Farewell, Korean coast guard
.jpg?w=728)
By Andrew Salmon
A tragedy has occurred and public fury has been ignited. A president has spoken, a scapegoat has been named and a national agency has been thrown to the wolves.
In the wake of the Sewol tragedy, President Park Geun-hye has dissolved the Korean Coast Guard. In the early hours of the Sewol ferry disaster, I confess to being impressed by her leadership.
She visited the scene and met grieving families ― even though she knew her prime minister had earlier faced a rough reception at their hands. She made clear to everyone at the scene that all government employees would be held accountable.
This was personally bold of Park, and the stamp of presidential authority was appropriate in a grave situation. But she stumbled subsequently.
Her public comments comparing the Sewol’s crew to murderers may well reflect public feeling, but that is hardly a president’s role. More troublingly ― and even if she is correct ― her comments blew down firewalls, trampled on judicial turf and appear prejudicial to pending trials.
Her decision to disband the Coast Guard bothers me for similar reasons.
It seems odd that such a major decision could be taken without (as far as I am aware) an in-depth, public enquiry and/or expert investigation.
Like her comments on the crew’s guilt, the decision to place the blame on the Coast Guard seems to have pre-empted the work of expert authorities.
In both cases, parties have been pronounced guilty by the highest authority in the land prior to due processes getting underway.
I have some questions.
Given the time pressures and the circumstances of the disaster ― persons ordered to remain below decks, where they were trapped ― could the Coast Guard feasibly have saved any more people than they actually did if they had acted with greater alacrity, courage or professionalism?
Given the equipment available and the conditions at the scene ― extremely dangerous currents, cold water and a dark, capsized hulk ― could the Coast Guard been more effective in recovery?
More broadly, how many people has the agency saved in its 61-year history? How many Coast Guard personnel have died in the line of duty? Has the Coast Guard previously been audited by government? If so, what were the audit findings? And how effectively is the Korean Coast Guard viewed by its peers internationally?
I don’t know the answers, but I am not sure anyone does. This is why disbanding the Coast Guard looks suspiciously like the president has sacrificed an entire organization on the altar of public emotion, rather than taking a considered decision for the nation’s long-term good.
I also wonder if her decision is simply wrong. What seems clear from available information is that agency overlap and ineptly drawn bureaucratic boundaries were to blame for the failure of regulators to prevent the Sewol being overloaded in the first place.
After the ship foundered, similar problems ― the lack of a clear chain of command and bureaucratization of processes ― apparently hampered rescue and recovery efforts.
If this proves correct, then dismembering the Coast Guard and re-assigning its various roles and personnel to different agencies, looks like a step backward rather than forward: It will further complicate Korea’s maritime safety, rather than improve it.
It also sets a poor precedent for the future. In future crises, will relevant bodies focus their full energies on their core task, or will they feel compelled to dedicate resources to PR, simply to deflect potential public anger?
And there are wider problems on display. One is an over-indulgence of emotion. The other is populism ― a curse that afflicts the civil service, the National Assembly and even the Blue House.
Whenever the public gets angry or a high-profile victim appears, there is a sense among the great and good that the authorities’ knee must jerk fast ― regardless of rights, wrongs or principle ― simply in order to assuage emotion.
Granted, rationality cannot overcome emotion: They are at different wavelengths.
But should policy be influenced by and made in an emotive climate or a rational one? If the latter, then we have a problem, for it is rare for those in authority to call for calm ― thereby permitting considered, rational decisions to be made.
The duty of a leader is to lead the public, not follow it. This is most especially true of the president who, being limited to a single, five-year term, is liberated from the political urge to win popularity, and so can (theoretically) focus on the task of running the country in the best possible way.
If that includes irking the public or making unpopular decisions ― well, so be it. That’s leadership.
I may be wrong, but I fear that when we have a full roster of facts on the Sewol, we will look back with hindsight, and realize that disbanding the Coast Guard was neither justified nor sensible.
But by then, the emotion will have long evaporated, and it will be too late.
Andrew Salmon is a Seoul-based reporter and author. Reach him at andrewcsalmon@yahoo.co.uk .