Gee, I stop reading PEN messages for two days and I get caught. It was, however, sure nice to be written about so positively for my past work on Korea. Korean reunification is a big and important issue. And what is going on in south Korea now, from the crack down on the student movement to the trial of Chun and Roh is also highly significant. Let me just try and say a paragraph or two about each, hoping to highlight issues that would be of interest to PEN members. Starting with reunification. Reunification is important for two reasons. First, as most know, the division of the country has split families and caused much personal anguish. Second, and even more important, in my opinion, is that the division has supported the development of two rival regimes, both of which have, although in different ways, sought to sustain their own rule by invoking the threat posed by the other. In other words, the division of Korea has contributed to a loss of political freedom for Koreans north and south. It is as a result impossible to attempt to build a more democratic south or north Korea without taking on the issue of the division or reunification of Korea. To take south Korea, for example, if a teacher in high school attempts to teach the actual history of her country or form a union she could be arrested for violating national security. If students want to demand the withdrawal of US troops they could be branded as pro-North Korean and thus a threat to the country.s national security. If college professors write a book that is sympathetic to socialism they could be arrested on charges of benefiting the North. If workers attempt to form a union at a major company such as Hyundai or Daewoo they could be arrested for violating national security. This strategy enables the government to stop political activity it does not like and to smear it as well by labeling it as pro-North Korea and thus a danger to the South.s national security. Thus any movement for social change/democratization must in someway or another deal with unification. But how is the question. Right now both north and south Korean governments want to control the entire dialogue. They view it no doubt as a zero sum contest where one side or the other will win out. This calls to mind the German experience where the west absorbed the east. From my perspective the German absorption approach to unification is not one I would like to promote for Korea. Neither south or north is a model. Both regimes have, because of the history of Korea, serious limitations. At issue is how to build a more democratic Korea, one that draws from the best in both parts of the country while building something new. For this to happen people have to be encouraged to develop their own criteria for the kind of country they would like to see emerging and not rely on government negotiations which seek victory of one over the other. For example, as south Korean women battle for more rights the question comes to mind what should women.s rights look like in a new Korean constitution. As south Korean workers fight for more rights the question comes what kind of rights should Korean workers have in a new constitution. And so on. I think that what is necessary is that workers, environmentalists, women, teachers from north and south need to be meeting to exchange experiences, views, visions, etc so that people can begin to develop a sense of what they want and in that way begin to influence the unification process. In a sense the possibility of reunification offers Koreans the opportunity to rethink their past choices. Not surprisingly, both north and south Korean governments are nervous about allowing such conversations to go on. Before finishing this line of thought up, let me turn briefly to the second issue, current developments in the south. It is true that there are students in the south who look to the North as their model. But they are a minority. The fact is that what most students wanted at the rally was the withdrawal of US troops from the south, the normalization of relations between the US and the north and direct contact with students from the north. These are not unreasonable demands. Students did not go off campus to riot or bomb anyone. The government ruled their meeting illegal and sent thousands of riot police on to the campuses to arrest the student leaders. What the government of Kim Young Sam is trying to do is discredit any independent political activity. Kim Young Sam is going after students, branding them north Korean dupes because they voiced demands that he says are the same as north Korean demands. But he is not stopping at the students. Because labor activists and others have worked with students, Kim is attempting to connect all political activists together under the banner of foreign agents and then attempt to eliminate them. So in a sense he has two interrelated strategies, establish that only the government can engage in unification activities, all other attempts to do so are north Korean motivated and then use that charge to attack all left political activists to destroy any independent left activity in the south. This is significant because there is a real left in south Korea. And it is a left that is anchored by an increasingly politicized and organized blue collar and white collar working class. While it is impossible to talk openly of socialism in the south I would say that there is strong support for building a society based on social solidarity and equality and social regulation of economic activity and worker control over the conditions of production. This scares the south Korean government and capitalists and they are involved in trying to break that movement and discredit it in the broader south Korean society by north Korean baiting. This becomes all the more important for the government to do because economic conditions are in south Korea increasingly becoming like they are here, by that I mean the country is polarizing. Growth continues but inequality is growing and the average worker is losing ground. Moreover the large companies are beginning to move out of the country in order to get lower labor costs. The government is less and less able to control their activities. It is trying to create the environment to keep them in the country and that includes crushing labor. So, in short, the government is involved in trying to break the left in the south in a period when economic conditions are not getting better and people are not very happy with the choices they have. The government wants to make sure a left turn is not placed on the political agenda. And to do that they are once again turning to the division and using the threat of the north to discredit those they fear. So what does this mean. Well I think that the south Korean governments policy of trying to monopolize all contacts with the north must be opposed and so must the National Security Law. And what about the north. The north has much more controlled social organizations, such as unions and women.s groups. The best way of opening them up is in my opinion through contact and debate. The US should sign a peace treaty and normalize relations with the north. I think that these steps can be justified in their own terms. But an additional benefit is that in the process the new relationship should open up new avenues for debate and discussion between people here and people in the North. The Japanese will follow suit and new conversations will again hopefully take place. In the process, if the people in the north can be engaged and the people in the south can create more space to debate unification and dialogue with those in the north then something very exciting might well happen in Korea. There is a strong left history in Korea and continuing strong traditions of social solidarity that could provide the basis for an exciting new Korean political economy. This is what is at stake right now. As a final note of clarification. At issue here is not choosing between north or south. It is about finding a way to support the Korean people in their struggle to build a new Korea, one that I think has the real potential to be socialist in orientation, although quite different from the existing north Korean political economy. Marty Hart-Landsberg
