KOREA TIMES: Korean-American singer tells how she feels part of Korea
By Zoe Yungmi Blank

Zoe Yungmi Blank, a Korean-American singer-songwriter, sang Korea's national anthem, "Aegukga," on the 100th anniversary of the Korean Independence Movement Day at the Seodaemun Prison in Seoul. This is her account of how she felt during the ceremony and her participation in it. ― ED.

As I prepared to sing the Korean national anthem, "Aegukga," at the March 1 celebration, I studied the history behind it and reflected on my non-full Korean identity.

With no current plans of returning to America, I have cherished moments when I feel like a part of Korea ― when my "halmoni" ("grandmother" in Korean) sits me down to straighten my ratty hair; when elder relatives firmly pat my hand with reverence; when my colleagues at the International Strategy Center play gawi-bawi-bo ("rock-paper-scissors" in Korean) to choose who washes the dishes, and when they assign me responsibilities that remind me I am a real part of the community. So in addition to honoring the March 1 Movement, I was looking to feel part of Korea by participating in the celebration.

President Moon Jae-in spoke while I pestered my friends for translations, trying not to disrupt the sea of attentive audience members. Due to my poor Korean abilities that prevented me from communicating and connecting with the festival organizers, I was introduced onstage as a "foreigner."

I was reminded that regardless of how much I have studied Korean history, volunteered in Korean civil society and learned Korean music, language fluency should have come first to get deeply integrated. I have been struggling with this since my babyhood, but I will try harder to achieve this.

After my gig, people shook my hand and commended me for my interest in Korea. I shook my head, knowing I needed to go home and hit more Korean books. Because I mostly inherited my dad's features ― a tall nose bridge and big eyes ― not a single audience member could guess that I grew up around more Koreans than non-Koreans, that I grew up hearing stories of the war, that I have been singing Korean songs since I was a baby, or that Korea is the only country I have been where I actually have native blood. The audience was not as critical of me as I was with myself.

My mom has also been proud that I have continued to dive into our heritage by participating in the celebration and thinks it makes sense with the trajectory of my life. She raised me in a Korean American community where I attended Korean immersion elementary school, did Korean musical theater, fan danced and played Janggu (Korean traditional drum).

As a kid, I loved the puzzle of correctly completing the Korean flag trigrams with black crayon and always appreciated that I had, not one, but two flags to love. I later did volunteer work for Korean culture programs often tied to government events as well.

As a member of the Korean diaspora ― especially as someone who is perceived as white ― I value input from my Korean mentors, elders, colleagues, friends and family. So when they pointed me toward learning the history of the March 1 Movement and "Aegukga," I eagerly took on the task and was thankful for their guidance.

But in the past month, I have also learned that while some people find learning history an act of respect, others find it an act of disrespect, believing the past should stay in the past. I think it is because we have different definitions of "patriotism." We all love our countries in different ways. For me, my exposure and engagement in Korean culture become more solid when I am aware of the histories attached to the culture, and how people have been affected by these histories. I meditated on that love while carrying the Taegukgi (Korean flag) from the Seodaemun Prison to Gwanghwamun.

Ghostwriting sample on Korean identity
By Zoë Yungmi Blank

Dwarfed by Seoul's towering skyscrapers, I walk into my grandfather’s small restaurant. I bow my head upon entering (90 degrees, precisely), and am both welcomed and overwhelmed by aromatic beef broth steam filling the air. Every Saturday this past summer, I'd help Grandfather work. He'd wave to me from the cashier desk, excited that I was there. And frankly, few other family members could patiently sit through his two-hour-long monologues recounting his life. 

Besides his stories of the Korean War, there was the clamorous bustle of different voices. But most prominent were those of the Chinese workers calling to each other across the restaurant. I listened attentively, even if I understood only a fraction of what was said. And they welcomed my eager ear, occasionally teaching me short phrases.

As the afternoon sun shone through the front window, I would sit by the register, making sets of four 100 won coins. After taxi drivers finished their meals and made their way to the door, Grandfather would distribute the coins for free coffee from the vending machine. By the end of the day, our fingers smelled of musty metal and were coated in a blueish-black film that I grew to love. It was the color and smell of a successful day in the community…

Transcript from my presentation on North and South Korean relations
By Zoë Yungmi Blank
Event Guest: Professor Lee Jung-Chul,
Director of Peace and Unification Studies at Seoul National University

To understand the current moment on the Korean peninsula, we must understand Korea's relationships with its powerful neighbors. From Japan’s occupation of Korea, to US division of the peninsula…from the squashing of Korean self determination by disbanding self-governing People's Committees, to the US reinstating former Japanese colonial officers and electing a US-backed dictator…we are shown that Korean democracy had to be fought for by the people, not simply brought by US occupation. We don't have time today to go through all the events, massacres, the Korean War… So we begin in 1953, when the Korean War was halted by an armistice agreement. But a peace treaty officially ending the war is still needed. Why? The dominant narrative in the US has been that negotiation with North Korea doesn't work. Let's explore how this narrative has influenced US-Korea diplomacy.

Nodutdol based in NY states that "while the US blames NK for the status quo, the US in fact obstructs and manipulates peace negotiations to protect its interest in keeping Korea as a garrison in the Pacific. NK has been flexible when negotiating with the US."You don't have to take our word for it. If you examine the long timeline of nuclearization history on the peninsula, you'll see some patterns.

First you'll see that the US brought nuclear weapons to SK way back in 1958, violating the 1953 armistice agreement. It was actually a post-war budgeting measure to hire fewer US troops, while maintaining a strong military presence in the region. That's how the peninsula was nuclearized. (Let's not forget that General Douglas MacArthur, who led UN Command during the war, wanted to drop "30 to 50 atomic bombs" on the region.)

I wanted to highlight patterns: 

The bright red spots are US provocations: war games, threats, sanctions, freezing of funds. You can see that following these US provocations are North Korean responses in purple, usually nuclear development and weapons tests. While North Korea is always depicted as the provocateur in mainstream news, a deeper examination shows us that's only a fraction of the story. NK’s weapons projects – rather than some irrational national obsession, as is often portrayed in the media – are actually effective deterrents and rational strategy in getting the US to sit down and negotiate. While we all want a world free of nuclear weapons, we also can’t deny that North Korean nuclearization has served as an effective bargaining chip to deter invasion and bring the US back to the negotiation table.

Why can't North and South Korea just make peace between the two of them without getting the US involved? Well, inter-Korean relations can only go so far without US participation and cooperation, because sanctions on NK are also imposed by the UN Security Council, the US, and other countries. Also, the US has operational control over Korea's military, so bilateral inter-Korean relations can only go so far. One of many examples of this is when Kim Dae-Jung and Kim Jong-il met for a peace summit, as part of Kim Dae-Jung's Sunshine Policy of cultural, political, and economic exchange. But due to the US not easing sanctions as promised – and Bush instead adding NK to the axis of evil – inter-Korean negotiation efforts between the two Kims were derailed. And more posturing was the result.

So while failed negotiations are blamed on NK, history tells a different story. After negotiations, NK has taken active measures to denuclearize and further negotiate. 1994: NK freezes its plutonium program, allowing international inspectors to observe. In 2000, there was an inter-Korean peace summit, NK-US Talks, the Joint Communiqué, and a missile moratorium. In 2007, NK dismantled Yongbyon nuclear facilities, did an inter-Korean summit, and shared updates on its denuclearization.

In 2018, there was a unified Korean presence at the Pyeongchang Olympics, multiple peace summits, 3 US prisoners released from NK, the Panmunjom Declaration pledge to end hostilities, a nuclear test site demolished, foreign journalists invited.

Unfortunately, just when things seem to be getting better, the US often breaks promises of negotiated aid, sanction relief, and normalization of relations. We see this frustrating pattern everywhere. 2005: A day after signing another agreement with NK, the US announces it'll tighten sanctions rather than relieve them. 2008: After a peace summit and NK updates on reactor dismantling, Obama withholds NK's promised aid as a strategy of pressure. 2013: After NK says it'll freeze its weapons program if the US cancels war games. The US instead expands war games.

Why would the US compromise negotiations when things are going well? Likely because maintaining tensions on the Korean Peninsula justifies US presence in the region, particularly regarding China. Peace would eliminate such pretext for the US. 

NK on the other hand has much to gain from negotiations and peace: access to international medicines, greater global economic opportunities, no more assassination plans or military exercises against it, greater transportation infrastructure with South Korea and China, greater food security, etc. When NK achieved capabilities to mount a hydrogen bomb onto an intercontinental ballistic missile, it achieved enough leverage for peace talks with the US. But since that era of opportunity for diplomacy, negotiations have slowed to a halt. Joint military exercises have continued, and the Yoon administration is disinterested in reunification. Have we lost all opportunity for negotiation? That's what we'll discuss today.

Transcript from my Panelist Presentation: NATO and Russia's Invasion of Ukraine 
By Zoë Yungmi Blank
Event Guests: Ukrainian sociologist Volodymyr Ishchenko, Reiner Braun executive director of the International Peace Bureau, Vijay Prashad historian and co-author with Noam Chomsky of The Withdrawal

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was created after WWII, mainly to prevent Soviet expansion in Europe. In 1949, twelve initial members founded NATO. In the next few years several more countries were added. In 1990 at the Paris Charter – as part of the compromise that would allow for the reunification of Germany and end the Cold War, the US Secretary of State James Baker assured and promised Soviet president Gorbachev that NATO wouldn't expand "one inch eastward." Soon after, in 1992, the USSR collapsed and with NATO’s reason for existence now gone, would NATO disband? No, they added several more countries in 1999. Then many more in Eastern Europe in the 2000s, and Montenegro and North Macedonia more recently.

NATO's expansion eastwards has escalated Russian concerns and alarm, so Russia requested NATO membership a few times. In 1954 Western powers rejected the Soviet proposal to join NATO on grounds that the USSR's membership of the organization would be incompatible with NATO’s democratic and defensive aims. Again in 2000, NATO responded coldly when Putin asked if Russia could join. So, considering all this, what is NATO’s real purpose? Our speakers will help us make sense of this soon.

Briefly on sanctions: Sanctions are placed on a country to penalize bad behavior – usually behavior deemed unlawful by other countries. CNN says “the new sanctions package…will impose costs on Russia for its invasion of Ukraine…and cut off critical economic sectors Russia utilizes to wage the ongoing war.” Maybe you’ve read articles like this. But let’s be careful when media assumes that sanctions are noble and are effective ing bringing peace. Because research shows that sanctions often don't bring peace, and rather inflict violence on the poorest and most vulnerable. Making ordinary people suffer is actually the point, as blocking access to basic medicines, equipment, and foodstuffs in theory catalyzes uprisings in the population. But those uprisings are no sure path to peace, and the act of knowingly inflicting hardship on populations is ethically questionable. Sanctions also indirectly punish people in the countries that rely on trade with the sanctioned country. In 1996 Madeleine Albright, US ambassador to the UN, who would become US State Secretary, admitted half a million Iraqi children dying from sanctions was “worth it.” Considering all this, what is the real purpose of sanctions? Our speakers will help us make sense of this.

Finally, after discussing and researching amongst ourselves, our organizational position is as follows:

Any invasion with violence to civilians is morally and legally reprehensible. We condemn Russia's invasion of Ukraine and want the suffering to end. We are also cautious of how corporate media hides dangerous assumptions inside seemingly-good humanitarian language. For example they may equate the following with the slogan of support Ukraine:
- that we should also support the Ukrainian government 
- that we should also support sanctions on Russia
- that we should also support US intervention and military spending
- that we should also support NATO expansion
- that NATO is not responsible for instigating Russia's invasion

When corporate media equates the plight of the people in need with the narratives listed above, we are cautious, for these are not the same and not compatible. 

Furthermore, corporate media often ignores or erases violence elsewhere in the world. Violence in Yemen, for example, has been greatly overshadowed by violence in Ukraine. If we are humanitarians, we not only care about the plight of one people but of all peoples. Another point to note is that 14,000 Eastern Ukrainians have died these past 8 years, with an increasingly neo-Nazi presence in the region…and their struggles have never made corporate media headlines. Finally, we are cautious of a growing neo-McCarthyism that censors and bans true investigative journalism.

Artificially Intelligent Alarm App
(script for commercial product promotion)

SUL NARRATOR: How do you want to wake up? Bird songs? A morning meditation? Or something a little more…

SUL APP: This is your 5th time snoozing!! You can't snooze this many times! You have to get up get you right now! Right now!!【Text on screen: Bossy Mode】

SUL NARRATOR: Uhh.. I'm not always like that. I swear! They had me set to the Bossy Mode. I'm your hands-free and customizable AI personal assistant. I can help kids get more excited about getting up for school. Or I can just disappear and become a forest, if that's more your speed. 【Disappears for forest theme】【SETTINGS SCREEN: Bossy Mode】
I can help you record your own voice messages and reminders for later. 【CUSTOM EVENT】

CUSTOM MESSAGE: Gooood morning. It's history test day! We're gonna do great! Quick review while you get ready… THE TENNIS COURT OATH date?

MIN: June 20th, 1789!

CUSTOM MESSAGE: How about THE STORMING OF THE BASTILLE date?

MIN: July 14th, 1789!

SUL NARRATOR: See, I’m not just an alarm or scheduling app. Most importantly, I help you step away from your phone —customizable and voice-activated. I want to revolutionize the way we smartphone to gaze farther beyond a screen, and back into the real world around you.

SUL APP: Hi JESS, are you ready for your 30-minute dance workout? ………………. JESS, are you there?

JESS: Not today.

SUL APP: Aw, you know you'll feel so good afterward! How about just 15-minutes instead?

SUL NARRATOR: Design your life… and stick to it. With Recommendation Mode, you'll get that extra nudge to reach your goals, and even beyond. Whether it be reading more, keeping up with your new healthy diet, or just giving yourself some time to relax, I got you. Ah, and your best friend’s birthdays and all those special anniversaries? I won’t forget them.

Technology can sometimes take over our lives. Scrolling on addictive apps. Playing addictive games. Tendinitis. Back pain. Sore eyes. Anxiety! We all know how it is. I'll help you leave the office at the office, and live the life you want to live. Let’s step into a future where we step back into our bodies, into our families, into our communities.

Why the U.S. bears special responsibility for peace in Korea

By Dae-Han Song
Edited by Zoë Yungmi Blank

The Korean war would not have occurred and continued for nearly 70 years were it not for U.S. intervention. As was the fate of many Third World countries, the Korean War was less a civil war like in the U.S. and more a proxy one like in Vietnam. The U.S. northern Union and southern Confederate states fought driven by distinct identities and politico-economic interests developed over a hundred years. A Korea that had been one nation over 2000 years was North and South less than five years old, and formally less than two before going to war 1. North and South were born out of an artificial and arbitrary division inflicted by the U.S. to promote its geopolitical interests. Much like the Vietnam War, the U.S. propped up a weak-unsustainable regime against the democratic yearnings of the great majority of people. Yet, while hundreds of thousands protested the Vietnam War, the Korean War was and remains the “Forgotten War.” The war and its causes forgotten, much of the world and the U.S. views the Korean war in the “eternal present.” Forgotten is the U.S. role and responsibility. Now, with the newly-elected South Korean Moon government pursuing engagement with North Korea, inter-Korean relations have great potential for advancement. Standing in the way is the United States. Anti-war and peace movements need to stave off the hands of the U.S. in the Korean Peninsula and allow space for Koreans to finally achieve peace and self-determination.

The seeds of the Korean War were planted in 1945 by the U.S. division of the peninsula into North and South. It was nourished into life by U.S. support of a South Korean government made up of a reviled minority of Japanese collaborators while grassroots democracy was suppressed. While the Japanese collaborators and the independence fighters were formed during the Japanese colonial era 2, the contest for power to establish a post-colonial order would not have been at the scale, duration, or conclusion of the Korean War were it not for U.S. intervention 3. Furthermore, beyond the massive human loss 4, the war resolved nothing. “Only the status quo was restored 5.” Thus, U.S. intervention, nourishment and leadership not only created the war but also the cease-fire peace we see in the Korean Peninsula today.

To understand this view of history, it is important to recognize that unlike the North Korean government, the South Korean one was weak and contested. North Korea’s government was formed with independence guerrilla fighter and led by a well known one Kim Il Sung. South Korea’s was formed with Japanese collaborators, ex-colonial police and led by Korean-exile and independence advocate Synghman Rhee, little known locally and estranged among the independence community abroad. While the North Korean government built upon the people’s committees and confiscated and redistributed land and property of the Japanese and their collaborators, the South Korean one under the aegis of the U.S. did not acknowledge the people’s committees. Furthermore, the US military government nullified the confiscation of land and factories by the people’s committees and declared these U.S. property to pay for the costs of war. Such harsh policies following liberation were met with mass strikes, uprisings and mutinies which were violently suppressed 6. The US was an occupying army 7 that snuffed out the then sprouting possibility of a unified democratic Korea in exchange for its imperialist interests. Nonetheless, the yearning for peace, reconciliation, reunification still remains. Today with the candlelight protest elected Moon government taking an approach of engagement and dialogue with North Korea, both Koreas are brought back to the path to peace.

North Korea has pursued peace as a strategy since 1994. The more romantic may say that its pursuit of peace carries the weight of the dying wish of their leader Kim Il Sung. The more cynical may conclude that with the fall of its strongest ally – the Soviet Union – North Korea found itself alone in a hostile environment and saw peace as their only means of survival. Irregardless the reason, North Korea has been pursuing a peace treaty. The provocations, missile and nuclear, have served as nuclear shield 8 from attack and leverage in their negotiation for peace 9. On the South Korean side, the new Moon government has made clear that it would pursue dialogue and engagement with North Korea 10. Standing on the way of progress is the United States and the heavy weight and influence its alliance bears on the South Korean government. Now is the time to stave off the hands of the U.S. and allow Koreans to achieve our own peace.

Nonetheless, some balk at peace with North Korea for its human rights conditions. As regards North Korea’s human rights conditions, it is important to confront that: 1) much of the documented human rights violations are devoid of historical, political and socio-economic context; 2) peace and not war is the prerequisite to improving human rights conditions; 3) no country’s human rights conditions have improved via war much less U.S. intervention.

Much of what we hear about North Korea is devoid of cultural, social and historical context. When talking about the economic hardship of North Koreans, most media fails to mention North Korea’s geographic limitations growing food, the impact of the fall of the Soviet Union, nor the epic floods and droughts that collapsed its food distribution system and wreaked havoc on its food supply. When rights are spoken of, there is no acknowledgement of North Korea’s distinct cultural and politico-economic context arisen from its history and struggles. Furthermore, few fail to make the connection between peace and human rights. Do human rights conditions improve during siege or during peace? North Korea’s siege mentality is never seriously explored by the media. It is simply dismissed as the logical result of an irrational and hysterical North Korean leadership. Few media explore the history of being carpet-bombing by U.S. jets during the Korean War, the economic sanctions, or the large scale annual joint war exercises by the U.S. and South Korea simulating the invasion of North Korea complete with nuclear submarines and B-52 bombers. President Kim Dae-jung’s solution was the sunshine policy 11: open up North Korea to South Korea and the world not through violence or pressure but through engagement and peace. Finally, as countless interventions in Latin America, Africa, Middle East, everywhere show, there is no country in which democracy and human rights blossomed after U.S. intervention. That’s because U.S. geopolitical interests require exploitation and control not democracy and free-will.

Now is the time. South Korea’s current president has one of the strongest mandates for change. He was elected riding high atop the millions that protested and demanded change in South Korea. The Moon government has committed to dialoguing with North Korea. North Korea continues to pursue a peace treaty. It’s time that peace and antiwar movements in Korea, the U.S. and the world demand peace in Korea. After over a hundred years of occupation and division, Koreans deserve peace, reunification and self-determination.

Notes:

1. South Korea held separate elections for simply the south, then it founded the Republic of Korea in Aug. 15 of 1948. North Korea followed and established the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea the following month on Sep. 9.

2. The South Korean government was composed of mostly Japanese collaborators. The North Korean government was composed of guerilla fighters that had fought for independence from the mountains of Manchuria.

3. Japanese collaborators were having their land and property confiscated and redistributed. Yet, it was U.S. intervention on their behalf that fortified them into a formidable force.

4. 2.5 million people lost their lives. https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

5. From Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: A History

6. The most violent suppression took place in Jeju Island with up to ten percent of the population killed on a scorched earth policy.

7. This was contrary to the Soviet Union that allowed the people’s committees to emerge and viewed the North as a liberated country rather than a re-occupied one.

8. Nuclear shield is the concept that having a nuclear weapon prevents attack from other nations with stronger conventional military forces lest nuclear retaliation.

9. For example, military provocations have been used by North Korea as a means of countering the policy of “strategic patience” that seeks to starve out North Korea through isolation. The display of advances in nuclear and missile technology as time passes makes the strategy of stalling for collapse more costly.

10. The Moon Administration stated a policy that would place cooperation with international sanctions on one track and dialogue with North Korea on a separate track.

11. The sunshine policy takes its name after a fable in which the sun and the wind both compete for who is the stronger: whoever can get the man to take off his coat wins. The wind blows against the man trying to force the coat off, only to have the man clasp on tighter. The sun simply radiates more and more heat and the man, now hot, takes off the coat on his own.