tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post114833571308066492..comments2024-02-23T23:53:54.842+09:00Comments on Gusts Of Popular Feeling: Bibliography of the Kwangju Uprising (in English)matthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1148619183579368972006-05-26T13:53:00.000+09:002006-05-26T13:53:00.000+09:00One final thought on Kwangju. The Army whose leade...One final thought on Kwangju. The Army whose leaders took Korea into democracy, cut their teeth on Kwangju, either as participants, or in support of participants, or reviewing what they heard happened there versus what they got from the news. It would be interesting to see how the rank and file professionals of the Korean Army viewed Kwangju in retrospect, and how those perceptions shaped their attitudes to their own and the military's role in society. Could it be that were was a generation that, while wearing their country's uniform, vowed: "Never Again!" If so, here's hoping some Korean hsitorian documents it.lirelouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04640776051602615517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1148434295841100172006-05-24T10:31:00.000+09:002006-05-24T10:31:00.000+09:00Comprehensive and useful links for anyone interest...Comprehensive and useful links for anyone interested in Korea. Reference Tim Shorrock’s article. This is a first rate piece of investigative reporting. A truly professional piece. Yet it is flawed by the inaccuracy of some reasonably sounding judgments. Just a few examples will suffice:<BR/><BR/>According to the DIA cable, all Korean Special Forces units “had been receiving extensive training in riot control, in particular the employment of CS gas had been stressed.” CS gas is a virulent form of tear gas banned in many countries and considered b y some military specialists to be a form of chemical warfare. (My note: Careless exaggeration on Shorrock’s part. CS gas was a standard issue riot control agent of the period. No one who entered the U.S. military in the late 60’s to 80’s did not go through basic training without exposure to it. Why not give us a sample listing of the “many countries” who allegedly ban it, and the name of some eminent military authority who considers it a “form of chemical warfare”.)<BR/><BR/>“there was general agreement that the first priority is the restoration of order in Kwangju by the Korean authorities with the minimum use of force necessary.” (Good point which reinforces U.S. position.)<BR/><BR/>“…we must press the Korean government, and the military in particular, to allow a greater degree of political freedom to evolve.” (Ditto, but note that all the U.S. can do is “press the Korean government”. They had no command authority.)<BR/><BR/>The very fact that the DIA was reporting on secret military missions by the Korean Special Forces underscores the unusually close ties between the U.S. and South Korean militaries. (Yes, close relationships existed which facilitated the gathering of intelligence on an ally, no small reason for classifying all this traffic. That did not insert U.S. officials into the Korean command authority chain.)<BR/>Why this occurred is not clear. But the State Department portrait of a lawless city undoubtedly contributed to the decision made by the Carter administration on May 22, 1980, to allow Chun Doo Hwan to end the standoff in Kwangju with military force. (Shorrock confuses the decision not to forcefully oppose Chun Doo Hwan’s actions in Kwang-ju, which he has amply documented, with the putative power to approve or disapprove such action. The Carter Administration held no coercive power over the Korean government (or military) at all when it came to matters of sovereignty, as Shorrock himself lays out. He should have chosen his verb with greater care.lirelouhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04640776051602615517noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1148414311024112962006-05-24T04:58:00.000+09:002006-05-24T04:58:00.000+09:00Thanks for those links.I'd read the Katsiaficas es...Thanks for those links.<BR/><BR/>I'd read the Katsiaficas essay before, but hadn't read anything by Mark Peterson - great stuff. I'll have to track down that book he contributed to back in 1987 - it's at the top of this post now.matthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10296009437690229938noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12946845.post-1148358917663877012006-05-23T13:35:00.000+09:002006-05-23T13:35:00.000+09:00"Comparing the Paris Commune and the Kwangju Peopl..."Comparing the Paris Commune and the Kwangju People’s Uprising: A Preliminary Assessment" by George Katsiaficas can be found <A HREF="http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:Fd6IKFdo7vcJ:www.eroseffect.com/articles/" REL="nofollow">here</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com