Power, Patterns, and People: An Analysis of 'Republic of Korea vs. Won-Soon Park'

Cheryl Woelk

Eastern Mennonite University

December 16, 2009

This conflict analysis explores the defamation suit filed on September 14, 2009 against Won-Soon Park, a prominent civil society leader and human rights lawyer, by the National Intelligence Service (NIS).  The NIS charged Park with defaming the ‘state’ after he asserted in an interview in June that NIS had been illegal investigating businesses supporting civil society organisations. The underlying political dynamics in South Korea during the time of suit make this an intriguing case for analysis. The administration under Myung-bak Lee, now in his second year of office, has been accused of gradually implementing censorship and other such acts against democracy. Most members of the administration take a conservative view on political issues in a country with a strong right-left divide and a history of dictatorship and emergent democracy. The analyses tools help understand why a government would sue a well-known civic leader and spokesperson for human rights. This conflict grows out of a complex system of power, patterns, persons, and public which have been seeking stable democracy for over half a century.

The absence of sufficient research and information access from both sets of key actors limits this analysis. Much of the research found about this conflict came from personal websites, progressive non-government organisations (NGOs), and progressive news media. The issue did not appear in detail in the major broadcast media, or in government documents. No references could be found expressing the underlying interests and needs of the government or state actors. Much of the analysis related to perspectives not represented in the media, then, stem from historical analyses and observations from local and international political analysts. The limitations make this work a starting point for dialogue at best.

I will begin by exploring factors contributing to the conflict and apply analysis tools to understand multiple perspectives. I will then look at factors contributing to peace in order to identify ideas for peacebuilding efforts. Next, I will complete an assessment of my own role in this conflict including my motivations, abilities, and limitations. Finally, I will make specific recommendations for possible programs or interventions related to this conflict.

Factors Contributing to Conflict

Who are the stakeholders?

The two main stakeholders, as shown in Figure 1, are Won-soon Park and the National Intelligence Service (NIS). The government includes President Myung-bak Lee, who has a role as an individual actor and has a strong alliance with NIS as a branch of the government. Park and Lee knew each other when Lee was mayor of Seoul and supporter of Beautiful Foundation (Park, 2009). Lee was elected president in December 2007, by a margin of 48.6% with a 60% turnout of voters (BBC, 2007). Some credit Lee’s victory to the absence of a strong opposition candidate. Others argue people voted in reaction to economic struggles experienced under the progressive former President Moo-Hyun Roh (Klingner, 2007). Another view asserts that the majority saw Lee as a politically moderate candidate (Chae & Kim, 2008). By 2009, however, Lee’s approval rating had dropped lower than 17% (KBS, 2008). The dashed line in the stakeholder map denotes this shaky relationship between the majority of the South Korean people and the leadership.

The civil society stakeholder circle indicates progressive civic groups and NGOS, including three founded by Park: Beautiful Foundation, The Hope Institute, and People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD). They have ties to progressive political groups and to the people, and get much of their funding from partner businesses and institutions.

Media and Asia Human Rights Commission also appear on the map. Several bills related to broadcasting passed in early 2009, prompting a reaction from progressive groups resisting government control of media (Na, 2009). The zigzag line between the media and progressive political groups represents this distrust. The Asia Human Rights Commission influences the South Korean government and has publicly denounced the lawsuit against Park (AHRC, 2009).

According to Park’s personal website, he and Lee also connect through Seung-Yoo Kim, who facilitated Hana Bank’s donation projects and served on the board of the Beautiful Foundation (2009). Park and Kim had been planning a joint local micro-finance program. Hana Bank withdrew from the project without explanation, however, and Kim is now chair of Smile Microcredit Bank, established by Lee just days after the suit against Park (Lee S. Y., 2009).

Civil Society & Progressive NGOs

PSPD

Beautiful Foundation

Major broadcast media

South Korean people

Seung-Yoo Kim

National Intelligence Service (NIS)

Won-soon Park

Businesses & institutions funding the NGOs

South Korean government

Smile Microcredit Bank

Myung-bak Lee

Hope Institute

Asia Human Rights Commission

Progressive political groups

Cheryl

Figure 1: Stakeholder Map, NIS vs. Park Won-soon (2009)

Why are the stakeholders acting the way they do?

To analysis reasons for stakeholder behaviour, I have examined the positions, interests, and needs of the key stakeholders, explored each side’s motivations in search of legitimate grievances, and discovered more about key individual stakeholder’s worldviews, including identities.

While analyzing the positions, interests and needs of key actors (see Figure 2), I have included the perspectives of Won-soon Park and of a larger NIS and government combined. NIS interests are in aligning itself with government policies and direction, because as one representative explained, the NIS is the “hub of the state” (Noh, 2009). In the past, NIS has been a tool for government manipulation, even against civil society (Kim S. H., 2000, p. 54). The NIS says that Park’s comments against the government defame the Republic of Korea. Park claims in his position that as a citizen of the Republic of Korea, he cannot accuse himself (Noh, 2009). Park also wants the NIS to stop pressuring businesses to withdraw funding from NGOs and to cease illegal surveillance of citizens (Park, 2009).

The state’s interest lies in regaining control or power, particularly from public opinion. The operation of a government microcredit program may provide necessary connections to the public (Lee S. Y., 2009). Park, on the other hand, is interested in civil society’s role as separate from the state. He asserts that some aspects of society, such as the microcredit program, best belong in the hands of the public, not the state (Lee S. Y., 2009). His history of involvement in encouraging fair business practices, and a clear democratic government also show his interests in developing a healthy Korean society (Kim H. S., 2009).

For Park, a strong underlying need seems to be a sense of participation in society and connection with the people of Korea. The NIS and government needs of autonomy, effectiveness, and recognition seem to connect more with the human needs of its leaders, including Myung-bak Lee.

Figure 2: Onion Tool and Human Needs Analysis, Won-soon Park and NIS / Government (2009).

Table 1 shows the motivations of Park and the NIS or government. Park seems to have legitimate grievances about the use of illegal government surveillance, limitations on freedom of speech and the repression of civil society (Park, 2009). Park denies possible motivations of greed such political power or excessive NGO funding. The state’s motivations to increase public support and connect with the public may be valid (Yonhap, 2009), but the methods of going about this and the motivations of restricting funds, suing a citizen, and implementing the microcredit program Park had initiated seem to represent greed more than grievance.

Table 1: Greed vs. Grievance Tool, Won-soon Park and NIS / Government

 Looking at a worldview and identity analysis of the key actors in Table 2 provides more insight into their backgrounds and behaviours in the conflict. Both Won-soon Park and Myung-bak Lee, who has the most influence in the government and NIS, have stories set in the context of South Korean history. They start out similarly and both may be symbolic of the change in Korea over their lifetimes (Kang, 2008). They came from low social-economic status, reached university through hard work, and were arrested for their involvement in student demonstrations during the authoritarian regime (BBC, 2008; Ismartono, 2007). After being released from several months in jail, their paths drastically differ. Lee worked his way up the ladder at Hyundai, one of the major conglomerates responsible for labour abuses and later transformed by the labour movement to provide better working conditions (Kim S. H., 2000). Park made his way as a lawyer into a government prosecutor position, met a prominent human rights lawyer, and changed his direction to assist political prisoners and those fighting for democracy (Logarta, 2009). They both seek the best for their country, but Lee’s vision includes economic development first, while Park asserts the role of civil society in envisioning a better future. These worldview differences significantly impact their actions and attitudes in this conflict and the context of civil society and state.

Table 2: Worldview and Identity Analysis, factors shaping Park and Lee’s understandings of conflict

Core grievances in this conflict consist of democratic values and the recognition of the government, which do not necessarily stand against each other. However, the methods in which stakeholders act on their motivations collide. These actions stem from diverging worldviews about improving the country and society. Peacebuilding efforts could work to limit destructive aspects of actions and to help each group understand the common ground with each other.

How do the stakeholders shape the conflict and through what means and sources of power?

In this context, relatively high awareness exists about the issues, but levels of power remain somewhat unbalanced. Because of the history of civil society movements, the influence of NGOs under the Roh administration, and the strength of public opinion as demonstrated in responses to Lee’s negotiations about beef imports during the FTA talks with the U.S (Kang, 2008), though, power between civil society and government is not completely unbalanced (see Figure 3). Awareness of the suit may be limited to supporters of Park and consumers of alternative media. Capacity-building and community organising could strengthen both the balance of power and awareness.

Figure 3: Power and Awareness Diagram, Park vs. NIS conflict in relation to strategic peacebuilding

The power and means analysis tool provides helpful insights into this conflict situation. In looking at how stakeholders are dependent on each other, several cycles are apparent, such as in Figure 4 which complicate the relationships and draw attention to the systems theory at work. In this case, the government has power over both supporting business and the South Korean people, but also depends on them for compliance and support. In the same way, businesses and the people support NGOs, including Won-soon Park, but they also need the services and political development that the NGOs bring.

Figure 4: Cycles of Dependence, Park vs. NIS

While identifying sources of power for different stakeholders, Figure 5 shows that economic resources and identities of authority strengthen the state, while networking and mobilisation abilities give power to civil society. The history of the democratic movement in South Korea gives civil society not only the physical power of numbers, but a moral and spiritual power as well (Kim S. H., 2000). The availability of information, economic resources, and military power is limited to a few stakeholders only.

A pattern of sorts emerges as seen in Figure 6 in relation to power in the dynamics of the conflict and in what ways stakeholders use power as a means to wage conflict with each other. From one perspective, Lee uses his power in the government to target Park as a representative of NGOs, thereby influencing progressive political groups, and even according to some predictions, threaten democracy in South Korea (Im, 2009). Another scenario could have other members of the Lee administration influencing his decisions, or the insertion of the microcredit program and the public as additional stakeholders affected by the power dynamics.

Figure 6: Use of Power to Wage Conflict

The analysis tools of means and power point out a second conflict between the Lee administration and civil society. The government’s power over information and the NIS creates the means to act destructively. An increase in public awareness would strengthen the voice of the people, and limit the government ability to pressure business or civil society groups. International attention to this destructive government behaviour would also add to the peacebuilding efforts.

Where or in what context does the conflict take place?

The nested model tool, the cycle of violence map and the connectors and dividers tools provide a sense of larger context. The nested model tool in Figure 7 shows the conflict between Park and the NIS as the central issue in this case. The relationship would be the government and civil society groups, a relationship which has been strained in the last year under the Lee administration (Kim Y. T., 2009). All of this takes place in the larger system of democratisation in South Korea, which has been an ongoing process since the end of Japanese occupation in 1945 (Cumings, 2002).

Figure 7: Nested Model Tool, Park vs. NIS conflict in context

The cycle of violence tool in Figure 8, points to larger issues of structural violence leading to destruction on state, community, and individual levels. The larger structural violence of political instability and a struggle for power between conservative and progressive groups since the emergence of democracy leads to disparities in voice and expression, and levels of repression within society. The economic inequalities within South Korean society also play a role in this divide as the people who “have” seek to maintain social and political status quo. The high level of militarization in society, the perceived threat or concerns because of conflict with North Korea, the presence of U.S. military, compulsory military service, and a strong social hierarchy based on age, gender, and status may also contribute to violence on community and individual levels. There is no clear causality to domestic violence and abuse, bullying and school violence, or alcohol abuse and the highest suicide rate of all OECD countries (OECD, 2009), but these likely arise as secondary effects of structural violence. In the Park vs. NIS conflict, some of these structural factors may also affect decision-making and behaviour.

Figure 8: Cycle of Violence Tool, Park vs. NIS in context of larger structural violence in South Korean society

Looking further into the context of the conflict, the presence of sources of tension and dividers are outlined in Table 3. From an institutional perspective, the influences on the media through government law-making, and the use of the NIS as a means to target civil society and their supporting businesses cause tension. Related actions and attitudes add to this divide. Shared values and interests have a tendency to polarize society into the left and right, civil society and government. Although the symbols and occasions listed in the table occurred prior to the lawsuit against Park, the implications from those events continued to impact public opinion when news of the lawsuit was released (Kim Y. T., 2009). I will identify connectors and peacebuilding efforts in the discussion of factors contributing to peace.

Table 3: Dividers or Sources of Tension, in South Korean context surrounding Park vs. NIS conflict

The context essentially drives this conflict in that the processes of democratisation, economic and political struggles create the setting for the government to repress civil society leaders and groups. A third main conflict between progressive and conservative political groups appears through these tools. Peacebuilding efforts must also address this polarisation of political views.

When is the conflict taking place in the context of historical patterns?

The timeline tool in Table 4 shows some interesting patterns in the history of South Korea in the relationship between the state and civil society. This timeline begins with the Japanese occupation, which continues to shape Korean society. According to Son-hyok Kim, political science professor and author of The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society, a key legacy from the thirty year Japanese occupation “was the emergence and development of a pattern of ‘conflictual engagement’ between the repressive state and the resistant civil society.” (2000, p. 24). After the Korean War, South Korea experienced two extended periods of authoritarian rule under which civil society was largely suppressed. The democratic movement grew out of these regimes and the former leaders of civil society came into political society. As Kim suggests, this caused an “identity crisis” for civil society groups who could no longer follow the clear pattern if the state did not play the repressive role (2000, p. 110). Some organisations sought to change their identity and find ways to work together with political society. PSPD, founded in 1994 by a group of 200 including Won-soon Park, is one organisation seeking to bridge political and civil groups as a “watchdog against the abuse of power” (PSPD, 2008). This loss of identity reappeared during the Moo-Hyun Roh administration from 2002-2006. The Hope Institute, established in 2005 by Park, encourages citizen participation in research and local level policy change (2009) and seeks to bridge across civil society and state, breaking the pattern. Under the Lee administration, however, it seems similar patterns have returned, such as massive demonstrations and the use of the NIS to carry out state objectives. These patterns likely influence the current conflict between Park and the NIS.

Table 4: Timeline Tool, Government and civil society in Korea and South Korea

In terms of stages of conflict, Figure 9 shows the relative levels of latent conflict and crisis between the state and civil society over one hundred years. The movement towards crisis appears to rise at the time of the Park and NIS conflict. At each crisis “peak,” civil society rose up against the state or the state used violent repression against the people. In either case, the crisis at these points became visible.

Figure 9: Stages of Conflict, the state and civil society in 100 years of Korean history

Movements of growth of civil society over these one hundred years were prompted by economic decline, violent repression of demonstrations, and attempts of the government to make anti-democratic changes to the law and constitution. While these “windows” prompted growth and support for civil society, they were also moments of vulnerability which often led to violence and further repression by the state as seen in Table 5. An interesting point is that none of the major civil society movement has been influenced by South Korea’s relationship with North Korea. One would think that any rise in tension with the North would impact the people’s perspective in the south, but it has really mainly been an excuse for the government to pass security laws and make use of the NIS. A comparison graph of conflict between North and South Korea might be helpful to verify this observation.

Table 5: Windows of Vulnerability, in South Korean context past, present and future

Overall, the tools of time context explain responses of civil society and political groups to the lawsuit against Park within a fourth, historical conflict pattern. Behaviours relate to this particular incident, carrying decades of memories. The historical struggles and traumas experienced by Korean society through the transition from occupation, to authoritarian rule, to democracy continue to shape the political and civil movement. Possible trigger events such as suppression of demonstrations, the deaths of significant persons, or government passing of laws amidst public protest would be points to watch for in peacebuilding efforts.

Factors Contributing to Peace

Who are key actors who could play a bridging or third side role at each level?

As stated above, Won-Soon Park, NIS, the government, and Myung-bak Lee could be considered key stakeholders. Other stakeholders, though, are very involved in the conflict as seen from a broader perspective. Looking at the peacebuilding pyramid in Figure 10, the conflict takes place across the top and middle range levels, and also influences the grassroots level.

Figure 10: Peacebuilding Pyramid, Social Capital Tool and Third Side Roles, in South Korea state and civil society conflict

Fostering vertical social capital in a Confucian-based society is difficult because of the nature of hierarchies where one must rule over the other and obligations change according to the hierarchical relationship, whether due to moral or other kind of power (Kim S. J., 2002). One builds vertical social capital either by connecting with someone above the person in question, or building relationships in a sort of zigzag format, working “up” the triangle. For example, a former president might have capacity for peacebuilding in the roles of Arbiter or Mediator at the top leadership level. Unfortunately two very good possible third side roles, former presidents Dae-Jung Kim and Moo-Hyung Roh both passed away in 2009. Young-Sam Kim would be the only other appropriate person for that role. Others below Lee, but closer to him might be possibilities as well, but would be limited to the Mediator role at most. Chief of staff, Jung-Kil Jung has qualities required for a Mediator role, including a close proximity to Lee, a background in education, and closer in age to Park. Prime minister Woon-Chan Jung might also be a good connection. Park and the prime minister already know each other and Jung may be open to peacebuilding efforts.

On the middle level, Won-Soon Park himself has capacity for peacebuilding and already plays a third side role of Witness, pointing out injustices, Equalizer, seeking to empower the people’s voice, and Teacher, creating social change through his organisations. With his increased popularity and support following the lawsuit, Park’s options for engaging in peacebuilding efforts both in civil society and political society could expand. Pastor Jin-Hong Kim, a leader in the “New Right Movement” might be a potential Bridgebuilder or Teacher from the middle range leadership level. In a 2008 interview, he talked about his support for the Lee administration, and his relationship with Lee, while at the same time encouraging further communication with civil society and transparency in the government (Yonhap, 2008). One of the goals of his organisation is to strengthen a conservative voice within civil society so that dialogue between progressives and conservatives can begin at the social level.

At the grassroots level, key efforts for peace could be building bridges between conservative and progressive groups within the public, providing support and encouragement for government leaders, and constructively critiquing and holding the government accountable to address the needs of the people. Dialogue between conservative and progressive groups might be a role for local NGOs, such as Women Making Peace Conflict Resolution Center, Korea Anabaptist Center, or the Frontiers, a peacebuilding organisation based in Korea. Care should be taken for those in the third side roles of Teacher and Bridgebuilder to address issues of power, but look at underlying needs rather than criticize. As Park observes, progressive groups in Korea too often criticize without making specific suggestions on how to move forward and make change (The Hankyoreh, 2009).

As far as outsiders playing third side roles, the Asia Human Rights Commission already acts as a Witness and could also adopt a Peacekeeper role if necessary. While international groups may be able to play third side roles of Witness or Peacekeeper, outsiders would likely not be successful in the roles of Bridgebuilder, Mediator, or Arbiter within the context of South Korean society. 

Connecting with groups and individuals at each of these levels might provide a start for peacebuilding efforts through dialogue and relationship-building. It would be important to identify appropriate third side roles in the different levels, groups and individuals for a Korean cultural context.

Why might stakeholders be motivated to support and work for peace?

Addressing the “why” question in planning peacebuilding efforts would require meeting the needs of each stakeholder as described in Figure 2: Onion Tool and Human Needs Analysis. The underlying needs of the government involve recognition and autonomy while the underlying needs of Park, and possibly civil society as well, would be participation in society and a sense of dignity and respect. Taking into account the worldviews of different key actors would be necessary in order to create a space for dialogue to find common ground.

On the macro level, existing incentives for peace, as seen in Table 6, would include the pressure on the government from the public about the lawsuit against Park, the comments of the Asia Human Rights Commission which threaten international attention, the need for solidarity during an economic recession, and the need for civil society to continue to function in its role for a healthy society. Strongest incentives are internally created, such as needs for a functional society and political stability. A fear of losing a hard-won democracy and memories of the “Chung-Hee Park” regime of the 60s and 70s appear in several opinion columns. The public feels an urgent desire to achieve peace and sustain democracy.

Table 6: Incentives for Peace Analaysis, civil society and the state in South Korea 2009

How can sources of power foster social capital and increase peace?

The most appropriate responses for peacebuilding programmes would involve forms of community organizing and capacity building as seen in Figure 3: Power and Awareness Diagram. There may also be a need to wage conflict non-violently if the government continues to use its power over the public to repress groups and individuals. Also, increased awareness of the public will draw on the people’s power which have been shown in the past to be quite successful in creating change if aligned in solidarity (Kim S. H., 2000).This awareness would also impact the patterns of use of power as shown in Figure 6: Use of Power to Wage Conflict between government leaders, civil society, and progressive political groups. Looking from a systems perspective may also shed light on factors contributing to peace or conflict. The systems in which South Korea participates exist within the regional and global political and economic systems, which may provide additional incentives for peace or for continuing in conflict.

Where can peacebuilding efforts foster institutional and cultural resilience in the context?

Fostering institutional and cultural resilience seems key factor to the larger dynamics of this conflict. As a relatively new democracy, South Korean people may have incredible resilience, but the democratic system has yet to develop sustainability. The conflict between Park and the NIS may serve to nurture resilience, if leading to resolution through peacebuilding efforts rather than destructive conflict.

In Table 3: Dividers or Sources of Tension, I examined sources of tension in the conflict. In Table 7, I compare these to connectors and local capacities for peace, and suggest peacebuilding efforts that might decrease dividers and increase connectors. Peacebuilding efforts might include dialogues among divided horizontal groups, support and further development of diverse media for increasing awareness, advocating for transparency from the government particularly in terms of NIS actions towards civil society, and sharing common stories that pull groups together. Healing processes might also be something to explore in relation to the traumas that the Korean society experienced, whether recently with the Yongsan tragedy, or from historical traumas during authoritarian regimes.

Table 7: Local Capacities for Peace and Resilience, and Connectors and Dividers Tools

Local capacities for peace exist within civil society. Civic groups have strengths in improvising solutions, organizing community members, and organizing support from the outside if necessary. One weakness, however, would be a lack of cultural tools for managing differences and tensions between groups. Prior to the Japanese occupation, Confucian principles led society and managed differences and tensions. While society is still influenced by Confucianism, most people no longer practice these models and would not necessarily find them appropriate for modern Korean culture. Perhaps a peacebuilding effort would be exploring historical models and creating new tools for bridging differences.

When might be good opportunities for peacebuilding efforts?

In the past, windows of opportunity have often appeared when a large majority of the public stood together in solidarity. Another window came with the hosting of the Seoul Olympics in 1988. The attention of the international community put pressure on the government to meet the needs of demonstrators.

Table 8: Windows of Opportunity

One recent window of opportunity was Lee’s apology in response to massive demonstrations over beef imports in the FTA negotiations. Also, while the suicide of former president Moo-Hyun Roh increased tension with accusations of NIS investigator involvement, former president Dae-Jung Kim’s natural death as a national hero was grieved by all political groups. At that moment, a commitment to reconciliation may have been possible should it have been presented. In the future, concessions or acts of transparency made by the Lee administration, or some event which presents a common goal or struggle which requires state and civil society cooperation.

Self-Assessment

Who am I in relation to the stakeholders?

On the stakeholder map, my strongest relationship is a personal connection to Won-Soon Park through my spouse’s involvement in The Hope Institute programs, and Park’s role as a mentor to him. I have also worked closely with members of PSPD and Beautiful Foundation. I have social capital with several different civil society groups, mainly progressive groups, although a few with more central views. My third roles include Teacher, as a trainer and peace educator, and possibly Bridgebuilder between grassroots groups along the lines of conservative and progressive dichotomies.

Why am I involved in this conflict and how do others perceive my motivations?

My motivations in doing this analysis come from my past experiences in Korea. I have close friends and family in Korea and I need to know their society is stable, secure, and will continue to be a place where they can live in peace. I have worked with NGO groups and civil society especially in the Seoul area, and have gotten to know Won-Soon Park. While my biases and experiences side more with a progressive perspective, I want to hear and understand the perspectives of conservative thinkers, including family members and loved ones who hold these views. I would like to understand more of the current political context in South Korea including the polarization of political views, in relation to the historical struggle for democracy in the country. I want to understand why a government led by someone I thought committed to democracy would sue a prominent civic leader and human rights advocate.

I am also motivated by the expectation of future involvement in South Korean civil society. In order to support and implement peacebuilding efforts in partnership with Korean peacebuilders, I need to understand the relationships, experiences, and feelings from all sides. I am interested in peace for South Korea and for Korean peacebuilders to use tools available for their context to build peace in their society, in the North-South Korean conflict, and in larger regional issues as the Korean peninsula has potential to implement strategic peacebuilding efforts for Northeast Asia.

Perceptions of my motivations, however, may differ from my intentions. I have communicated with Won-Soon Park about this project and he seems to understand my motivations and limitations. Civil society groups that I have worked with in the past may be interested in my involvement and willing to listen to thoughts or ideas. Stakeholders that I do not have a personal relationship with may see me as an outsider trying to interfere or provide an unwelcome solution. My gender and age might not be helpful in this case. When asking questions about Korean politics or history I have sometimes heard “you’re not Korean, so you can’t understand.” This could be a perception from some stakeholders and limit their support for peacebuilding efforts involving me, despite my motivations to listen, learn, and understand more. On the other hand, as a Korean speaker and an outsider, I may also been seen as a helpful ‘sounding board’ for ideas and for stakeholders to talk about the conflict freely. In this case, my age and gender aid in creating a non-threatening presence. I have experienced this “privileged other” position in the past as an opportunity to listen reflectively and build bridges between groups that may not otherwise have a chance for communication.

How do I use my means of power in this conflict and how will it shape peacebuilding efforts?

Main sources of power that I have are education, including both English and Korean language skills, and social capital in Korea, Canada, U.S., and many other countries. In aligning myself with issues of peacebuilding, I may also draw on moral or spiritual power. I do not have access to economic resources, large networking capabilities, nor any type of physical or military strength. I have limited access to information about the state and NIS. I am also limited by my outsider status, gender, and age. This will shape my involvement in peacebuilding efforts. My primary role will be to support ongoing efforts, rather than initiate new programs or draw people together. I can provide educational resources, ideas from other contexts, and encourage peacebuilders in Korea.

Where do I fit in the context in terms of my understanding?

I am an outsider with no formal education in the South Korean context, or extensive knowledge of historical, political or social dynamics in the country. I am fluent in Korean, however, and have a general understanding of the main issues in society and politics. I also have many opportunities and sources for acquiring knowledge. This analysis acts as an initiative into further learning.

When can I respond to the conflict?

At the moment, I do not have the capacity to respond to any immediate needs. I can only plan to send this analysis to Won-Soon Park for his review and response. I am committed to peacebuilding in Korean society over the long-term, however, and can work at capacity building and education efforts which take longer to develop, implement, and evaluate.

Recommendations for Possible Peacebuilding Efforts

In summary, the analysis reveals several layers of conflict surrounding the Park vs. NIS lawsuit. The closest conflict lies within the Lee administration pressure on civil society groups through business support as well as the Smile Microcredit program. These conflicts both exist in the context of a progressive and conservative political split. All of these relate to the historical state vs. civil society conflict and the patterns of “repressive state” and “resistant civil society.” Each of these conflicts requires peacebuilding efforts. Since they are all related as part of a system, efforts for one conflict may also influence other conflicts. Below are a summary of suggested peacebuilding efforts focused on each.

Park vs. NIS Lawsuit

In the Park vs. NIS lawsuit, finding arbiters or mediators in top leadership positions, bridgebuilders who might be able to dialogue with Park, or supporters of Park would be one possibility. Keeping Asia Human Rights Commission informed and monitoring the lawsuit case in courts would be another way of witnessing and refereeing the conflict. Highlighting transparent and object media releases of the lawsuit might help to draw mid-level and grassroots support. Park’s initiatives seem most important, including publication of any dialogues with the NIS or other third side roles in which he participates, his website releases and interviews, and the petition “Delete My Name” signed by Korean citizens, in whose name the lawsuit was filed.

Pressure from Lee administration on Civil Society Groups

Witnessing roles seem to be important for responding to the pressure of the Lee administration on civil society groups and their supporters. Increasing awareness of the NIS pressuring through broadened alternative and major media sources, finding other incentives or approaches for businesses to support NGOs, encouraging transparency in government communications, and giving specific suggestions for change in the model of The Hope Institute’s think tank would be tasks that civil society groups and NGOs could undertake. Perhaps an appreciative inquiry approach of responding with encouragement to positive acts from Lee administration might be helpful in reaching the underlying needs of recognition and approval. In order to bridge relationships, civil society could also seek connections with the government for partnership in common goals that the Lee administration and civil society both aim to achieve.

Conservative and Progressive Political Split

The larger social conflict of the conservative and progressive polarization requires long term efforts. Prominent civil society leaders, professors, and lawyers can act as bridgebuilders and teachers to bring together opposing views and initiate constructive dialogue on shared issues. Building awareness of public power in democracy, the significance of turnout in voting, and dialogue in preparations for the next elections might be helpful to initiate. Opportunities for building relationships between conservative and progressive views at grassroots, middle, and top levels could happen through dialogue, defining democracy together, and recalling stories of unifying resilience and hope from the democratisation process. Organisations doing peace education can help people to learn about peacebuilding, create a vision for society together, provide practice in skills for dialogue and discussion on sensitive topics, and assist in developing cultural tools for managing tensions and difference.

Historical State and Civil Society Pattern of Conflict

On the historical level, education can provide an increase in awareness of patterns between state and civil society and watch for those patterns being played out. Healing processes from historical wounds and recent collective traumas such as the suicide of the former president and the tragedy at Yongsan might aid in addressing emotional needs. Identifying clear hope-filled symbols which bring together people from all perspectives can provide reminders of a common vision. Peace education including historical studies of democratisation processes from other contexts, and awareness of systems and patterns can offer possible insights into future direction for society.

Concluding Remarks

In this analysis I have explored the factors contributing to conflict surrounding the lawsuit against Won-Soon Park, factors contributing to peace in the context, an assessment of my role, and possible recommendations for peacebuilding efforts. Relationships of balanced power, awareness of patterns from history, and listening to the voice of the people rose out of the analysis as key themes for promoting sustainable democracy and creating a stable society. I trust that this analysis can contribute to ongoing dialogue and understanding for peacebuilding in South Korea.

References

(2009). Retrieved December 12, 2009, from The Hope Institute: http://eng.makehope.org/

AHRC. (2009, October 9). Defamation against an activist by intelligence agency. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Asian Human Rights Commission: http://www.ahrchk.net/ua/mainfile.php/2009/3286/

BBC. (2007, December 19). Lee wins South Korea's election. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150806.stm

BBC. (2008, February 25). Profile: Lee Myung-bak. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from BBC News: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7150162.stm

Chae, H., & Kim, S. (2008). Conservatives and progressives in South Korea. Washington Quarterly , 77-95.

Cumings, B. (2002). Civil society in west and east. In C. K. Armstrong, Korean society: civil society, democracy, and the state (pp. 11-35). New York, NY: Routledge.

Im, J. S. (2009, December 04). Han-guk jung-bu-ga mol tu-ryeo-wa-ha-neun-ji mo-reu-gaet-da / I don't know what the state is afraid of. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from Hankyoreh 21: http://h21.hani.co.kr/arti/special/special_general/26215.html

Ismartono, Y. (2007, March 27). Interview with Park Won-Soon. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from The Leaders: http://www.spf.org/the-leaders/library/16.html

Kang, D. C. (2008). South Korea’s not-so-sharp right turn. Current History , 107 (710), 256-262.

KBS. (2008, June 4). Lee's approval rating plunges to 17%. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from KBS News: http://english.kbs.co.kr/news/newsview_sub.php?menu=2&key=2008060407

Kim, H. S. (2009, September 25). Suit against Park Won-soon. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from The Korea Times: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/opinon/2009/10/169_52504.html

Kim, S. H. (2000). The politics of democratization in Korea: The role of civil society. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Kim, S. J. (2002). The genealogy of Confucian moralpolitik and its implications for modern civil society. In C. K. Armstrong, Korean society: Civil society, democracy, and the state (pp. 57-91). New York: Routledge.

Kim, Y. T. (2009, October 1). The Democratic Party’s indifference. Retrieved October 17, 2009, from The Hankyoreh: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_opinion/379756.html

Klingner, B. (2007, December 20). Conservative landslide marks new era in South Korea. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from The Heritage Foundation: http://www.heritage.org/research/AsiaandthePacific/wm1758.cfm

Lee Myung-bak: Profile. (2009). Retrieved December 14, 2009, from Choeng-wa-dae / Office of the President: http://www.president.go.kr/kr/president/president/profile.php

Lee, J. H. (2009, December 10). Mi-so-jae-dan: Shin-bok-wi eop-mu-hyup-yak-shik gae-chwei / Cooperation agreement established between Smile Microcredit Bank and Credit Counseling & Recovery Service. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from Asia Business: http://www.ajnews.co.kr/uhtml/read.jsp?idxno=200912101316001920445

Lee, S. Y. (2009, October 2). Microfinance raises both hopes, doubts. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from The Korea Herald: http://www.koreaherald.co.kr/NEWKHSITE/data/html_dir/2009/10/02/200910020037.asp

Logarta, L. T. (2009, July 20). Park Won Soon: The people's servant as visionary. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from Wonsoon.com: http://wonsoon.com/tag/5384

Na, J. J. (2009, September 7). President denies allegations of media control. Retrieved December 12, 2009, from The Korea Times: http://www.koreatimes.co.kr/www/news/nation/2009/10/116_51441.html

Noh, H. W. (2009, December 3). 'Guk-ka-ga jung-bu-bi-pan gae-in-ae so-song' jeok-kyeok-sung jaeng-jeom / 'Suing the indiivudal for criticism of the state' - A contentious issue. Retrieved December 11, 2009, from The Hankyoreh: http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/society/society_general/391340.html

OECD. (2009). Society at a glance 2009: OECD social indicators. Retrieved December 13, 2009, from Organisation for economic co-operation and development: http://titania.sourceoecd.org/vl=4924144/cl=14/nw=1/rpsv/societyataglance2009/08/04/index.htm

Park, W. S. (2009, September 17). Jin-sil-eun i-reu-sim-ni-da / The truth is like this. Retrieved December 3, 2009, from Wonsoon.com: Social designer's blog: http://wonsoon.com/803

PSPD. (2008, May 19). About PSPD. Retrieved 11 9, 2009, from People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy: http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English

The Hankyoreh. (2009, October 6). Park is unwavering in criticism against NIS for spying on civilians. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from The Hankyoreh: http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_national/380375.html

Walsh, B. (2006, May 8). Saving Seoul. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from Time Asia: http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501060515/story.html

Yonhap. (2009, October 5). Park Won-Soon: 'dae-tong-ryeong in-ki, ya-dang-do won-in' / Park Won-Soon: 'Caused by president popularity and opposition'. Retrieved October 15, 2009, from Donga News: http://www.donga.com/fbin/output?n=200910050272

Yonhap. (2008, November 4). 'Nyoo-ra-i-teh-chun-guk-yon-hap' Kim Jin-Hong sang-im-eui-jang, CBS-R in-teo-byoo jun-moon / Interview with New Right's Jin-Hong Kim. Retrieved December 14, 2009, from Naver News: http://news.naver.com/main/read.nhn?mode=LSD&mid=sec&sid1=001&oid=098&aid=0002005057&