In defense of Han Kang

Han Kang / Korea Times file

By Oh Young-jin

Our columnist Andrew Salmon drew first blood when he fisked Man Booker award winner Han Kang’s op-ed contribution to the New York Times, entitled “When the U.S. talks about war, South Korea shudders,” an anti-war piece about a critical situation caused by the U.S.-North Korean war of words. Salmon claimed Han unfairly blames the U.S. for the ongoing crisis due to her lack of knowledge of the Korean War and absence of historical balance. That piqued my interest and had me fisking back on his argument. My conclusion is the focus of her column is not about war itself but her resistance toward it, a civic duty for any responsible citizen, whether a novelist or butcher. My own war of words with Salmon took place on Facebook but Salmon declined to have his piece printed. So I had his points of arguments and addressed them with my own.

About her understanding of mass murderers being simple:

The differences between good and evil should be simple and clear cut. The causes may vary from one case to another. But circumstances shouldn't and couldn't be an excuse for evil being pardoned. The same logic applies to the case of No Gun Ri. It's a massacre by Americans. True, we can assume there were communist agents among them but still the killing couldn't be justified by such terms as the fog of war. Then, the kindness of the U.N. or their help in defeating the enemy wouldn't compensate for No Gun Ri or other massacres. In other words, each act in war, total or partial, should be subjected to separate judgment. Lumping them together only extenuates the guilt for wrongdoing unjustly. This goes for South Korean-committed massacres too.

About the Korean War being a civil war:

It looked like one. After all it was initially fought between Koreans. But we need to bear in mind the political situation then. The U.S. and the U.S.S.R. had divided the peninsula and took control of southern and northern halves between them. At that time the two were turning into superpowers at the start of the hegemonic cold war. The two Koreas served as a test case of wills. As with many proxy wars during that period, the Korean War should be taken as a proxy war under the guise of a civil war. If you are not convinced, a look at the ensuing clash of the two superpowers would bring the true nature of the Korean War into sharper relief..

About her lack of mentioning North Korea:

True it can be grounds for unfairness. But it shouldn't be taken as a sign of taking sides with the North. As homogenous as Korea may be (meaning having a built-in sense of wariness toward foreigners) it is not comparable to the animosity we feel toward the North’s regime. Rather the absence means a great deal of resentment about it that is taken for granted. As you pointed out, the candlelit revolution is unthinkable in the North. And we don't have to say it aloud, do we?

About her deep fear being not representative of Koreans

:

We are scared to death but are used to the cause of it ― North Korea. Put yourself in the situation of Koreans living in that extreme state of fear for 70 years. One would get used to it. Our external sense of normalcy is deceiving. Perhaps Han Kang's paranoia in her novel is related to this Korean state of mind (my guess).

About our ally U.S.:

The U.S. is incomparably stronger. Would North Korea pose a clear and present danger that the U.S. can't defend itself against? Unlikely. The danger of the U.S. is that it can pick one country for the enemy at will, do whatever it wants and get away with it. Judge, jury and executioner.

Oh Young-jin (foolsdie5@ktimes.com and foolsdie@gmail.com) is The Korea Times’ chief editorial writer.