Jay Kim’s Irreconcilible Differences

With some Americans disturbing calm waters with the suggestion of an “alliance at risk,” Korea thinks it has found a man — a “former Korean congressman” — who can quietly bridge our widening differences:

A former Korean-American congressman launched on Thursday a forum led by first-generation figures like himself to help advance Korea-U.S. relations.

Chang-jun “Jay” Kim said the Washington Korea-U.S. Forum will start with 16 participants who are professionally active in political, economic, judicial and academic fields and have acquired American citizenship.

Actually, Jay Kim is a former member of the United States Congress, but you’ll soon see why Yonhap can be forgiven this imprecision.  There are two parts of this story that are make this must-blog material.  Some of you have already guessed at one of them, so don’t ruin it for everyone else.  Here’s the other:

“So far, the U.S. policy on the Korean Peninsula has relied mostly on the views of Americans with expertise on Korea, but this approach had its limitations because they are foreigners,” Kim told reporters.

By implication, Kim is thus saying that he is not a foreigner:  specifically, that he is Korean, and thus not really American.  I could pick nits by linking to the oath Kim took when he  was sworn in as a member of the U.S. Congress, and yes, that part about “defend[ing] the Constitution of the United States, against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” could be viewed as a loophole if you’re so inclined.  True faith and allegiance … without any mental reservation … blah blah, whatev.   A little oath shouldn’t create unnecessary confusion about one’s even-truer (though heretofore undisclosed)  faith and allegiance. 

But maybe I’m being unfair to Jay Kim.  Maybe he meant this in the sense that Richard Lawless, B.B. Bell, Nick Eberstadt, Gordon Flake, and Chris Hill can’t truly understand Korea from a Korean perspective.   This is  both partially  true and mostly  irrelevant.  Understanding other cultures has plenty of advantages, and one presumes that this is where people like Balbina Hwang and Victor Cha  bring special (but second-generation) expertise to these issues, over and above that of men like Flake and others whose Korean proficiency is learned.  The problem with Kim’s extension of that argument is that the United States, its military, and its Treasury  exist to serve  American interests,  and those interests  ultimately reflect the will of  the American  people as a whole, not  the will of all  balkanized supplicants on the steps of the Capitol.   Sure … factor the oddities, traditions,  grievances, and national pyschoses of a thousand cultures and subcultures into our policy calculations, but we have to remain grounded in  our own rational perspective, because that’s ultimately  the only rational perspective  our voting public  will support.  Taking the point further, it is the root of what makes us  America that  differing views and creeds can meet in a common public square built on the site of some basic shared values.  Kim’s premise seems to be that when it comes to Korea policy, that longstanding bargain  must be suspended because Korea is too inscrutable, and we,  unqualified to comprehend. 

I could not agree less.  At its root,  Kim’s premise seeks to elevate the interests of “first generation” Korea’s interests  over our own, and suggests a certain  confusion of loyalties.  Thankfully, this Tokdo obsession will never make sense to us, and I’m guessing that most American-born Korean-Americans, who have joined America’s other ethnic and religious hyphenations in the public square, would agree with me on this, and not with Jay Kim.  That may  be why Kim  makes a point of advancing the views of “first generation” Koreans. 

“The forum participants are senior members of the Korean-American community who know both countries well. They will be able to contribute greatly to advancing bilateral relations.”

You know, I’ve beaten this drum to dust, but maybe Kim should start with the people who made all of these statements first, since he speaks their language and understands their perspective at least as well as he understands ours.  Failing some effort to confront this, the best that can be said of Kim is that he’s missing the point.   At worst, depending on who gives him his instructions and compensation, he’s just another foreign lobbyist who should duly register as such with the Justice Department.

Kim was elected to the House in 1992 as a Republican from California, making him the first Korean-American congressman.

Kim said he will try to arrange a congressional hearing in May on Korea-U.S. affairs to present opinions gathered in a March meeting of Korean Americans.

That’s it.  End of story, right?  Not quite.  Yonhap’s biographic sketch  omitted the seemingly significant fact of  Kim’s guilty plea over the $230,000 in illegal campaign contributions he took.  Newt Gingrich’s  continued support for  Kim notwithstanding that conviction and a $300,000 Ethics Committee fine was an early low point for the Republican “revolution,” coming so soon after the House bank scandal helped put the GOP in control.  More here and here.   

Kim’s actions, and that the fact that he  continued them even while he knew he was under federal investigation,  suggest  another difference of perspective that will not be bridged.   The greater  misunderstanding here is really Korea’s, for selecting a convicted campaign cheat as its  representative, and one whose lobbying activities in Congress most likely face additional legal restrictions as a result.  Could Korea have failed to  grasp the significance of this?  Probably not entirely,  given  Yonhap’s breaktaking dishonesty in failing to mention any of this.