💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-report-from-south-korea.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 23:28:18. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content

-=-=-=-=-=-=-

Title: Report from South Korea
Author: CrimethInc.
Date: August 25, 2015
Language: en
Topics: South Korea, reportback, CrimethInc., Read All About It
Source: Retrieved on 2nd December 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2015/08/25/report-from-south-korea

CrimethInc.

Report from South Korea

We received the following report and request from our comrades in South

Korea, who recently published a Korean version of To Change Everything

and are active in a variety of struggles there.

Starting in spring, the anarchist appeal To Change Everything was

adapted into Korean and distributed in paper and online in South Korea.

Many welcomed it; the first printing ran out quickly.

It also provoked a strong reaction when the country’s major corporate

news agency reported on it and on a project appearing on the appeal’s

blog to gather and distribute songs against the National Security Law.

The journalist even went to the prosecutor’s office, inquiring whether

these activities constituted “aid to the enemy” (in other words,

treason), which is what the National Security Law targets. The

official’s response was that the answer “depends on an eventual analysis

of whether this is part of an intention to threaten the national order.”

In the corporate media, the numerous comments posted online with the

article expressed a unanimous condemnation of these “pro-North Koreans”

that we supposedly are (ignoring the “anarchist” reference), demanding

even severer laws and repression. For example, “These pro-North Koreans

should be sent to the good old ‘re-education camp’ to be reminded the

fact that this country is still at war.”

This stir in the corporate media and the right-wing movement it fuels

coincided with another one: a little witch-hunt following the arrest,

investigation, and prosecution of someone on charges of having burned a

Korean flag. On April 18, as a movement in response to the authorities’

cover-up of a ferry disaster last year converged in downtown Seoul, an

exasperated youngster, provoked by journalists, picked up a paper

national flag left on the ground and lit it on fire, making headlines in

corporate media. Based on “CCTV and other evidence,” the police arrested

him in the following days in another city. Using a warrant for search

and seizure to discover his “affiliations,” the police raided his

housing collective—which happens to be a center for diverse autonomous

social movements including some recent anarchist activities, though the

arrestee is not connected to them.

Though this kind of police repression combined with corporate and

right-wing fervor is nothing new in this state of suspended civil war,

this is a sign of what many feel to be a worsening political climate.

Some Korean anarchists feel that we are isolated in a tightly controlled

island, a prison. Nevertheless, by all means necessary, we must show

that we are not so isolated.

A Call to Action

This wave of quasi-fascist nationalism provides an opportunity for

inter-/anti-national solidarity actions to strategically provoke and

subvert it. Here is a proposition for a simple action that, though it

doesn’t entail much risk for participants outside Korea, could take

advantage of that opportunity. It might even be fun.

Together, let’s defy the Korean National Security Law (국가보안법). Show

solidarity with Korean people while expressing hostility to the Korean

states and the order they incarnate. Through the image of “non-Koreans”

attacking the symbols of the Korean state in solidarity with “Koreans,”

let’s break down national divisions and the link between ethnicity and

the state. Let’s take “outside agitation” to a new level.

Any format would do—but, because some images don’t need translation,

accomplishing this visually by burning flags could be the simplest way.

Don’t be misunderstood for a pro-North Korean (burn the northern flag

too), a xenophobic nationalist (burn the flag of your own country), or

an ideologue (burn an anarchist black flag if you want).

If you want to take your action to a relevant public space, don’t limit

yourself to the Korean embassies. The major conglomerates Samsung,

Hyundai, and LG together represent well over half of the South Korean

economy, and their overseas offices can be considered places of state

affairs. Korean cultural products are also understood as a spearhead of

the economy because they are linked to IT products; the media pays great

attention to overseas reactions to them.

As a slogan, one option is 무정부 통일 / mujeongbu tong-il, meaning

“no-government” (a common translation of anarchy) + “reunification.”

만세! (Manse) Long live anarchy!

Why Korea? Why Struggle on the Terrain of Nationalist Discourse?

Military conflict transforms public discourse into Left/Right or

patriot/traitor dichotomies that effectively exclude anarchist

perspectives. Examples of this abound, recently including the Ukrainian

uprising and subsequent Russian invasion. This problem is especially

acute in the Koreas, since the Korean peninsula is a hotspot in the

lingering cold war and a point of confrontation for two major blocs,

China and the United States.

Regarding the question of nationalism, Korea could be considered an

archetypical nation-state, identified with a territory that has been

stable for thousands of years, a unique language and culture, and a

large yet homogenous population. If we are to confront the myth of the

nation-state, a place like Korea is a challenge.

During the first half of the 20^(th) century, self-identified

nationalist-anarchists were at the forefront of the resistance to the

Japanese occupation; a group of them even formed an important part in

the so-called Korean temporary government at the end of the Japanese

colonial period, though it never actually ruled. Their principal goal

then was a united independence, as they could foresee the terrible

consequences of foreign states—the “liberating allies”—making Korea into

a client state, or, worse, dividing it up between the USA in the South

and the USSR in the North.

Here, we will explore the complex historical relationship between

nationalism and social movements in Korea. Western anarchists acting in

solidarity with people in Korea should be careful not to be perceived as

preaching a universalism that disregards local matters—that, like

capitalism, dislocates everything. Our efforts could backfire,

reinforcing a xenophobic nationalist collectivism. At the same time,

fearing this makes many “foreigners” living here dilute their politics

and restrain themselves to a passive ally position. This can be

stifling; we hope collectively to find a way to overcome that.

The Forbidden Flag

March 1^(st) 1919 marked the beginning of the 3.1 Manse Movement. Under

Japanese colonial occupation, the expression of Korean national identity

was repressed. The school system only taught the Japanese language and

Japanese history. On this day, a movement to hold the Korean flag in

public places began and was brutally repressed. Nevertheless, it ignited

resistance. Korean nationalists-turned-anarchists developed a range of

initiatives over the following decades—opening free radical schools,

organizing self-managed and self-sustained rural communities on the

periphery of the Japanese Empire, creating coalitions across the ethnic

and political borders of the region, organizing guerrilla groups,

committing targeted assassinations, and more.

The demonstrations that started on March 1, 1919 involved the display of

the current South Korean flag and the slogan “Manse!” (만세, “Long

Live”). Could we consider the burning of this Korean flag an act of

re-appropriation?

The Contested Flag

May 1980, Gwangju. For decades after the defeat of the Japanese Empire,

South Korea was ruled by US-backed military dictatorships that claimed

to represent the free Korean nation, as opposed to the North Korean

“communist” regime. A strong social movement in the South contested this

narrative, calling for another nationalism and democratization,

culminating in a major insurrection. However, news of this rebellion was

censored by the state-controlled media establishment. Even though the

large city of Gwangju fought off the military for days of self-organized

rebellion, the outside public informed by the mass media only briefly

heard about a clash involving North Korean commandos.

Through out the 1970s and ’80s, social movements were largely united

around these linked themes of nationalism and social democratization

(with some accents of socialism); the only major conflicts were over

whether to prioritize democratization (in the South) or independence,

anti-US resistance, and reunification (with the North).

At the end of the ’80s, after continuing social unrest, the regime began

to transition to a more liberal democratic form. The struggles of the

preceding decades, such as the Gwangju Uprising, became celebrated

hallmarks of the nation’s progress. However, the first democratic

transition of the presidency to the opposition party in 1998—which many

people saw as representing victory over authoritarian

establishment—coincided with the onset of a major financial crisis and a

painful structural adjustment program from the IMF. Following a decade

with this liberal party in power, the party that ruled autocratically

for decades has come back into power, this time more or less

democratically, declaring it is time to end the ideological conflicts of

the past. The current president is the daughter of the dictator who

ruled South Korea for two decades.

The Burnt Flag

Spring 2015. The issue of further social democratization and national

independence remains important—for example, in the struggles (with

anarchists at the forefront) against the expansion of military bases and

their connection to a global network. Yet the large demonstrations held

on May Day this year exemplify the trend following the democratization

of the ’90s towards a plurality of social movements: labor, feminism,

queer, ecology. Besides a general sense of solidarity and opposition to

the current regime, one of the few focal points seemed to be support for

the families of the victims of a ferry accident last year, who are

struggling for transparency against the authorities’ apparent cover-up.

For many, this ferry incident symbolizes the sacrifice of the young

generation to the logic of the system, to corrupt authorities, though

there is hardly a clear understanding or unanimity around what precisely

the problem is. This year’s May Day demonstration was preceded by a week

of protests about this ferry incident. Culminating on April 18, violent

clashes erupted as the police tried to isolate the families of the

victims, who had been occupying a strategic public place near the

presidential palace for weeks, from the rest of the massive crowd.

Nevertheless, while tens of thousands people were gathered in the

streets, while more than 70 police buses were damaged and more than 70

police officers injured, the incident that took the central place in

almost all the corporate media was that one person burnt a national

flag. Isn’t all this attention focused on a single burnt flag just the

deplorable result of right-wing influence on the establishment seeking

to divert public attention from more important issues?

The state used this incident to launch a search on the “affiliations” of

the criminal, since burning the national flag is a criminal offense.

However, much of the repression was not carried out by the state, but

rather through voluntary, public, diffuse action. In the past, dissident

political activities were scarcely reported on, thanks to state

censorship; in the current situation, intense exposure and public

discourse create the conditions for self-censorship. Although many

lament the treatment of the accused and “personally” have no problem

with what they see as a purely symbolic gesture, they do not want to

engage in any kind of public solidarity action with the accused out of

concern for what others will think and say.

The right wing, though it strongly disapproves, insists that this flag

incident is part of a significant political movement. On the other hand,

some leftists, even if they have sympathy for the accused, insist that

it is not politically significant because it was a spontaneous

individual act, not organized in any way. These leftists are afraid that

giving importance to this act will play into the hands of the right wing

and the establishment, or that it would be disrespectful of the families

of the ferry accident victims, or something else of that nature. Even

many anarchists do not seem to recognize this as significant, failing to

see the strategic importance of this kind of symbolic struggle.

This message is intended to start an exchange. Let’s figure out

something new together.