Aftermath of attack on US envoy

By Tong Kim

The unforgivable attack on American Ambassador to Korea Mark Lippert by a extremist nationalist in Seoul March 5 has produced a mixed consequence: “a blessing in disguise” or “good coming out of evil” for the renewed strengthening of the U.S.-Korea alliance; and, on the other hand, “evil after evil” as it contributes to a disturbing division of the South Korean public.

On the positive side, Ambassador Lippert deserves much credit as he has demonstrated his dignified composure, his personal love for Korea and his resolve to prevent any negative impact of the unfortunate incident from undermining the traditional ties between the United States and South Korea.

The ambassador was right when he cited a Korean proverb, “Soil gets hardened after rain,” meaning things get better after a bad thing happens. He was quoted as saying many other positive things in Korean while recovering from his surgery. He must have been working hard to learn Korean since his arrival in the fall.

He gave his first son, who was born in Korea, a Korean middle name, Sejun. He loves Korean food. He walks his dog on public streets. He often walks to the embassy from his residence. After the attack, protective measures for his safety will have to be put properly in place. We are thankful that he had a successful surgery and left the hospital in an upbeat condition.

Sympathy and support poured from Koreans, wishing for his quick recovery and a continued good relationship with the United States. Political leaders, including President Park and the chairmen of both the ruling and opposition parties, paid their goodwill visits while he was in the hospital.

Massive rallies were held in the heart of Seoul to wish the injured ambassador well and to support the alliance, denouncing North Korea’s deplorable comment that the attack on the American ambassador was “a just punishment by a Korean patriot like Ahn Joong-geun,” who assassinated a ranking Japanese official during the Japanese colonial rule over Korea.

If the victim had said he did not want his assailant to be punished, he would become a real hero to all Koreans and all people of faith around the world. However, it is his right to say how he feels about the culprit, whom he thought was going to kill him.

The perpetrator, Kim Ki-jong, claims that he had acted alone in the crime, with no connection to North Korea. He seems to be an extremist, leading an activist organization called “Woorimadand” and “Let’s Keep the Dokdo Islands.” In the past he had tried to attack the Japanese ambassador to Korea. He threw pieces of concrete at him and injured a Japanese embassy official.

Prosecutors have yet to determine what charges to bring against him. At a minimum, he might be indicted for an attack with a deadly weapon, a 25-centimeter-long knife, or the attempted murder of a foreign diplomat.

The authorities are also looking into whether the culprit violated the National Security Law that punishes supporting, or acting on behalf of, North Korea against the interests of the South. This particular law has been controversial in that it may infringe upon people’s basic rights in a democracy.

South Korea has no terrorist law, thus no legal definition of an international terrorist. The U.S. government has not mentioned its interest in seeking prosecution against Kim Ki-jong’s crime under the U.S. Code, which says, “An international terrorist carries out violent acts dangerous to human life to influence the policy of a government or to affect the conduct of a government by intimidation.” Kim said he opposed the joint U.S.-Korea military exercises.

Bringing the criminal to justice is the purview of the judiciary and not that of the political parties or the administration. Kim Ki-jong appears to have some mental problems. The authorities seem to be struggling to prove his connection with the North, despite several visits he made to the North and his possession of some North Korean documents.

He insists that he had the intent to hurt, but not to kill, Lippert, and reportedly he does not regret his crime. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan was shot by John Hinckley, who said he committed his terrible crime to impress a woman. At the end of the trial, he was found not guilty by reason of insanity, much to the dismay of the public. Hinckley remains confined to a psychiatric facility today.

The attack on the ambassador provided new momentum for those in conservative circles, including those in the ruling Saenuri Party, to drive out “pro-North Korean groups” by alleging that the assailant was a “pro-North Korean” who had been “hosted” by the opposition party, which in turn accuses the ruling party of reviving McCarthyism.

The Korean public is roughly divided 40 to 30 percent between conservatives and liberals, and a two-party system is solid for politics. Both parties are in favor of a good relationship with the United States. A healthy alliance requires the support of a unified public. Washington would not only want the support of the conservatives in Korea, but a good majority of all Koreans.

The ambassador’s job is to work with the administration in power and also develop and maintain good relations with the people of Korea in general, not just with the right-wing, pro-Americans. What’s your take?

The writer is the Washington correspondent and columnist for The Korea Times, and fellow at the Institute of Korean-American Studies. His email address is tong.kim8@yahoo.com.