By Choi Sung-jin
Politicians do anything to win votes, and nowhere else may this be truer than here in Korea. The new coronavirus outbreak seems to be no exception. So-called opinion leaders ― mainly conservative ones ― are shifting the focus of discussion from public health and safety to the Moon Jae-in administration's China policy.
Conservative politicians and media outlets are now renewing their calls for the government to block the entry of all travelers from China, not just Hubei Province and its capital Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus. They say that had the Moon administration implemented the entry ban earlier, new cases would not have soared.
How correct are their arguments objectively, however?
On Monday, Jung Eun-kyeong, head of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, "No cases from abroad have been confirmed since the 31st patient so far. Six of the total 883 patients are of Chinese nationality so far, but they have infected only a few. Up to three-fourths of confirmed cases are domestic transmissions centering on the two clusters of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus and Daenam Hospital."
Others take the example of the United States, which prohibited entry from all of China on Feb. 3. Had Korea done similar, it could have blocked only one of the six infected Chinese persons. Moreover, in Italy and Iran, which took similar actions to the U.S., the virus is spreading rapidly through unknown routes. Strictly speaking, Chinese people or other foreigners coming from China have had little to do with the recent spike in the number of new cases in this country. The overall entry ban is ineffective at this point just as it was three weeks ago.
The right-wing camp also cites that China's two close allies ― Russia and North Korea ― implemented an entry ban. This is not, however, because their governments are more capable and cold-headed than Seoul. It is because they have no other option than to close the border to stem the spread, given their less developed healthcare systems and infrastructure.
Except for four or five advanced countries, approximately 40 countries that took similar steps include Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Maldives, Palau, Kazakhstan, Mauritius and Gabon. How do they compare with the group of countries that have not adopted overall entry bans like Korea, such as the U.K., France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Finland?
U.S. President Donald Trump is erecting a wall along the border with Mexico to block immigrants. Moreover, China is emerging as America's most formidable challenger in taking global hegemony. Trump's xenophobic action could be seen as entirely predictable.
Of course, nothing can be more important for governments than their people's lives and safety, regardless of their nationality. It is still disappointing to see the G2 nations, which compete fiercely with each other in most areas, cannot cooperate even on an issue where numerous innocent people's lives are at stake.
The Korean conservatives' assertions are equally irrational. True, Koreans have come to dislike the Chinese and their arrogant behaviors more and more; especially since the giant neighbor has grown economically and militarily. Nothing shows this better than Beijing's economic retaliation against Seoul for allowing the U.S. to deploy its THAAD anti-missile battery in South Korea in 2017.
The conservatives just don't like Moon's foreign policy, which they think is veering close to China while breaking away from the U.S. A conservative columnist attributed it to pro-North Korean leftists surrounding the Korean President, as U.S. Ambassador Harry Harris suspected.
Most of all, the conservative United Future Party is aiming to win big in the April general election by painting President Moon and his liberal Democratic Party of Korea as subservient to Beijing.
"The Moon government is anxious not to provoke Beijing to assure Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Seoul before the general election. It will use Xi's support for the government's inter-Korean policy for winning votes in the election," a UFP member said. After all, what could be a better electoral weapon than the sitting government's failure to protect people's lives?
Given the growing panic among the public, the tactic ― which Chang Deok-jin, a sociology professor at Seoul National University dubbed the "politicization of peril" in his recent contribution to a local paper ― is likely work to a certain extent. Even more dangerous instigators, however, are the far-right fanatics who, led by a cult-like pastor, gathered in the heart of Seoul by the thousands and chanted anti-government slogans.
"The coronavirus is not contagious in open space. Even if you are infected, God will cure you. And even if you die, your places are prepared in Heaven," said Chun Kwang-hoon, the cult leader. One can see how antagonism out of blind hatred can drive people insane, even casting away the principal value ― human life.
Yes, President Moon and his aides may be taking diplomatic repercussions into account. However, even ordinary citizens can know Xi will not be able to visit Korea in March as temporarily agreed on before, and may more likely come in the first half of the year at the earliest. Even if Xi comes and Moon garners some diplomatic gains, these will hardly affect the elections. Even for Koreans living in a divided nation, economic equity and social justice ― not inter-Korean issues ― are at the top of voting priority.
In an apparent self-contradiction, the conservatives call COVID-19 "Wuhan pneumonia" or even "Moon pneumonia" while exaggerating some government officials' mistake of briefly naming the Korean situation "Daegu Corona 19" after the local hotspot. The same right-wing commentators who call for banning all Chinese people are also fuming over similar treatments of Koreans in Israel, Maldives and Vietnam.
If and when the dust settles under the cooperative atmosphere, Korea and China will grow closer than now due to joint efforts to overcome crises. Beijing may ease or lift the remaining retaliatory measures concerning THAAD. Or it may not.
However, few can deny Korea will experience a similar outbreak again someday. When that happens, the two countries will cope far better than they are currently. Combating epidemics should be scientific, not political, and cooperative, not exclusive. Those who politicize peril and use the virus to win votes will lose in the April polls.
Choi Sung-jin (choisj1955@naver.com) is a Korea Times columnist.
 |
Conservative politicians and media outlets are now renewing their calls for the government to block the entry of all travelers from China, not just Hubei Province and its capital Wuhan, the epicenter of the virus. They say that had the Moon administration implemented the entry ban earlier, new cases would not have soared.
How correct are their arguments objectively, however?
On Monday, Jung Eun-kyeong, head of the Korea Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, said, "No cases from abroad have been confirmed since the 31st patient so far. Six of the total 883 patients are of Chinese nationality so far, but they have infected only a few. Up to three-fourths of confirmed cases are domestic transmissions centering on the two clusters of the Shincheonji Church of Jesus and Daenam Hospital."
Others take the example of the United States, which prohibited entry from all of China on Feb. 3. Had Korea done similar, it could have blocked only one of the six infected Chinese persons. Moreover, in Italy and Iran, which took similar actions to the U.S., the virus is spreading rapidly through unknown routes. Strictly speaking, Chinese people or other foreigners coming from China have had little to do with the recent spike in the number of new cases in this country. The overall entry ban is ineffective at this point just as it was three weeks ago.
The right-wing camp also cites that China's two close allies ― Russia and North Korea ― implemented an entry ban. This is not, however, because their governments are more capable and cold-headed than Seoul. It is because they have no other option than to close the border to stem the spread, given their less developed healthcare systems and infrastructure.
Except for four or five advanced countries, approximately 40 countries that took similar steps include Vietnam, Papua New Guinea, Fiji, Maldives, Palau, Kazakhstan, Mauritius and Gabon. How do they compare with the group of countries that have not adopted overall entry bans like Korea, such as the U.K., France, Germany, Canada, the Netherlands, Spain, Belgium and Finland?
U.S. President Donald Trump is erecting a wall along the border with Mexico to block immigrants. Moreover, China is emerging as America's most formidable challenger in taking global hegemony. Trump's xenophobic action could be seen as entirely predictable.
Of course, nothing can be more important for governments than their people's lives and safety, regardless of their nationality. It is still disappointing to see the G2 nations, which compete fiercely with each other in most areas, cannot cooperate even on an issue where numerous innocent people's lives are at stake.
The Korean conservatives' assertions are equally irrational. True, Koreans have come to dislike the Chinese and their arrogant behaviors more and more; especially since the giant neighbor has grown economically and militarily. Nothing shows this better than Beijing's economic retaliation against Seoul for allowing the U.S. to deploy its THAAD anti-missile battery in South Korea in 2017.
The conservatives just don't like Moon's foreign policy, which they think is veering close to China while breaking away from the U.S. A conservative columnist attributed it to pro-North Korean leftists surrounding the Korean President, as U.S. Ambassador Harry Harris suspected.
Most of all, the conservative United Future Party is aiming to win big in the April general election by painting President Moon and his liberal Democratic Party of Korea as subservient to Beijing.
"The Moon government is anxious not to provoke Beijing to assure Chinese President Xi Jinping's visit to Seoul before the general election. It will use Xi's support for the government's inter-Korean policy for winning votes in the election," a UFP member said. After all, what could be a better electoral weapon than the sitting government's failure to protect people's lives?
Given the growing panic among the public, the tactic ― which Chang Deok-jin, a sociology professor at Seoul National University dubbed the "politicization of peril" in his recent contribution to a local paper ― is likely work to a certain extent. Even more dangerous instigators, however, are the far-right fanatics who, led by a cult-like pastor, gathered in the heart of Seoul by the thousands and chanted anti-government slogans.
"The coronavirus is not contagious in open space. Even if you are infected, God will cure you. And even if you die, your places are prepared in Heaven," said Chun Kwang-hoon, the cult leader. One can see how antagonism out of blind hatred can drive people insane, even casting away the principal value ― human life.
Yes, President Moon and his aides may be taking diplomatic repercussions into account. However, even ordinary citizens can know Xi will not be able to visit Korea in March as temporarily agreed on before, and may more likely come in the first half of the year at the earliest. Even if Xi comes and Moon garners some diplomatic gains, these will hardly affect the elections. Even for Koreans living in a divided nation, economic equity and social justice ― not inter-Korean issues ― are at the top of voting priority.
In an apparent self-contradiction, the conservatives call COVID-19 "Wuhan pneumonia" or even "Moon pneumonia" while exaggerating some government officials' mistake of briefly naming the Korean situation "Daegu Corona 19" after the local hotspot. The same right-wing commentators who call for banning all Chinese people are also fuming over similar treatments of Koreans in Israel, Maldives and Vietnam.
If and when the dust settles under the cooperative atmosphere, Korea and China will grow closer than now due to joint efforts to overcome crises. Beijing may ease or lift the remaining retaliatory measures concerning THAAD. Or it may not.
However, few can deny Korea will experience a similar outbreak again someday. When that happens, the two countries will cope far better than they are currently. Combating epidemics should be scientific, not political, and cooperative, not exclusive. Those who politicize peril and use the virus to win votes will lose in the April polls.
Choi Sung-jin (choisj1955@naver.com) is a Korea Times columnist.
