The Death of an Alliance, Part 23: S. Korean Human Rights Comm’n Calls MacArthur “a war criminal who massacred numerous civilians.”
[Update: Scroll down and read the updates. Mr. Kirk and the CSM have corrected the story to reflect that the HRC did not actually take such a position. Kirk appear to have quoted the complaint, believing it was the HRC’s own position. Thanks to readers Antti and Aaron for asking the specific questions that caused me to contact Don Kirk and ask him for verification. ]
When my wife first showed me the the comments of Prof. Kang Jeong-Ju, South Korea’s answer to Noam Chomsky, I pretty much disregarded them. Ku has earned his fifteen minutes of fame at the price of a lifetime of intellectual ignominy by calling for the statue of General Douglas MacArthur in Incheon to be torn down. As the first sentence of this post suggests, this nation is no stranger to the lunatic fringe, either, so it would be unsporting of me to begrudge Korea its own. A healthy and robust lunatic fringe is often the best sign that a society is free and vibrant, provided the society has the sober reason to keep it on the fringe where it belongs.
It’s harder to see the lighter side of lunatic fringe positions by quasi-governmental organizations, particularly when the adoption is gratuitous. Why, you may ask, must the South Korean Human Rights Commission throw its weight behind Kang and the other radical leftists and North Korean stooges with whom he travels in tandem? But for whatever reason, it has:
[Update: The Christian Science Monitor has corrected this story to refect that the HRC did not take such a position. Last week, after I first posted this, two OFK readers raised a legitimate question about the actual source of this quote, suggesting (correctly) that it was actually from the complaint, not the HRC’s response. I contacted both the reporter, veteran Korea correspondent Don Kirk, and the HRC for verification. The HRC did not respond, but Kirk later corrected the story. Click the link to see how the story reads now.]
“General MacArthur is a maniac for war,” says one professor, Kang Jeong Ku, whose comments are handed out in fliers at demonstrations.
That remark has the full support of the quasi-governmental National Human Rights Commission, which fueled the protest with a statement condemning MacArthur as “a war criminal who massacred numerous civilians.”
Indeed, the commission adds, “To induce or force children to respect such a person by erecting a statue of him and teaching them that he is a great figure is a national disgrace and greatly injures the dignity of our people.”
[Update: The irony is still there for your reading pleasure, but focus it on the neo-Stalinists who filed this complaint.]
I couldn’t agree more with that last sentence. Forcing kids to worship statues, idols, or other graven images of blood-soaked tyrants speaks volumes about a nation’s values and deserves courageous and forthright condemnation. And if Korean kids are being brainwashed in any direction, that, too is a concern I share. The HRC’s opposition to indoctrination–if it were decoupled from its ideological baggage–might even be a step up from its bizarre obsessions with haircuts and diaries. Unfortunately, the HRC–which is supposed to be independent of other government agencies, and may very well be–is so politicized that its qualification to pass historical judgements and place them in context are highly suspect.
Part of why I didn’t initially discuss Kang’s comments was the the conspicuous lack of broad-based support for them. Netizen response, judging from Korean-language comments, was overwhelmingly negative. But now that the HRC has made this assertion, I’m waiting for it to present some evidence to support it. I hope they won’t fail to show me which teachers’ unions are forcing the kiddies to idolize the American Caesar these days. I can accept MacArthur as reckless, insubordinate, arrogant, stodgy, and , but I need more evidence to see him as a war criminal.
Leftists deny disloyalty to South Korean leaders as the South pursues reconciliation with the North. In fact, they say the protest against the statue supports government policy – and view it as a symbol of much more strenuous demands for US troops to leave South Korea altogether.
Their confusion is excusable.
Meanwhile, I have some evidence to present to the HRC, which I think documents two other human rights issues that the HRC hasn’t had time to address thus far.
I’m more serious about this than you may think. Today, I filed a complaint with the HRC. I look forward to updating readers on what the HRC reaction will (or won’t) be. Stay tuned.