There have been several articles about Jeju referencing the cost of militarization and war to Hawai’i and Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (Pearl Harbor).  One letter to the editor published in the Jeju Weekly states:

An American Jeju?

Sunday, August 14, 2011, 03:15:11

To the editor,

Jeju Island, fondly referred to as “Korea’s Hawaii,” has more in common with the US state than many know. Besides a lure for honeymooners, a balmy climate, and beautiful volcanic geology they’ve also both suffered American imperialism.

The case of Hawaii is well known – in 1893 the US Marines overthrew the Hawaiian monarchy; five years later it was annexed and declared a US territory. Jeju’s history is more contested but the facts are clear – as early as August 1945 the island was “a truly communal area . . . peacefully controlled by the People’s Committee [of Cheju Island],” a decentralized democratic government that reflected the people’s separatist feelings toward the Korean mainland. [See Bruce Cummings’ “Korea’s Place in the Sun – A Modern History,” New York, 1997, p.219]. Between 1948 and 1953, one-tenth of Jeju’s population was murdered and one-third displaced.

Jeju may soon replicate its Pacific cousin in another way: serving as a base for the American Navy. Plans for a base in Jeju were announced back in 2002, and construction is currently underway in the small fishing village of Gangjeong, not far outside Seogwipo City. The South Korean government insists the base will be for its own national purposes but the ties between the US and Korean militaries should make one sceptical.

Given that the base will be the home to a fleet of Aegis-equipped destroyers (high-tech ships designed to shoot down ballistic missiles) it’s hard not to see it in connection to US plans to create a missile “shield” around China much as is being done in Eastern Europe against Russia. [See “U.S. and Romania Move on Missile Plan,” The New York Times, May 3, 2011.]

Since 2002 the naval base has been suspended and had its location changed several times due to strong opposition on the island. The South Korean government, in an effort to placate the population, has also decided to include in the project a nearby “eco-friendly” park and the economic incentive of a commercial dock for luxury cruise liners. Such movement on the part of the authorities may suggest there is hope for the current protesters and for the island itself in not becoming another Hawaii.

Brendan Brisco has a Master’s degree in Peace and Conflict Studies and currently teaches English Literature at Gangwon-do Foreign Language High School.

In an interview on ohmynews.com, journalist Anders Riel Müller makes similar comparisons with Ke Awalau o Pu’uloa (Pearl Harbor):

http://www.ohmynews.com/NWS_Web/View/at_pg.aspx?CNTN_CD=A0001610491&PAGE_CD=&BLCK_NO=&CMPT_CD=A0101

[Interview] Anders Riel Müller
1. In April 19th, 2011, you have launched ‘SAVE JEJU ISLAND campaign by writing a paper on Ganjeong village with the title of “One Island Village’s Struggle for Land, Life and Peace”.  http://www.savejejuisland.org/Save_Jeju_Island/About_Jeju.html

First, I want to make clear that I was not involved in the launch of savejejuisland.org. The founders just asked to use my piece as the backgrounder for their website. The piece was originally written for the Korea Policy Institute. However the purpose of this article was to present the Gangjeong struggle to an international community who may know very little about Korea, Jeju, Jeju’s history and its natural beauty that is about to be destroyed. I am happy that I succeeded at that.

Yet regarding the building of the new naval base in Gangjeong village, the Korean Navy claimed that the new “eco-friendly” naval base will create jobs and increased security for the island. What do you think of the claim of the Korean Navy?

I think it is very difficult to imagine an eco-friendly naval base with 20 Aegis destroyers. First of al. Aegis destroyers each have a 100,000 horsepower engine running on diesel or natural gas. How can these destroyers in any way be eco-friendly? There will be oil spills, waste disposal, etc. in a highly ecologically sensitive area. On the other question regarding job creation: I have worked in regional development for 7 years. There is a significant difference in assessing job creation quantitatively and qualitatively. The jobs around a naval base are not anything like the jobs that people in Gangjeong today have.

2. The Navy also stated that the new naval base will provides an economic boost for the Jeju island. Then why do you and demonstrators are against economy-centered government policy?

Again the question is not whether Jeju needs jobs, but what kind of jobs they get. Again I only speak on my own behalf, but having worked in a government agency in Denmark for 6 years, we always resisted job creation linked to militarization and the prison system. Our objective was to create jobs that would benefit local people, the local communities and the environment. Military related jobs can hardly be considered sustainable. Jeju is unique because of its unique culture and eco-systems. Economic development should seek to build on these unique features, not destroy them.

3. The third argument of the government is that the naval base will provides vital security for the Jeju island. Don’t you agree with the government?

I am doubtful how a large naval base will increase security for Jeju. I grew upon a small island in the Baltic Sea in Denmark, which in many ways was in the front line of the cold war. Only one hour away from Eastern Germany and close to the Soviet Union. As a strategically important point in a small country the threat of invasion was always present as I grew up. Looking back it seemed insane to even believe that the island could be defended against such a superior power as the Soviet Union. I think it is the same case with Jeju. In case of a war with China or Japan, two super powers, what would the chances be of defending the island without being utterly destroyed in the process? The naval base would not defend Jeju, but the mainland. As such for Jeju residents a naval base is simply a loose-loose situation.

4. The ROK government claims that the base is not intended for use by the United States, as activists concern. Why do think the US may use this new naval base since the US keep aircraft careers anyway in Okinawa?

Resistance in Okinawa against US military presence is extremely strong and I think the US is thinking strategically ahead. The US wants a heavy military presence in the waters surrounding China. Jeju’s strategic location only 450 kilometers from Shanghai is simply optimal for the US. There are very few locations where the US can be this close to one of the largest industrial and financial centers of China. The US may not have a constant military presence, but in case of rising tensions with China, I think there will be no doubt that a Jeju naval base will play an extremely important strategic role again to the detriment of Jeju residents and eco-systems.

5. In the paper you pointed out that, “In a potential military conflict with China, Gangjeong will be an important strategic target, just as Pearl Harbor was for the Japanese in WWII.” Could you elaborate more on this point you made?

For the Japanese, Pearl Harbor was the most important strategic base that halted Japanese expansion in to South East Asia and the Pacific. A naval base on Jeju will make the island a similar target in a future war. During the end of World War II the Japanese heavily fortified Jeju against a possible US invasion after Okinawa. The island was spared because of the nuclear bombing in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the islanders still suffered severely as they were forced to build fortifications for the Japanese. My main point here is that strategically located military installations will always be prime targets in a war…and Jeju would be one if the naval base is built.

6. The ROK government’s also claim that the protest is the work of a handful of extreme activists. You were in Jeju physically until recently and encountered many Jeju residents in Ganjeong village. In your opinion, how much the claim of the government is accurate?

I don’t think the local residents in Gangjeong would accept the presence of activist if they did not feel they were a support. What is  important to understand here is that the presence of outsiders give strengths to the villagers. It is always comforting to know that people from the outside cares. The government on the other hand will of course claim that the majority are extremist elements. When I was there, people seemed to go on with their lives greeting us as we walked through the village. I don’t think they would have, if they considered us extremists looking for trouble. We were greeted and accepted by community members. If you take a closer look at who uses extremist actions look to the navy and government. Sending hundreds of police officers and military in to this tiny village every day is an extremist position and excessive use of force and again it shows to me how far Korea is from being a democratic country.

7. You stated in your paper as follows, “if this naval base is not stopped, the Gangjeong villagers’ livelihoods, histories and traditions may soon be erased from memory, all because of strategic geo-political ambitions that have nothing to do with them or their way of life.” Why did you reach such conclusion? Could you explain more on your such conclusion?

Again I want you to look at Pearl Harbor. The reason why it is called Pearl Haror is because of the rich pearl fisheries in the clean water that existed before the naval base. Where do you see any remnants of the small fishing communities and pearl fisheries that took place there before? It was all erased. Today when people think of Pearl Harbor, they think of a naval base, not about the beautiful bay full of Oysters that used to be there. That will be the fate of Gangjeong as well. Once the coastline is paved over, the fisheries ruined, farm land destroyed and the villagers move away, what will be left to remind us of the beautiful place that once was?

8. In your another paper, “South Korea’s Global Food Ambitions: Rural Farming and Land Grabs”, you stated that, “In Seoul, eating out is as common as eating at home (if not more) because the food is cheap, plentiful, and most people work late in this super competitive society. Yet South Korea imports 90% of its food from abroad.” So in your opinion, Korean farmers were victimized by urban policy makers? And why do think Korea is still “super competitive society”?

This is not unique to Korea. I think it is a problem to the whole idea of development thinking: That we go from being a agricultural society, to an industrial society, to a knowledge society. Food in that thinking is merely an input just like energy. Food is energy and we need as much as cheaply as possible to feed the workers who are underpaid. Coming from the outside visiting the country side in Korea, there is no doubt that rural communities were “sacrificed” in the name of development. I used to work in the former communist countries in Europe and I see almost the same level of poverty in the rural areas in Korea as I did there. The difference is thatSouth Korea is one of the richest countries in the world. Poland, for example, is not. I have lived on three continents and I have never lived in a country as status obsessed as South Korea. It is this material status obsession that creates this super competitive society where everything is competition almost from the day you are born. Of course these ambitions have raised the material standard of living very quickly, but once a while we need to stop for a little moment and think: “What did we loose in the process”?

9. You also pointed out that “the official image of Korea as a dynamic, global and high tech society is what most visitors and mainstream Koreans see. Environmental, social, and economic policy is centered on making Korea a modern society…and rural Korea is not part of this plan.” Then what should be done to share the fruits of this Korea’s modernity with the rural Korea?

I have worked with Korean Peasant movements and I think they have a good alternative. The peasant movements are promoting the idea of Food Sovereignty: That farmers in Korea can provide good, healthy, and local food to the cities. Farmers can also provide clean water by using organic agricultural techniques and provide clean energy to the cities through wind and solar energy, but right now all these opportunities are given to large conglomerates and companies. The cities should respect how they are dependent on these services from rural areas and reward them accordingly. Right now, what we see is resource extraction from rural areas in to the cities, but not only that, South Korea is now in the process of buying up farm land in Africa and South East Asia to produce food and energy, meanwhile the farmers in Korea are struggling to survive. Again this is not unique to Korea, but a central problem to the whole idea of modernization, development and progress. We tend to see rural areas as backwards, but we depend on them for so many of the things we take for granted in the cities.

10. A recent Norway’s bomb terrorist Breivik wrote in his paper, before the bomb blast, “a common misconception is that nationalism results in backwardness and halts progress, science and any form of development. The Marxists or capitalist globalists will say that you cannot stop or avoid globalism/multiculturalism which is of course nothing more than propaganda. Japan and South Korea proves very well that this statement is wrong. Both nations are monocultural and at the same time very developed and are considered two of the most successful countries.” As you have lived and studied not only in nordic country, Denmark, but also in Canada and Korea, what do think of Breivik’s analysis and evaluation, seeing Korea and Japan as “the most successful countries”?

Having lived abroad for so many years, it is obvious to me that Breivik has many unfounded romantic notions about Korea and Japan. I doubt he has ever visited, so I don’t understand how he can highlight Korea as “successful” country. There are no ideal countries. We all have good sides and bad sides. But people such as Breivik tend to see the world in very simplified terms such as good and bad, black and white. I think if Breivik had truly studied Korea and Japan, he would have found many things that would contradict his romantic view of these two countries. Breivik has a romantic notion of what Norway used to be as well, a Norway that never existed, just as his perspectives of Korea is an idealized notion of a Korea that never existed. He idealizes warriors and kings and “pure” heroes. In general I think it is dangerous to believe that there is something as a “pure” Korean identity or culture. Identities and cultures are always connected to other identities and cultures and formed through these interconnection. I think this kind of “purity” thinking is dangerous and can lead to disastrous actions such as we saw in Norway.