Protesting America: Democracy and the U.S.-Korea Alliance by Katherine H. S. Moon (review)

Observers often characterize South Korean attitudes toward the United States as motivated by an anxiety-driven nationalism or as separated by generation gaps. When this sentiment manifests in what some perceive as anti-US activity, Americans respond with surprise or disbelief and call for US abandonment of the Republic of Korea (ROK). How can Koreans be so ungrateful given what the United States has historically sacrifced to protect South Korean freedom? Katherine Moon’s Protesting America: Democracy and the U.S.-Korea Alliance challenges such assumptions that “have been reiterated by various writers without serious critical evaluation and analysis of alternative explanations” (p. 3). Instead, Moon focuses on “empirical transformation in Korean domestic politics” including the roles of post-democratization people-power, civil society, and institutional and procedural changes between state and society, the United States military, and the [South] Korean state (p. 3).

As in her previous research,¹ Moon’s primary focus is on military base issues, in particular the military base town (kijich’on) and related movements. She concentrates on four issues: (1) the effects of decentralization, (2) diversifcation in approach and issue, (3) transnational alliances, and (4) local diversifcation. Those who observe South Korean nationalism as primarily anti-American emphasize the fag burning, head shaving, and US fast food boycotts ignited by a series of incidents that fueled Korean anger. Two such incidents—both occurring in 2002— were the US acquittal of the drivers of a military vehicle that killed two young Korean girls and the stripping of an Olympic gold medal from a South Korean speed skater disqualifed for allegedly interfering with an American skater who later received the medal. Nationalism, Moon argues, appears in these arguments as a “static, overused, and under-specifed explanation for diverse political phenomena” that ignores or under-examines “counter-nationalist trends” (p. 28). While surveys may reveal trends of greater nationalist and anti-American sentiments, “correlation does not [necessarily] equal causation” (p. 28). Rather than a unifed effort of a people, she sees nationalism as “mark[ing] the site where different representations of the nation contest and negotiate with each other” (p. 18).²

It is clear that both the end of the Cold War and the success of the democratization movement have brought changes to the ways in which the people of South Korea respond to issues between their country and the United States. Moon’s strength is in her analysis of the nature of the changes produced over this period. One such change has been the decentralization of social movements as newly passed laws strengthened local autonomy and citizen participation. In contrast to the “authoritarian period,” camp movement activity after decentralization was able to focus more on individual rights and community development. That, in turn, created new political and economic opportunities for the camp town residents (p. 96). This led to the formation in 2003 of the ROK’s Special Commission on United States Forces Korea (USFK) Affairs. The commission was charged with managing concerns related to the reduction and relocation of camp towns.

In considering South Korean protests of the United States presence, Moon contrasts the more traditional t’ujaeng (struggle) fghters of the people’s movement (minjung undong), as exemplifed by Father Mun Chŏnghyŏn, with the citizen’s movement (simin undong), as exemplifed by Ch’a Migyŏng. While the former confronted the establishment, the latter built bridges. Father Mun’s blanket anti-American activism evolved into Ch’a’s issue-oriented approach that connected with environmentalists, human rights activists, and other such interest groups (p. 119). The development of activism, centered on the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), emerged from this evolution.

Moon maintains that early movements, which fought their own government to secure rights, had little time or energy to challenge the position of a foreign power in their country. Democratization and the decisions to reform the SOFA in 1991 and 2001 provided opportunities...