From: yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu (Mark Choi)
Subject: Re: Korean diplomacy twds. China
Organization: University of Washington, Seattle
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:09:45 GMT

In article <1473700033@igc.apc.org> An-Ly Yao <anlyyao@igc.apc.org> writes:
>
>From: George Nostradamus Will
>To:   The enlighted and mind reading Terminator 
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, just enlightened mind.

> 
>> ... By the way, I agree that
>> scrapping local elections was the appropriate thing to do.
> 
>Right or wrong is not the point. If you delay elections, you either change
>the law in a proper legislative procedure or you break the law. If you like
>to display power, you just go along with the last option.

I doubt Roh broke the law, I believe the powers are given to him.
 
>>>Korea is considered by the Chinese as what it has been in the past: a peri-
>>>pheral country, which has to pay tribute to China and un return is payed with
>>>safety. That already happens  n o w  !
>> 
>> Incorrect. I know many mainland Chinese people who do not view Korea as a 
>> mere peripheral country and peripheral people.
> 
>How many? Well, it doesn't matter anyway. Please take a look at the map.

Looking, and my atlas still doesn't say "Korea is a peripheral nation".

>> You must remember that Korea did not begin officially acknowledging tribute
>> to China in the form of direct Chinese juristidction until the Qing Dynasty,
>> founded by the Manchus, not the ...
> 
>I admit, that officially Korea did not pay tribute until etc... As far as
>"officiality" and "jurisdiction" is concerned: In real life, jurisdiction
>and the principle of legality are as important as in those cases, in which
>i.e. elections are scrapped just like that  :-)

My that you responded to is final, you cannot argue that because it's all true.
 
>> defeated again. The second most notable intervention was that of the Silla-
>> Tang combined military expedition against Paekche and Koguryo. This was 
>> hardly an effort to "protect" Silla.
> 
>Sometimes you try to get more than just tribute.

What does this mean?

>>> Korea is weak, and condemned to be weak by its geopolitical allocation. The
>>> country is sandwiched between China and Japan, who both struggle to fill the
>>> power gap left by the Russians and Americans in this region.
>>
>> Wrong. Korea is not a weak nation, and will never be, because of the very
>> fact you base your observation on. Korea's influence in Asia will always be
>> large because of it's key role between the assumed power holders throughout
>> the region: China and Japan. For a historical explanantion for intellectual
>> enlightenment, read below's response...
> 
>Interesting notion. I will show it to my Korean counterparts here, if they
>try again to explain their behaviour here as consequence of their weak position
>between China and Japan. Thank you, finally I got help to convince them how
>powerfull Korea is.

Are you saying your Korean counterparts go around saying "Korea is weak"?
 
>>>The cold war is over. The game now is open for new players. The big ones play
>>>to win, Korea will have to play to survive. Already now it has to follow
>>>Chinese guidelines, which explain the humiliating procedure Korea chose to
>>>cut ties with Taiwan. Only with Taiwan Korea will have had the opportunity
>>>to demonstrate "Power". As this probably will be the first and the last time
>>>in Korea's history, I feel more sorry for Korea than for Taiwan.
>> 
>>Silly. Please do not assume the role of either Nostradamus or George Will.
>>Your assumptions are based on the fact that:
> 
>Great master and teacher, oh enlighted one, sorry for trying  :-)  Anyway,
>my answers to you where a bit polemic as well (and will be more so for
>the sake of fun and the profit of DACOM), so I can't blame you.
> 
> 
>>... since I've already dealt with 1 and 3, and partly 2, I will demolish
>>                                                                ^^^^^^^^
>>the other half of 2 and 4. This is the part where you assumed you were
>>George Will (political analyst who analyzes today's current political 
>>events and reasons why they happened), and the other part where you thought
>>you were some sort of historian.
> 
>George Nostradamus Will against mind reading Terminator, we'll deliver a
>nice show to soc.culture.korea

=)

>> Sorry folks, you don't get to see 
>> Nostradamus get his mind destroyed, I've already done that in previous 
>                           ^^^^^^^^^
> 
>Here we go again. You seem to like that. On the power trip? You try to serve
>a well prepared dish and then pour all your spices into it.

Many spices (sck is getting boring these few days)
 
>
>>You think this is the case by stating (George Will):
>>"Already now it has to follow Chinese guidelines, which explain the 
>>humiliating procedure Korea chose to cut ties with Taiwan." 
>>The context proceeding and following this sentence supports my accusation.
>>Such as: "The cold war is over, the big ones will play to win, Korea will 
>>have to play to survive", which was disproven earlier, "Only with Taiwan
>>Korea will have to demonstrate 'Power'. As this probably will be the first
>>and last time in Korea's history", please recognize the word "first" used 
>>in the sentence, saying that he believes Korea never demonstrated power
>>in the past, which led me to come to my 4th accusatory observations.
>>I have rebuked your statement which was based on false history lessons.
>>Now to get to the actual truth that is not based on false history lessons.
> 
>George Nostradamus Will feels honoured that mind reading Terminator spends
>so much brains and bytes for something, which could have been stated
>a little bit more briefely. Thank you for telling, otherwise I would
>not have noticed that your observations are "accusatory".
 
This has nothing to do with the argument itself.
 
>However, Terminator seems to have no objection to my statement, that
>Korea chose a humilating procedure to cut ties with the ROC. Terminators
>actually don't mind to humilate a little bit here and there, especially
>if they have phantasies about beeing strrrrrrong now and for ever.

No. Korea did not go through a humiliating procedure to cut ties with the ROC.
Describe to me what "humiliating" is?
 
>>1. ROK is attempting to use the PRC as a reunification influence over 
>>North Korea.
>> 
>>2. Trade with Taiwan and S. Korea is small compared to ROK<-->PRC.
>> 
>>3. Major investments in Jilin and Shantung by ROK business people.
>> 
>4. Nuclear threat easing because PRC can continue pressuing DPRK to
>>suspend nuclear weapons development.
> 
>1. Even without devine inspiration I can follow your thought in that point.
>   "Influencing" also can stand for "controlling", "moderating" or "slowing
>   down" - which might be in the interest of PRC  a n d  ROK. Sorry, this
>   speculation is based on conventional deduction only. There is also a bit of
>   extrapolation in it: My homecountry is the now unified Germany. Both states
>   are relatively wealthy and each side was quite well informed about what
>   happened on the other side. However, even under these circumstance the
>   unification turns out to be traumatic to many East-Germans and too expensive
>
>   to the wealthy West-Germans. Of course, Koreans perhaps are able to develop
>   a better family conciousness than the drab Germans. Having the gift of
>   mind reading power, Terminator will scan German and Korean minds now to
>   learn a little bit more about the degree of regionalism in these countries.

I am pointing out clearly that the ROK hopes to gain efforts towards peaceful
reunification with the established diplomatic relations with the PRC. You 
either argue that, or you don't.
 
>2. Yes, trade with Taiwan and S. Korea is small compared to ROK<-->PRC. And
>   tomorrow I sell my grandmother.

Huh? what does your grandmother have to do with this?
 
>3. You may meet some Chinese from Taiwan there as well - using their own
>   money.

I agree, but it is smaller than ROK investment.
 
>4. No objection. Actually very wellcome to someone, who lives only a few
>   kilometers south of the DMZ.
> 
>>none of the above with Taiwan except same ideologies and modern historical
>>alliance.
> 
>Same ideologies? How about a enlighting trip to Taiwan?

What do you mean here? If you argue that Taiwan in your mind is more a
more democratic nation, that is irrelevent. The very fact that ROK and the ROC
used to have diplomatic ties was to counterweight the communist DPRK and PRC.
Ideologies don't necessarily have to be based on political systems, but rather
a common effort. But in this case, both the ROK and ROC are democratic.
 
>Modern historical alliance? Oh enlighted one, this Koan is just too difficult
>for me.

I agree.
 
>>but, it is not "ROK succumbed to PRC because of historical position"
> 
>No never, you don't have to succumb because of "historical position".
>Business prospects just might do that as well.

How can you backtrack what you were saying in both this newsgroup and 
soc.culture.taiwan? You clearly were championing the fact that "Korea 
has returned to the traditional state of peripheral country to China" 
in the two newsgroups. I argued successfully that Korea was never a 
peripheral nation to China. Since that is out of the way, I agree that
the ROK established diplomatic ties with the PRC, partly because of 
business prospects, and the others I listed above. But, I disagree that
Korea "succumbed" to this position.
 
>Terminator just doesn't get it. Partial mind reading only? Selective
>perception?

Total awareness.

>Simple statement: Even if it would only be for the sake of business, I won't
>blame Korea. But Korea even can offer other reasons as - you and I said it -
>SAFETY. Switching ties is not the problem. The procedure is the problem -
>of course all-time-powerfull omnipotent Terminators do not have to worry
>about the trouble of loosers, they actually like it.

What do you mean by procedure that you call "humiliating"?
 
>Most of the Koreans I know here also know about my family relations to Taiwan.
>Almost all of them talked to me today, they didn't like the procedure, but
>they think, the switch from ROC to PRC was necessary. Accepted. (They usually
>explained the hurry with Mr. Noh's desire to reserve an unforgettable place
>for him in Korea's history. Oh all-mighty-all-knowing Terminator, are they
>right or is their thought plagued by unforgiveable wrongness?)

Do I care what they think? I disagree with the notion that President Roh did
this just because he wanted to "reserve a space in history". However, you tend
to believe this because your Korean friends do, and this is proven by the fact
you use them as backup and a basis for your argument.

>>I saw that you believed that Korea has never displayed power nor will in 
>>the future.
>>Everyone know's how silly this is, no argument needed. (unless someone
>>wants a lengthy lecture from me).
> 
> 
>Oh Lord, beware! You really know, how to scare people!

No, I shouldn't be scaring anyone who isn't afraid to look at the truth.
 
 
>I knew it! (Of course, Nostradamus, you know?)  P O W E R  is your problem.
>Perhaps I wanted to provoke such an response?

My original response was 99% rational and unbiased, the other 1% was using 
such adjectives as "destroy". But you have gone as far to attack me on a
personal level.
 
>Silly as I am, I still risk a lecture: Where did you see what I believe?
>Do you dare dot compete with George N. Will and challenge my inspirational
>powers? (In Germany we analyze the shape of coffee sediments for fortune
>telling, what's your secret?) Korea may   d i s p l a y   POWER all the time,
>perhaps with more success than destructive terminators. POWER definitely is
>an issue in Korea, between individuals (spouses), on the roed, between inte-
>rest groups and between Korea and its foreign relations. I never would dare
>to say, that Korea never displayed power nor will in the future.

Irrelevent. How can you say "Korea may display power all the time", when
in the previous post you said "this will be the first and last time korea
will have a chance to display power". I was just arguing the point that Korea
was powerful in the past and was never a peripheral nation to China. Out of
that, you go off and argue that Korea's main problem IS power.
 
>Also the use of power and striving for it is not an exclusively Korean
>issue, there are enough Koreans, who made me changing my views by simply
>talking with reason to me instead of trying to hammer their thoughts through
>my scull. THE TERMINATOR quite probably is not one of them.

I made completely unbiased responses in my previous post and in this one.

> 
>>>bye, Goetz
>>
>>yes, BYE.
> 
>Terminator not terminated
>(I wont have so much fun to DESTROY you. I need your flame to brew a good
>Kona macademia coffee, "the cup that cheers" etc. That coffee produces the
>most amazing and interesting patterns needed for German style fortune telling.)

whatever.
 
>Goetz
>


-- 
    .  .      +---------------------------------+
  --|--|      | Mark Yeon Wook Choi             |
   /.\ |      | yeonwook@hardy.u.washington.edu |
  --|--|      +---------------------------------+  
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean