Last month, South Korea's President Kim Daejung received the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts at ending a half-century of enmity with North Korea. Don Baker, Anders Karlsson, and Jina Kim react to the news.

Kim Daejung - A Worthy Recipient

Don Baker is Canada-Korea Business Council Chair of Korean Civilization in the Department of Korean Studies at the University of British Columbia. He served as a Peace Corps volunteer in Kwangju from 1971 through 1974.

Two decades ago, when I first met Kim Daejung, I was a graduate student at the University of Washington. I had recently returned to Seattle after a couple of years of dissertation research in Seoul. Soon after I got back on campus in 1981, I learned that the Amnesty International ("AI") chapter at the University of Washington had been assigned Kim Daejung as its adopted prisoner of conscience. As a former Peace Corps volunteer in Kwangju and a distant admirer of Kim Daejung since the early 1970s, I was both saddened to be reminded of his unjust imprisonment and delighted to find fellow students working for his release. I immediately joined AI and plunged into the letter writing, demonstrating, and public lecturing which are the usual tactics AI groups engage in to win the release of, or at least better treatment for, their adopted prisoners of conscience. At that time, however, I did not have much hope that our efforts would have much impact. I told my fellow members of that AI chapter that we would probably have to spend many fruitless years writing letters to Seoul demanding justice for Kim Daejung.

I was happily embarrassed when my pessimism proved unwarranted and Kim was released from prison in late 1982 and sent into exile in the US. I, and the other members of that AI chapter were even more delighted when Kim decided to visit us in Seattle in early 1983 to thank us for our efforts on his behalf.

When Kim Daejung was finally elected President of the Republic of Korea in late 1997, and again when he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize, I was reminded of the two days I was fortunate enough to spend with him in Seattle 18 years ago. Kim came to Seattle only a few months after his release from solitary confinement in one of Chun Doohwan and Roh Taewoo's jails, and only a little more than a year since those two ex-generals had been forced by world public opinion to cancel their plans to execute him. Yet when Kim met with our University of Washington Amnesty International chapter, he appeared free of rancor or any burning desire for revenge.

In 1983 Kim told us that when he became president (I remember distinctly that he said when, not if), one of the first steps he would take would be to pardon those who had jailed him and sentenced him to death, and had sent troops against unarmed demonstrators in Kwangju. True to his word, as soon as he was elected in 1997, even before he took office, he joined with then-president Kim Youngsam to pardon Chun Doohwan and Roh Taewoo.

Though at the time I did not agree with the pardon of those responsible for the bloody, unprovoked attack on Kwangju in May 1980, in retrospect I am forced to admit that, by forgiving his enemies, Kim displayed the moral courage complemented by far-sighted pragmatism which has earned him a Nobel Peace Prize. Just as he did in 1997, when he traveled to Pyongyang this past summer Kim put legitimate grievances from the past aside in order to purse peace and stability for the future. He has not forgotten what Chun and Roh did in 1980, nor has he forgotten what the government of North Korea has done over the last fifty years. However, he has recognized that it is both unproductive and immoral to look backwards rather than forward. Kim realized as far back as 1983 that we must work with those who have wronged us to ensure that both we and they will do what is right in the future. Cooperation rather than conflict, and progress rather than revenge or retribution, have been his goals, goals he has pursued despite the misgivings of many of even his closest advisors. This pragmatic moral vision has made Kim Daejung an unusual politician, and has made him a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The Nobel Peace Prize: Nationalism and Big Business

Anders Karlsson received his Ph.D. in Korean history from Stockholm University, Sweden. He is currently a lecturer in Korean studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, London.

"A joy shared with all of our 70 million compatriots. The world has recognized our will for peace. The world has highly valued our efforts at reunification. The first Nobel Peace Prize of this Millenium, the first we have ever received. This is not only a personal glory for Kim Daejung, but a joy for all of us in this land who have struggled for human rights, harmony and a peaceful reunification. It is a new start for a reunified Korea."

From a congratulatory ad by Hyundai Motors and KIA Motors carried in Tonga Ilbo 16 October 2000.

This year's Nobel Peace Prize recognizes the efforts of Kim Daejung to promote democracy and human rights in South Korea and his current attempts as president to improve the relationship between North and South Korea. It is undoubtedly a great honor for him, for the people who work with him, and for his supporters and voters.

The above quotation is quite puzzling, though. What have large companies such as Hyundai Motors and KIA Motors done to promote human rights and peace on the Korean peninsula? What is their share in the "glory" of this year's Nobel Peace Prize? Have they supported Kim Daejung and his struggles against the regimes whose influence has for years suppressed labor unions? Furthermore, if all 70 million Koreans on both sides of the DMZ take part in this glory for their efforts at peace and reunification, why is Korea then still a divided country? If all Koreans have fought for and desired stronger human rights and democracy, then what is the need for a person such as Kim Daejung to spend years in prison for his ideas? What of the authoritative regimes of the past (and their supporters) that form the historic background of this year's Nobel Peace Prize?

Ad makers are very sensitive to popular sentiments, and the above ad for Hyundai and KIA is of course not only flagrant hypocracy, but also clever advertising that plays on widely spread sentiments in South Korea. For many years now, the lack of a Korean Nobel laureate has been traumatic. To this witness all speculations about who might be the first Korean to receive this prize, and disappointed articles year after year when the Nobel Prize winners have been announced. It seems as if a Nobel Prize has been considered the last needed international recognition of what the Korean people have accomplished after liberation from the Japanese colonial period. Nationalism needs glory, and now, with the first "Korean" Nobel Prize, the country is swept by national celebration. As exclaimed another congratulatory ad by Hyundai: "Our beautiful country! Country of peace!" In South Korea where "national honour" is so closely linked to "international image," many now hope that the prize will have a positive effect on the country. One man interviewed on the street by a South Korean news station even hoped that the awarding would have a positive effect on the troubled stock market.

It is forgotten, though, that the Peace Prize is given to people who work in troubled areas of the world. In this sense awarding it to Kim Daejung confirms that Korea is still a troubled spot. The prize not only rewards past accomplishments but also carries with it a wish for future positive effects. Whereas in the South Korean media the country is now portrayed as a "centre of world peace," reports in the West tend to focus on the problems that remain. And, unfortunately for Kim Daejung, one of the few pieces I have observed in Swedish newspapers about contemporary domestic politics in Korea is that Kim Daejung is considered quite tough on labor unions. There was scant mention of all that has actually been accomplished, but instead an emphasis on the problems that remain.

Koreans will therefore likely continue to feel frustration at foreigners holding a "wrong" image and "incorrect" knowledge of Korea. More worrisome is that all those who have fought for peace and democracy without gaining fame in Korea continue to be forgotten, and credit is instead claimed by groups who really took no part in this struggle. Unfortunately, this year's Nobel Peaze Prize cannot be a national glory for all 70 million Koreans. Some say that perhaps Kim Jongil should have been recognized as well, since "it takes two to tango". Lest we forget, it also takes two to battle.

The Remains of Regionalism

Jina Kim is a Ph.D. student in the Department of Asian Languages and Literature at the University of Washington. Her focus is in modern and contemporary Korean literature and culture. She holds an M.A. in Korea Studies from the Jackson School of International Studies, University of Washington, and an A.B. in English Literature from the University of Chicago.

Friday, October 13^th was definitely a very lucky day for the President of South Korea, Kim Daejung, for he garnered one of the most prestigious international awards-the Nobel Prize for Peace. This, in fact, was not only a tribute to Kim Daejung's lifetime career in politics, but also a significant recognition for the country of South Korea, being its first ever Nobel Prize of any kind. Considering the magnitude of the award, both Koreans in South Korea as well as millions of Koreans living abroad, not to mention all the non-Korean supporters of Kim Daejung, certainly could not help but participate in the celebration. At the same time, a very small number of Korean media reports would also insert a sentence or two stating that not all Koreans were in favor of Kim's receiving the Nobel Prize. In fact, this species of article would inevitably point out that the people who were most vehemently criticizing Kim and his Prize were from the Kyongsang Provinces, the two southeastern provinces from where all four of the previous South Korean Presidents had hailed. Unfortunately, accompanying the zealous demonstration of national support for Kim's Nobel Prize also came the historically embedded regional antagonism which continued to churn, as if to overcast Kim's and South Korea's glory and, in a sense, to eclipse the very reason they were congratulating President Kim.

I found this contradictory discourse surrounding Kim Daejung's and South Korea's Nobel Peace Prize irresistibly fascinating. As a literary and cultural critic, I am interested in examining the discourse around Kim Daejung and the Nobel Peace Prize and how they represent the sites around which the hegemonic discourse of Western capitalism and democracy and Korean nationalism and regionalism operate. In fact, the overzealous praising of President Kim, to a degree that even a slight sign of disapproval would be met with instant attack, dismissal, and accusation of being a native of Kyongsang Province, allowed me to question and be skeptical of Kim being named a Nobel Peace Prize winner.

Along with the announcement, of course, came floods of both Korean and international media coverage detailing President Kim's career in South Korean politics. All of these accounts promptly described Kim Daejung's persevering through endless political persecutions from previous South Korean Presidents like Park Chunghee, Chun Doohwan and Roh Taewoo. Furthermore, they climatically point out that despite Kim Daejung's tumultuous years as a political dissident, an exile, and a prisoner, Kim eventually prevailed and was victorious in becoming the President of South Korea. The American discourse around Kim's Nobel Prize, in fact, squarely targeted Kim's ultimate rise to Presidency from the turbulent years as the perpetual opposition leader whose life was seriously threatened and saved only through U.S. and international interventions. Thus, the American discourse on Kim's Nobel Prize portrayed Kim as the perpetual underdog who finally rises to victory, which fittingly corresponds to the popular American ideology of "rags to riches."

Interestingly, for ordinary readers reading this account of Kim Daejung, it undoubtedly will lead to unquestioning praise for the recipient and the Prize. In fact, when I queried my class of mostly non-Asian and non-Asian studies majors, most of them responded that Kim seems to be an extraordinary figure having undergone such a difficult life and career and that his efforts as South Korean President indeed merit the Nobel Peace Prize. They particularly admired Kim's efforts in negotiating the North and South Korean Olympic teams marching in together during the opening ceremony of the 2000 Sydney Olympics (another huge media event!).

Furthermore, another locus of discourse around which President Kim and the Nobel Peace Prize emerge is at the level of Korean nationalistic and regionalistic discourse. My point of interest lies in exploring whether Koreans were congratulating Kim for his various achievements, or whether Koreans were more inclined to celebrate the international recognition that came along with the Nobel Peace Prize. That is, does "it's good for Korea" or "we are proud to be Korean" for having a Korean win the Nobel Prize weigh so much so that an objective evaluation of Kim's record in international relations, domestic policy, and his lifetime career of being a very "pragmatic" politician could be overlooked? For a country like South Korea, which has long desired international recognition of Nobel magnitude, the emergence of nationalistic discourse around Kim Daejung and the Nobel Peace Prize is certainly unavoidable. I agree that it is quite "good" for Korea. However, my primary concern rises from the kind of nationalistic discourse that leads to the pernicious suppression or censor of opposition voices and engender ignorant apathy and even blind acceptance of the dominant discourse. I was genuinely surprised by the general silence on the part of the opposition party and from those who do not support Kim Daejung. In cases where I did read short statements expressing doubts about Kim Daejung's Prize (including my own), there was string of furious rebuttals. In one exchange I read, a person who had expressed that he does not think Kim Daejung deserved the Nobel Peace Prize was immediately told to "shut-up." Ironically, this is exactly the situation Kim has fought so adamantly against during his early years, at least, as an opposition leader in the 1960s.

Although nationalistic discourse around Kim's Nobel Peace Prize, disturbing as it may be, is expected, providing regionalism as evidence against those critiquing Kim's Prize is much more disturbing. For example, in an e-mail exchange with a Korean man from Korea who identified himself as "an ordinary office worker interested in Korean politics," he implied that I must be from Kyongsang Province because I had dared to question Kim's Nobel Prize and according to this man only people who disapprove of Kim's Prize are from Kyongsang Province. After I related to him that I was an American (he naturally assumed that I was Korean, a Korean from Kyongsang, by my last name even though I am a second generation Korean American), he subsequently made a statement saying that my father is probably from Kyongsang Province, and my parents probably influenced me while I was growing up. While these incorrect assumptions naturally upset me, I was more alarmed that an explanation of regional antagonism was being used in order to defend President Kim's Nobel Peace Prize. Again, this is ironic considering that Kim Daejung was awarded the Nobel for his peace-making efforts not only between North and South Korea but also in South Korea itself.

The Nobel Peace Prize awards past and present achievements, but it also awards the "what will be." That is, more than past and present accomplishments, the award encourages us to strive for the real fruition of peace and the real altruistic service for humanity. In this sense, President Kim Daejung's Prize should not mark the completion of his long political career but should serve as a marker for the beginning of all the great events that awaits the Korean peninsula.