Hallo, entschuldigen Sie, wenn ich eine ziemlich heikle Frage stelle. Bitte beachten Sie, dass es mir nur darum geht, mich aufzuklären und nicht darum, ein Troll zu sein.
Wie dem auch sei, mir fällt auf, dass die Konservativen in Korea einen versöhnlicheren Ansatz gegenüber Japan verfolgen, wohingegen die Progressiven/Liberalen weitaus kritischer sind und als erste Druck auf Japan ausüben würden, sich für seine Kriegsverbrechen zu entschuldigen.
Ich sehe dies sogar bei der Haltung gegenüber den beiden jüngsten Präsidenten von SK, nämlich:
1. Moon Jae-In sagte, dass Japans Eingeständnis der Menschenrechtsverletzungen in Korea wichtiger sei als die Beziehungen zwischen beiden Ländern. VS
2. Yoon Suk-Yeol forderte von Japan keine direkte Entschädigung oder Entschuldigung, sondern bat stattdessen um freiwillige Spenden südkoreanischer Unternehmen für Kriegsentschädigungen, was den Zorn der Liberalen auf sich zog.
Ich weiß, dass die Regierungen auf der ganzen Welt unterschiedlich sind, aber ist es nicht allgemein so, dass Konservativismus = nationalistischer = feindseliger gegenüber ausländischen Aggressoren ist? In Taiwan beispielsweise war die konservativere KMT historisch antijapanisch eingestellt, während die liberale DPP eher projapanisch eingestellt ist.
Why do Conservatives tend to be more pro-Japan while Liberals tend to be more anti-Japan?
byu/Deluxionist inkorea
7 Comments
Conservatives benefited from the Japanese occupation
>I know governments are different around the world, but in general, isn’t conservatism = more nationalistic = more antagonistic towards foreign aggressors?
Not always. Liberal Canada is more nationalistic than conservative Canada by comparison.
Purely on the basis of nationalism. Liberal Korea believes in ethnic nationalism more, so North Korea shares more with South Korea than outsiders even if their economic and political ideology is different. While Conservatives will prioritise the Republic of Korea as being more important so are more willing to work with outsiders that share economic and political ideology.
I think it’s just hard to define all governments on the planet with a few simple labels. There are probably several other things that each of the parties stand for that we as outsiders might as being contradictory.
A lot of the party split is based around foreign policy and how to deal with North Korea.
You can also think of it as conservatives being more anti-communist (anti-NK, anti-China) and wanting to get closer to economically powerful countries (Japan, USA).
Also the U.S. historically backed the military dictatorships, and are responsible (with the USSR) for meddling with Korea’s original independence movement.
A lot of the conservative families want to keep their money. Who got rich during the occupation? 친일파. It is also seen as a capitalist foil for “red” China.
This is a huge question.
But to briefly summarize
1. Current ruling party and predecessors to the current ruling party is “conservative” umbrella party. It contains anywhere from uber-right fascists to moderate centrist. This “conservative party” is not ideologically conservative by nature – although there ard those ideological factions within it. The “conservative” party is, indeed, the “Establishmentarian” party that supports and back up the established social, economic and political order of Korea.
2. On the other hand, Democratic Party is not “liberal” in an American sense of the word. Ideologically, Democratic Party is an umbrella party that includes anywhere from conservative to moderate left. Democratic party, again, is not “ideologically liberal” by nature. A better word for description is “anti-establishmentarian” and the party that serves as the majority minority. There goal is to “tilt” the ground so that it is less establisment-favoring.
3. In terms of “establishmentarian” forces within Korea, pro-Americanism and the Cold-War ideology has been the founding stronghold of South Korean establishments. In other words, South Korea’s establishment is characterized by a strong US-alliance and a hawkish attitudes against the Cold War adversaries, in terms of foreign affairs. There is a clear enemy to the establishment: North Korea and communists. To them, Korea has to fend off communism and North Korea. Everything else, including Japan, is secondary. In fact, America favors the trilateral alliances between South Korea, Japan and the US. Within that framework, Japan has to be a partner to work with against the common enemy.
4. On the other hand, “anti-establishment” finds that the “hawkish” attitudes against communism and against North Korea outdated. They don’t necessarily challenge the idea that North Korea is the largest enemy. But they challenge the idea that South Korea has to be hostile. Also, To the “anti-establishment”, US-alliance is not the founding grounds for Korea’s existence. US-alliance exists because it benefits Korea – not despite the fact that it may jeopardize Korea’s position. So to them, US-Korea alliance is more of the “best option” rather than the national motto. Obviously, when US proposes Korea and Japan should work together, they don’t agree that the Korea-Japan cooperation would be as beneficial to Korea as has been the case with Korea-US alliance. So their position with Japan is much more cautious and when something happens in Japan, they are not silent about it as the conservatives are.
5. This attitude from outside is superficially interpreted as “pro-Japan vs anti-Japan” or “pro-US vs anti-US”, “pro-North Korea vs anti-North Korea” or “pro-China vs anti-China”. But the reality is actually much more complicated.
6. China was never “annexed” by Japan, Japan took control over “parts” of China including the Taiwan islands and Manchuria. (Remember! Taiwan-China division happens in 1949! Taiwan was never an independent country that got annexed by Japan, it was an island of Qing dynasty and one island of “Republic of China” that ruled the entire China proper) So Taiwan’s colonization is completely different from Korea which was the entire country being annexed by Japan. KMT was the China that fought Japan duringthTe Japan’s Imperial era. They, then lost to CCP, fled to the island of Taiwan. This former “ruler of all of China” obviously has history of antagonizing Japan and they established the “establishment” in Taiwan. Korea was annexed fully. Independence fighters fought Japan, just like KMT did in China. However, unlike KMT that never lost the entire country to Japan, and took back the country after Japan was gone (only to be put into exile by China’s own CCP), Korea’s majority Independent forces got squashed by the US and America-backed dictators after the liberation. They never became “the ruler of Korea” in the manner KMT did in China. Instead, they became the resistance to the establishmentarian forces. Hence why Taiwan’s situation is completely irrelevant to Korea.
Also,
Conservatives in any country generally support current and past status quos. They don’t like to rock establishment boats.
Bring vocal about justice and liberation is generally always something of the political left
Korean conservatives are an alliance of Japan collaborates(pro-colonist), industrialists, real estate rich, doctors and Christians. Their rallying cry is Capitalism and cold war McCarthyism. To them, the red scare is the most existential threat to ROK, so Japan is the second most important ally to have against the fight against NK. Yoon in particular is more pro-japan even in conservatives standards.
Korean liberals are an alliance of student protestors in the 80s, LGBT+, feminists, ethnic nationalists, some green energy industrialists and some IT tech. Their rallying cry is ethnic Korean nationalism and liberal democracy. Their rallying cry is struggle against the injustice and imperialism, so Japan not acknowledging their past is the main indicator that Imperial Japan will come back. Moon is just one of the ultra-ethnic-nationalist of Minjoo.
IMO, Both are different flavors of conservatives, with no contesting alternatives (having nothing but pro-NK policies don’t count as liberal)