Dg01.html
(South Korea and the US at odds)- Donald Kirk--August 5th
What D. Kirk has written there is an intentional obfuscation.
The Sovereignty issue is unresolved.
The control issue is a statement of the obvious: The South Koreans moved in years ago, and guard the Rocks. Japan has, for its own reasons, not seen fit to evict them.
President Bush indeed made no direct order to the BGN. He asked "(SecState Condi Rice to look into it", and this gave him diplomatic wriggle-room. Korean sources claim this "restores sovereignty", but in fact it changes nothing.
Here it is from AFP
It would make good sense for Bush not to get involved in this dispute to keep South Korea and Japan happy with the US- So I am buying into your story!
You need to become an internet news phisher- Is there such a thing? (grin)
But I do wonder what the headlines read in South Korea-- Dodko? just to keep the masses happy- LOL
Takeshima or Liancourt Rocks sure is pretty- How is the snorkeling there?
I still want Japan to own these!!!!
@Susan
not sure there is such a thing, especially with the negative connotation of "phishing".
But...
"How is the snorkeling there?"
...since you asked, the conditions are no good for that, but the fishing grounds around those Rocks are some of the best in the Sea of Japan. Just use a boat, and keep clear of the reefs.
Susan, No I don't live in Jorea, I liv in a REALLY tiny apartment in Korea-TOWN in Los Angeles, very near the Historic, Turquoise Wiltern theater at Wilshire & Western (eat at the Denny's in the first floor often, because I can read the menu and I can be sure there is no fish in the meal.) Hope this clears this up.
Scott
Post a Comment