Future of South Korea

The article (Editorial Pages, March 11), “S. Korea’s Democratic Future Is Up to Us,” by Floyd K. Haskell and Jan H. Kalicki, shows us how confused can be those “instant experts” who lack even the elementary familiarity with the history or language of the country on whose destiny they are so eager to pontificate. From this article, it is clear that the authors know nothing about Korean history, election laws or the current political situation.

The article is filled with misguided generalizations. For example, the statement that “anti-Americanism began in 1980” shows an astounding ignorance of Korea’s history as well as of the current state of affairs. The fact of the matter is that history does not produce such a phenomenon in a single year.

There are two things to keep in mind regarding anti-Americanism in Korea. First, as a proportion of the total university population, there are no more Korean students shouting anti-American slogans than in Western democracies. Also, to ascribe anti-Americanism to a single cause is crude, simplistic and worthy of a historical illiterate.

The Kwangju death toll cited by the authors as “more than 1,000” is unsubstantiated. President Carter’s ambassador in Seoul at the time of the 1980 incident recently said there had certainly been less than 1,000 deaths, and probably closer to the government figure of less than 200.

Regarding the February, 1985, election, which the Western as well as Korean press described as open and fair, it is simply not true that the opposition party drew a majority vote. Its share of the popular vote was 29.2%, while the government party drew 35.3%. The remainder was split up among smaller parties.

Despite the author’s statement that “no fundamental changes are proposed for a system that rigs the electoral process to guarantee the ruling party a parliamentary majority,” the present electoral process is not prejudiced in favor of one party or the other. Moreover, the present majority party is willing to discuss changes in the system, but the opposition party refuses to negotiate.

The most objectionable display of hubris contained in this article is in its title: “S. Korea’s Democratic Future Is Up to Us.” I am not sure whether it shows more ignorance or arrogance. If the latter is based on the former, it is no less excusable. It is this kind of imperialist posturing that leads to anti-Americanism. To be sure, given their security commitment, the American people have a legitimate interest in Korea’s future. But to assert that Korea’s destiny can be controlled by the United States or any other foreign country is incredibly arrogant as well as naive. Yes, Korea must move toward democracy, but Koreans must do so through their own efforts.

Korea now faces an unprecedented opportunity to create a more complete democracy, as President Chun becomes the first president in Korea’s history to step down when his constitutional term expires. The debate continues, of course, as to the form of government to be adopted in 1988. It is patently ridiculous to pretend, as do the more radical elements in the opposition, that only the presidential form of government is democratic or to equate a parliamentary system with dictatorship.

But in any case, the debate should be resolved through orderly discussion, dialogue and compromise. To refuse all forms of compromise, as the opposition party does, is to deny the very essence of democratic politics.

Fortunately, however, the majority party in Korea is showing remarkable willingness to seek a negotiated settlement and compromise solutions. That is why I believe Korea is at last on the verge of emerging as a more mature democracy.

CHAN YONG LEE

Consul

Republic of Korea

Los Angeles