From: An-Ly Yao <anlyyao@igc.apc.org>
Newsgroups: soc.culture.korean
Date: 26 Aug 92 11:28 PDT
Subject: Re: Korean diplomacy twds. China
Nf-ID: #R:cdp:1473700028:cdp:1473700036:000:12944
Nf-From: cdp.UUCP!anlyyao    Aug 26 11:28:00 1992


 
>In article <1473700033@igc.apc.org> An-Ly Yao <anlyyao@igc.apc.org> writes:
 
Not An-Ly Yao, but Goetz Kluge
  
 
>>
>>From: George Nostradamus Will
>>To:   The enlighted and mind reading Terminator 
>>-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>No, just enlightened mind.
 
 
         :-)
 
 
 
[on scrapping elections]
>I doubt Roh broke the law, I believe the powers are given to him.
 
You may believe that. He does for sure.
 
 
 
 
>Looking, and my atlas still doesn't say "Korea is a peripheral nation".
 
Looking is not understanding.
 
 
 
>>> 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
> 
>My that you responded to is final, you cannot argue that because
>it's all true.
 
Your response may be final, but not "prawda".
 
ca. 190 b.C., Kisun is last Kidsha king toppled by general Wiman. Kisun escapes
to Mahan (South Korea) and is entrusted with ruling that region. Wiman
pays tribute to Chinese emperor.
 
 
 
 
>>> 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?
 
Getting the tribute payer himself.
 

>>> 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"?
 
Yes.
 
For example when defending protectionism, they point on weakness. When
welcoming home Olympic heroes, they celebrate their strength. (That applies
not only to Korea.)
 
Some see themselves as "Shrimp between two Whales" (not my invention).
 
Koreans have lots of "power", which could be usefull when fighting against
foreign competitors and invaders. However, people here use a significant
part of their energy for power games and intrigues.
 
In the history kingdoms on the Korean insula actually had success in defend-
ding Chinese invasions temporarily. That was result of "power". But quite
often fights between the Kingdoms and betrayals within the Kingdoms have
been used by the Chinese to their advantage.
 
 
 
>>> 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 may feel so. I think, most of the entries have been quite interesting.
 
 
 
>>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.
 
Yes.
 
But it's fun!
 
 
 
>>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.
 
Compare the Korean procedure to the American procedure.
 
Perhaps Korea did not intend to humilate Taiwan. The expected procedure was,
that a Korean envoy would travel to Taiwan and explain his "friends" their
decision. The suddennes might have several reasons, which now are discussed
here by Koreans, i.e.
- urgent need to improve nuklear inspections in the North
- revenge of PRC (Niger)
- pending end of Roh Tae-Woh's presidency and ambition to leave a footprint
  in history
- mistakes on the Taiwanese side
- no need to delay action in order to get construction contracts in Taiwan,
  as Taiwan learned from the actual date
- attempt, to get the mobile phone mess out of the headlines
- etc.
 
There are many speculations here in Korea (and Taiwan), some don't make sense
to me. The point is, people are aware off an unusual suddeness in the actions
here, which hurt Taiwan more than probably intended. If this would not be a
topic, than it also would not be discussed here.
 
 
 
>Describe to me what "humiliating" is?
 
Got a dictionary?
 
 
 
[lot's of stuff deleted]
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.
 
Your whole world seems to be digital.
 
No objection. But looking at the trouble even the comparatively wealthy
Germans have now after their unification, South-Korea, North-Korea and
China all will try to keep the unification process under tight control.
A (real) unification (that is, with unrestricted migration within Korea)
would be devastating and of no use for China.
 
 
 
>>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?
 
In my country "Selling one's Grandmother" characterizes someone, whose
priority in life is money.
 
 

>>3. You may meet some Chinese from Taiwan there as well - using their own
>>   money.
> 
> 
>I agree, but it is smaller than ROK investment.
 
With ROK money? Taiwan has enormous money reserves. Korea lives on loans. 
 
 
 
>>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.
 
Ssssorry, I just was referring to "same ideologies". (And - yes - I think,
Taiwan now is more democratic than Korea.)
 
 
 
>Ideologies don't necessarily have to be based on political systems...
 
Yes. Political systems may be based on ideologies.
 
 
 
>>Modern historical alliance? Oh enlighted one, this Koan is just too difficult
>>for me.
> 
>I agree.
 
Drab.
 
Most alliances are modern at their times. Some are "historical", the larger
part too often quickly is history.
 
 
>>>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.
 
Sorry, was irony :-)
 
I neither backtrack nor change my view, that Korea acts under (or to avoid)
pressure from China: Roh Tae-Woo 1992/08/24: "...The [ROK] government has
assidously tried not to infringe on the standing relations with Taiwan..."
An example for trying, but failing. Other (historical) examples on request.
 
By the way, I during a discussion   o f   c o u r s e   my views may change,
otherwise we would not discuss. But you seem more to find satisfaction in
"destroying minds", "arguing successfully", "teaching", "defeating",
"accusing" etc. than to exchange thoughts.
 
 
  
>I argued successfully that Korea was never a peripheral nation to China.
 
Argued, yes. Successfully, no.
 
 
 
 
>Since that is out of the way...
 
Ka-woom!! Terminating again?
 
 
>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.
 
Well, I recognize, that this belief is very important for you.
 
 
 
>>Terminator just doesn't get it. Partial mind reading only? Selective
>>perception?
> 
> 
>Total awareness.
 
Must be. Sorry, I was not aware of that.
 
 
 
 
>>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?
 
Seemingly sometimes you do and sometimes you don't
 
 
 
 
>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.
 
Lots of what is said now (by Koreans and Taiwanese) of course is speculation.
The reason for the speculation is the feeling, that the procedure was charac-
terized by an unusual and unexpected hurry. You might not care, what they think
(or feel), however, even the ROK Government now tries to explain the "hurry".
Consequently (that's a term you like, isn't it?) they think, there is a need
for explanation. 
 
 
>>>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.
 
One wrong note can spoil the whole composition as well as some few notes also
can determine the character of the whole composition.
 
I am perhaps 63.67% rational and unbiased and have fun with the other 36.33%.
 
 
>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".
 
Right, I have to admit that you got me here.
 
>I was just arguing the point that Korea
>was powerful in the past and was never a peripheral nation to China.
				  ^^^^^
And here I got you!
 
Korea is a small country at the periphery of the - populationwise - largest
country on earth. In such a situation you may hear "equality" and "friendship"
in diplomatic speeches, but in real life you won't find it. I hope however,
that one day I will be proven rong.
 
 
>Out of that, you go off and argue that Korea's main problem IS power.
 
It's a problem for us all, and a very significant one for you.
 
 
 
>>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.
 
99% rational unbiased?
 
 
>>(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.
 
Don't say that. It's difficult to find good coffee here.
 
By the way, did you now, that you can get  v e r y  good coffee in Taiwan,
even local one. That may be irrelevant, but its also fun. Especially if you
have that coffee with people there, who, in spite of having to face
diplomatic hype each day, stick faithfully to their openess and warmhearted-
ness faithfully.
 
You see, I am biased - based on some experience in Japan, Taiwan, Korea (years)
as well as India and China (months).
 
Goetz