Ethics Upon Remembering and The Act of Killing : An Anlysis

Trauma, by definition, is a deeply distressing experience, which sometimes leads to long-term neurosis. Such term has been one specifically belonging to the victim, as we perceive from remnants of war, conflict, and violence. Hence, we mostly see the victims of sexual abuse haunted by the happening, rather than the abusers. However, Joshua Oppenheimer’s documentary, “The Act of Killing” has challenged the bias by humanizing the perpetrator, shifting the ownership of trauma, and questioning the ethics upon forgiving.

For a short recap, “The Act of Killing” is a two hour long documentary released in 2012 focusing on the perpetrators that participated in the Indonesian mass killing of 1965 to 1966. The perpetrators were gangsters like Anwar Congo, paramilitary organization Pancasila Youth, the government, and the press. Victims were neo-communists, Chinese, and left-wing extremists. Under the name of protecting the nation from communism, but with the intention to kill any that got in the way of corruption, perpetrators did not hesitate, nor hide to kill millions of people. Thus, the abnormal became normal; Politicians bribed for votes, governors demanded money on the spot, and gangsters roamed free. There are more that astounds the audience; even to this day, some are basically helpless without any alternate status quo to escape nor correct the situation; some genuinely revere the “saviors” that have saved the country from the “evil” communists; and yet some are indifferent to the situation.

Even after the release of the documentary, the norms have stayed the same. Indonesia’s government and education permeates with vestiges of anti-communist propaganda. Most of the primary and secondary schools are run by the government, and the curriculums are heavily influenced by authoritarian traditions. Thus, from a young age, students receive biased education favoring the government and their acts. The groundless deeds, over a long time, become ones excusable acts by invincible superiors. Therefore citizens cannot think of any other means to fathom the situation nor have the will or power to change the system. Because they are taken away the option to critically assess the situation, people fall into a vicious cycle to halt progress.

Despite the hopeless situation, how does Oppenheimer portray Anwar to the audience in the documentary to ultimately humanize him? Much of the success relies on the recognizable and empathetic narratives slowly outlined throughout the documentary. We are involuntarily exposed to a series of scenes that depict him as an ordinary and vulnerable human being. He sits his grandchildren on his laps, takes care of injured ducks, dances around to trip, and even slightly repents his actions towards the end of the documentary. Anwar displays slight hints of trauma when he is seen having nightmares of victims and avoids the killing site before he had filmed the documentary. Even further, the audience becomes to notice that Anwar’s trauma is the reenacting documentary itself. Trauma is best recognized when the person cannot distinguish past and present time within the trauma. Because he conflates the two, he is unable to perceive it as a memory. Therefore, he distances himself from his crimes and turns them into performances of a hyper realistic act. Thus, the process of creating the documentary, and watching the process of doing so is the means of withdrawal, “acting out,” or “performative regenerating as if it were fully present rather than one represented in memory. (La Capra, 716)” The documentary offers an alternative interpretation: Anwar’s  seemingly ignorant acts may be actually his means of seeking ways to relieve the trauma he is going through.

Anwar’s disclosure of trauma shows how the perpetrators, who, most of the times, are characterized as singularly merciless, bizarre, and psychotic, are placed into narrative. We thus situate them inside the normal realms of history and understandings to illuminate a slight possibility of the perpetrators also being human and even the victims of tradition, norms, violence, and pressure. As a result, the documentary allows a slice of trauma’s ownership to be tossed over from the victims to the perpetrators. We thus realize how it is crucial to separate trauma from the victimhood, and deconstruct the polarized possession of the term.

Then is such shift of possession necessary? Restoring memory and attaining testimony are core pillars within memory studies, and the same applies to the perpetrators. Reconstituting a “thou (Laub)” for not just Anwar but also the citizens of Indonesia allows true reconciliation. Only such reparation can further facilitate correcting collective memory and ultimately bring proper justice to all parties. It has almost been fifty years since the massacre. Human rights associations, activists, and NGOs have tried intervening to restore such justice, but there has not been much progress. To this day, much of the authorities remains the same, with bribery, corruption, and violence permeating the country. Much amendments are to be made.

Then is a sincere apology for the shift in possession ethical? The question is a complex one: yes, but also at the same time, no. For the audience, the perpetrators’ trauma should not be belittled, as doing so would be condoning the act of “competitive memory. (Rothberg)” Such position leads to dangers of treating memories as mere events, rather than ones that continue in today, thus become shortcuts to weigh one over another. Objectifying the memory thus becomes to offend victims and, as theorized in this essay, even the perpetrators of the event. On the other hand, perpetrators must also understand that those who they have victimized are also going through trauma because of their once shameful actions. Thus, they should not over empathize because most victims do not have positive feelings for the perpetrators. Therefore, only when both parties act accordingly will the shift in possession become ethical, thus return justice upon both sides.

Finally, after the shift of ownership and a sincere apology, are perpetrators forgiven? Ethics upon perpetrators are complex, but must be defined as forgiven yet unethical for a few reasons. First, Anwar was not penalized. In the documentary, other than being uncomfortable with his acts, Anwar did not take full responsibility for the killings. The government nor international courts have punished him, and he continues to roam free untouched. Punishing a crime is a convention humans have built the society upon, and Anwar’s actions should be the last to be immune from it. Further, allowing forgiveness may incur collateral damage, in that it may permit a second chance to everyone. The goal of punishment is to prevent crime in the first place and protect the innocent from offense that they do not deserve. Therefore, ethics must become the social safety net and disallow further misfortune.

        Although severely controversial in its content and directing, “The Act of Killing” is remarkable in that it disputes common perception, opens up possibilities of the perpetrators’ traumas, and questions the verity of ethics. It shook much of my pre-established conventions in that I could also be living a life where people in the future or other nations may perceive as unethical. This led me to think about the strife around the world and within Korea, including income distribution inequality, over-competition within Korean education, and extreme feminism. However, it also prompts further doubts in that these strife may be perceived as problematic only because of the values that we have constructed as of now. In other words, they may not be perceived as the same if the values themselves have been fallacious. Therefore, we continue to question and stay critical to the society, as the documentary successfully conveys.

LaCapra, Dominick. Trauma, Absence, Loss, University of Chicago Press, 1999

Laub, Dori. Truth and Testimony Johns Hopkins University Press, 1991

Rothberg, Michael. Multidirectional Memory, Stanford Unversity Press, 2009

Dori Laub : A Short Precis

   Dori Laub’s "Truth and Testimony: The Process and the Struggle" shows how trauma, undeniably one of the most devastating human creation, is ironically only resolvable within and by humans. Such paradox is best illustrated in his quote, “The survivors did not only need to survive so that they could tell their stories; they also needed to tell the stories in order to survive.” The irony augments as the traumatized are frustrated by physical disabilities, the event’s inexplicability, guilt, or mere alteration of the memory. Witnesses of trauma also are unable to objectively articulate the event, and while others are exterminated to prevent the sharing of their perspective. Trauma abolishes both its history and the people's identities, yet still burdens with responsibility and indoctrinated guilt. 

   Trauma must be examined in lines with the theory of diffusion of responsibility,which states that people become less responsible for an action in the presence of others. However, the theory only deals with action and justification, not the consequences. The murder of Kitty Genovese can be described as the apotheosis of diffusion of responsibility as 38 witnesses spread their responsibilities to take no action when Genovese was raped and stabbed for over two hours. However, rarely questioned is the potential for trauma to befall on the witnesses. The theory of diffusion of responsibility and Laub’s description of trauma thus contradict in the presence of collective responsibility; Responsibility diffuses within a group, yet those traumatized from it are borne with an overwhelming sense of guilt and perplexion. The traumatized must rely on imperfect vocalization to rid such burden, or “make and break the promise: the promise of testimony as a realization” that the traumatized is, in fact, not at fault.

Act of Killing : A Short Precis

The Act of Killing (2002) is the first documentary in Indonesian language about the Indonesian mass killing in 1965 to 1966. It follows Anwar, Pancasila Youth, and members of the death squad that killed over one million under the purpose of the nation’s security. Victims were neo-communists and left-wing extremists, or namely “those who wanted to destroy our country (Indonesia).” As Anwar glamorizes his murders into a Western-influenced film, he inadvertently unveils the full range of corruption and crime permeating within the government, media, tradition, and norms.

Notably, he quotes, “We have too much democracy. Things were better under the military dictatorship,” thus “conflates absence and loss (707)[i],” as theorized by La Capra. He mistakes the absence of a perfect nation as something that is lost, thus tries to regain it by searching for a reason behind the loss. The communist Indonesians therefore became the scapegoat and the victims of the massacre.

Further, when asked if he feels responsible for the truth, he answers, “Why focus on killing the communists? Americans killed the Indians.” Such comparison of crime becomes a moral hazard as he tries to justify his actions by competing one trauma to another. Thus it becomes dangerous as it avoids any responsibility and even attempts to alleviate his acts.

The confrontational documentary provoked complete confusion in that it merged perpetrator with victim and evil with good, ultimately leading me to question the verity of ethics. Thus, when he comments, “War crimes are defined by the winners. I’m a winner, so I can make my own definition,” we are left powerless, only left to sympathize the fates of the victims.

Where Do You Stand?

What’s Truly Behind the Park Geun Hye - Choi Soon Sil Gate

Youjung Kwon

Kwon1996@gmail.com

 

   With the phrase “impeachment” having dominated each and every Korean portal web site, and with president Park’s approval rate simultaneously plummeting to the lowest 4 % (Nov. 25th, Gallup International), Korean citizens have altogether turned against the government with candle lights held aloft. Only did we expect there be situations like this in the movies, but when it did happen in reality, we were left confused, defenseless, and enraged. The denouement would usually be the following: a charming young fellow, preferably a lawyer, comes along to challenge the corrupted and rectify the problems. However, it was different in reality. Literally everyone, notwithstanding religion, political stance, or any kind of rank or proximity that may have divided us, came together to protest, with students in the lead. Peaceful, organized, and tidy, citizens swarmed around city halls all over Korea every Friday, hoping for it to be over.

 

   It all started on September, 2016 when Han KyuRe and TV ChoSun, two of the major presses in Korea, reported that Choi Soon Sil, a new face and a longtime friend of Park, had been inaugurated to both the MIR foundation and K Sports foundation. These special interest groups had received 7 million dollars (80 million won, Donga News) from the Federation of Korean Industries, and it was definitely not normal. The fishy situation earned the media’s attention in no time, outlining the daunting authoritative corruption to be exposed upon us. On October 19th, JTBC had reported the leak of Blue House’s classified documents to Choi, morphing a simple authoritative corruption into a nationally illicit misconduct. As a result of tireless investigation, JTBC obtained Choi’s PC tablet, which contained a total of 44 nationally classified documents Choi had prior access to, editing them as she wanted. Intensified allegations of Choi’s influence on state affairs pressured Park into conceding her faults in front of Korean citizens.

 

   As bizarre and chaotic as it sounds, we are inclined to cloud the issue, misplacing our interpretations of the situation by criticizing Choi’s facial features and private life, in order to mock the group of people that have deceived us. However, we must stay perceptive during this time and observe what is truly behind the Park – Choi Gate. It would be oblivious to perceive the situation merely as a solitary and unprecedented case of the president being Rasputin-ized by a cultish group of Choi’s.

 

   One of the main consequences of the Park - Choi Gate is the downfall of the authority and prestige of the president. It is true that Park had previously been undergoing illegal stem cell procedures for aesthetic purposes and had also sent Choi as deputy to prescribe IVNT ringer, tonic, vitamin injections and Viagra. As stem cells have been controversial for over 11 years for its ethics, stability, and utility, and as external use of injections outside the hospital is illegal, Park did not abide by the law. However, let alone these misdeeds, it does not end here. These faults have intensified by the sinking of the ferry Sewol accident of March 16th, 2014, as Park failed to take action for 7 hours while 295 high school students were drowning. Neither the National Security Administration and the secretary office, both of who keep track of and meet with the president at all times, confessed they do not know what she was doing in the hours. Incertitude, without any clarifications from her, accumulated upon one another, leading to accusations that she was pampering herself with stem cell injections and beauty care during the 7 hours. The president, who we gave the responsibility to protect us from fear, became the very person who generated it, making the position as president futile

 

   Park - Choi Gate also completely shattered the trust we had for the government, doubtful as to wonder if the shards of credence could ever mend back. As mentioned earlier, the president’s approval rate has tumbled to its lowest of 4%, consisting of people in their 40s only. In other words, the 2030 generation, those who will and are currently steering the faith of Korea, constituting 45.6% (2016) of the electorate population, do not support the president. The fact that the president we had chosen was merely a figurehead, conspiring against her supporters, augmented our distrust.

 

   In a broader vantage, Park - Choi Gate elicit the vulnerability of Korea’s enterprise system. With a few words, Yoora Chung, the daughter of Choi, could easily exploit the minister of Ministry of Culture, lawyers, and Ewha Women’s University’s president to acquire an illicit admission to the school. Further, Choi has succeeded in embezzling daunting amounts of money from internationally renowned corporations, including Samsung, LG, and Hyundai. This extreme squad has achieved, unsuspectedly, a carte-blanche authority over Korea. Exigent demands for social reform among government-corporate ties, elite class privileges, and unrestricted presidential authorities must be responded to.

 

   The final, but certainly not the last problem the scandal engenders, is not solely restricted to Korea but engenders consecutive damage upon international relationships. It is undoubtedly problematic for the Blue House’s classified documents to have been leaked to an outsider. However, what puts Korea in more danger is what this act ensues: a collapse in international reputation and commerce reliability. In other words, Korea, a country with an 88.1% dependence on trade (GNI, Gross National Income to trade), is bound to be avoided as a trade partner. No country appreciates risky business.

 

   As a result of these four major problems, the impeachment Bill of Park was proposed on December 3rd and was approved 6 days later with majority vote of the National Assembly (234/299). As a follow up, Park is suspended from exercising power until the impeachment is adjudicated by the Constitutional Court. If 6 out of the 9 judges approve in 60 days, Park is officially impeached, and the next president would be elected through an election. If not, Park is back in the game.

 

   This bizarre incident of the president severely exploiting her supporters with seemingly omnipotent corps is an infringement on a whole new level. This has not only been a shameless undermining of the primary principle Korea had been constructed upon, but also a denial of the brief yet rich and vivid history and values of Korea. Despite Park’s faults, Park has, for a total of two minutes, apologized to the public of partial faults, but was unable to genuinely console the wounded public. Park, Choi, and the other few are the only people who know the truth.

 

   By the time you have read this article, there will have been more disclosures, presumably surprising ones, of the truth. Although, as of now, we do not know the results of the impeachment, there is one thing we have learned through this long, long fight: the duty of youth is to challenge the corrupted. Every nation gets the government it deserves, and Korea now deserves a transparent, benevolent, and charismatic leader to pull us out of the swamps. So don’t boo. Vote!

THAAD

Youjung Kwon

kwon1996@gmail.com

On July 13th, the Korean Ministry of National Defense officially announced the deployment of THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) in the southeastern county of Seongju, a decision that brought up large amounts of controversy. With no end in sight to the protests, those who approve of THAAD, claiming it as a paradigm shift in the defense military system, and those discontented with the country’s disorder, still continue to collide. It’s not the first time mass protesters have gathered to publicly express their frustration. As much as THAAD triggers large amounts of dispute, it is portrayed to be a thoroughly complicated subject simultaneously affecting other countries. Through this article, we will try to clarify what THAAD is, and go beyond the bare facts to understand what the whole debate is really about.

What is THAAD? In retrospect, THAAD was first mentioned on January 15th, 2014, during a seminar held by the National Assembly, “How will we defend the North’s nuclear missiles?” THAAD, according to the Korean and US Ministry of National Defense, is defined as the following; THAAD, Terminal Altitude Area Defense, is an Anti-Ballistic Missile Defense System (BMDS) first designed by Lockheed Martin in 1987 that intercepts ballistic nuclear missiles at its terminal phase. THAAD detects and tracks the threat that is launched from another country, and when the missile is on its way down, the THAAD missile is launched in order to stop the missile from fully landing. One THAAD missile is 6.16m long, has a diameter of 34cm, and weighs up to 900 kg.

 

Currently, Patriot-3 missiles exist as a nuclear umbrella that operates with an altitude of 40km, but if deployed, THAAD will be able to cover up to150km. The US Armed Forces in Korea plans to deploy one THAAD battery in Korea. This THAAD missile would be operated by the US forces only, and will have no relation to Korea’s defense operation control post.

Why does Korea need THAAD? In the big picture, Korea is the only country to be left divided, maintaining peace only under the Armistice Agreement in 1953. The deployment of THAAD is a joint response to North Korea’s constant testing of their missiles both on land and sea, with a definite intention to alarm US and Korea. The ongoing tension between the two countries snowballs the pressure to mount up systems of defense mechanisms. The expense for THAAD is mostly planned to be charged by the US; according to the US - South Korea Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), Korea would only need to provide the infrastructures that the THAAD would be deployed in, and the rest, including the developing, management, and maintenance would all be borne by the US. For these reasons, Korea does not need to supply any of the extra expenses, and at the same time, benefit from THAAD’s safety umbrella.

Then why is the deployment of THAAD an ongoing issue? Deployment without sufficient communication with the citizens became the first problem. As a defense, Park Geun Hye announced on July 21st, “ If there is any other defense mechanism that can save the Korean citizen from the North Korean nuclear missile, please suggest it to us,” in order to quell the citizen's anger. However, citizens doubt the true reason behind the deployment of THAAD, since it would be deployed in the US Military base, not near Seoul, where most of the Korean people’s population is situated. For these reasons, some are questioning if the real purpose of THAAD would be for the Korean people, since it would be situated in Korea.

The rise of tensions between the countries has also become another problem. Other countries’ outlook upon Korea is a crucial factor for Korea’s economy since Korea heavily relies on exports and imports amongst neighboring countries. In other words, Korea must reflect other countries’ suggestions in the deployment since some could find it unwelcoming. At the Shangri-La Dialogue held in May 2015, China had especially registered strong denunciation against the possibility of deployment because of the doubt that THAAD’s radar would be used for its original purpose. In other words, China was concerned that THAAD could use its X-band radar to intervene with China’s Anti-Access (A2) strategy, which defends China from outer threats. However, President Park Geun-hye has taken noticeably cautious efforts since 2013 in order to encourage peace between China and South Korea. Nevertheless, China seems inclined to treat South Korea as it did during the Middle Kingdom considering that China has been pressuring Korea to revoke the deployment of THAAD. This type of international intervention could hinder cooperative partnership between US, Korea, and China, and even delay the deployment of THAAD.

Korea is currently under a dilemma of whether to keep an international alliance with the US, or either to sustain the existing partnership with China. However, the core of this debate should be based not on where THAAD should be deployed, but on whether to place it in Korea at all. The only thing THAAD can be replaced by is sufficient diplomacy between all countries and even within our own country. If the genuine reason of THAAD deployment is for the safety of the citizens, there is no other better solution than peace. All countries must cooperate, in good faith, in order to persist through international unrest. The situation is grave, yet with internal and external effort, there is a way for all of us.

See EU Later

How Britain is rolling out of the European Union

Kwon1996@gmail.com

   On June 23rd 2016, Britain officially voted themselves out of the European Union (EU). Also known as the Brexit, the vote resulted in a 51.9 to 48.1, a 3.8% win for leave amongst 33,550,000 total voters. It has been 43 years since Britain entered the European Economic Community (EEC), the former group of the EU. In the following article, we cover everything you need to know about the Brexit, including what it is, why it happened, and the political, economic, and macroscopic impacts it will bring upon all of us.

What is the Brexit?

   Brexit is the combination of Britain and Exit, as Britain has been weighing either to leave or stay in the EU. Contrasting to the frivolity of the term, this referendum has mounted the most votes since 1992. The vote was initially proposed by David Cameron, the prime minister of Britain. Since the beginning of his term, he has emphasized the "in or out referendum," giving full rights to the citizens to decide the future of their country. Little did he know that because of these votes, he would later resign as the Prime minister. Britain's' citizens have turned their fate around.

The History between EU and Britain

   The European Union first began as the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC) in 1951 after World War two in an effort to alleviate the remains of war and to formulate an atmosphere of unity and free trade. In other words, the first six countries of ECSC unanimously decided that free trade would ensure interdependence and peace, decreasing collision amongst countries. The European Union has since functioned as a single market that manages all 28 countries under a unified system and law. Britain finally joined in 1973 after two rejections by EU’s president Charles de Gaulle of France. The EU strives under the following four principles:

 

- Economic to political union (policies on health, environment, security, migration)

- Mobility, growth, stability and a single currency (Euro, traveling without visa, resources)

- Human rights and equality (Charter of Fundamental Rights, Lisbon Treaty)

- Transparent and democratic institutions (Unfair power)

Why Brexit?

   Then why has Britain decided to leave? The first reason lies in the unfair economic and political stance Britain is pinned into. Britain has walked along with the EU’s unified policies, but has also kept their independence by using the pound. The pound was used as the key currency after the Second World War and before the US took over the trade economy, proving Britain’s financial power. However, since Britain became a part of the EU, following the EU’s regulations has hindered Britain from fully expanding and experimenting among the global market. As a result, Britain was conflicted into two groups, those that value the global power and tariff free trade in exchange for limited rights, and those that do not, finding more opportunities outside of the EU.

   Numerically, Stronger In, a campaign that stands with staying in Britain, claims that each household contributes around £340 to the EU every year, resulting in 10 times the amount of benefit that the EU provides with its membership. However, half of the people in Britain preferred this money to be decreased and invested into education, research and development. Thus, taking a bit of risk with enough ground seemed more of an advantageous option for Britain.

   The second reason lies in Britain’s discontent with the policies of EU concerning immigration. Starting from last year, the EU has set a certain number that the members of the EU need to accept. Britain, accepting the 7th largest number stirred controversy. The surge of immigrants have unintentionally and improbably lead to an unemployment drag. Thus, this accusation bloomed internal conflict and angst between immigrants and Britain’s citizens. Similar cases of this phenomenon seemed to arise in other EU countries, including France, Italy, Denmark, and so on, increasing the voices that demanded out of the EU.

   Lastly, there lies a psychological factor in the radical decision to leave the EU. After voting, many of the citizens confessed during interviews that they voted to leave because they felt far from inclusion in the British politics. Many felt that the opinions of citizens themselves weren’t being respected or heard. In other words, they felt that giving a shock to Britain and waiting for what would happen was better than the current social oppression that they were in. Political paralyzation, in psychological terms, can also be found amongst supporters of Trump. Leaders of Britain that are soon to take action must keep in mind that repairing the social damage is needed. The decision to leave was, to some extent, influenced as much by the lack of opportunity and distrust towards the government as the animosity towards the EU.

Brexit’s Impact

   Resulting from the three reasons above, the aftermath of the Brexit that is soon to impact Britain can be seen in the following three scenarios. Economically, there will be large amounts of currency that will leave with immigrants, submerging Britain into depression. Uncertainty of the future of the pound will also bring down its value. In fact, one week after Brexit, the value of the pound ntell the most since 1985. This will inevitably ensure second hand impacts in other countries, including Korea.

David Cameron, the Prime minister of the United Kingdom, has worked to reflect the opinions of Britain, but has constantly alarmed its citizens by emphasizing during his speeches that, “the future of Britain would become unsure <they> leave Britain.” After the Brexit was confirmed, he stepped down as prime minister and left the seat in chaos. Moreover, the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP), the largest party that stood with leave, had went back on one of its main promises, “We send the EU 350 million a week. Let’s fund our NHS instead. Vote Leave. Let’s take back control,” justifying it as a mistake. Neil Farage, UKIP leader who spoke live on TV right after the vote, earned a great amount of controversy and insult from even the leave voters.

   The political impact, on the other hand, also brings hardships for both political leaders and Britain’s citizens. The withdrawal of Britain follows Article 50 of the Lisbon treaty, stating that in the short term of two years, Britain needs to look over its policies with the EU and choose what to keep and what to newly pass. This includes all policies ranging from the movement of products, services, capitals, and labor to politics, and national defense. Even if all of the policies are not set in these two years, Britain is automatically withdrawn from the EU, leaving Britain completely lost amongst the global market.

   Furthermore, even if Britain leaves the EU, it will be uncertain if they will be able to control the number of immigrants that enter the country. There are undecided gray areas for reasons to why people enter and leave a country, and even if discerning it becomes possible, Britain is still a free trade country that earns a large part of its income from trade. This means that simply blocking immigrants would not only mean less currency, but also a surge of hard feelings between Britain and the country where the immigrants come from. All in all, the promises the leave side proposed are all too one-sided, overly adventurous, and unstable to follow.

   Lastly, Brexit macroeconomically formulates an atmosphere of anti globalization and isolationism, and increasing violence. In fact, between June 16th and the 30th, there were a total of 3,076 Brexit related crimes, a 42% increase of 2015’s 916. The day after the decision of the Brexit, June 25th, recorded the highest number of 289 in just one day, which concerns the safety of both immigrants and Britain. This fact is crucial for understanding that stepping out of the pool of the EU doesn’t mean independence, and isolation for the exchange of others leaving only brings angst amongst each other. This finding may come in handy during the upcoming US Presidential elections in August, 2016.

What Next?

   Following the resignation of Cameron on June 24th, Theresa May has become Britain’s new prime minister for the leadership of the Conservative Party. As Cameron’s six years as the country’s leader came to an end, he announced his plans to stay on as the member of Parliament for Witney in Oxfordshire. May has said repeatedly that she will not trigger the Article 50 until she is sure Britain can access the single European market, but also gain the ability to set limits on EU regulations.

   A petition has been signed by over 4.1 million people for a second vote, the most since the government petition process was introduced in 2011. However, the Foreign Office responded, “The referendum was one of the biggest democratic exercises in British history with over 33 million people having their say,” and restated that it was important to figure out the next step to ensure the best possible outcome for Britain.

   Brexit has so far not noticeably impacted Korea. However, there will be imminent consequences in the automobile and marine industry once Britain and Korea signs a separate FTA as there is an automatic 10% tax on trade. This may lead to a decrease in trade and moreover, a change in in consumer psychology, which may impact the next few years. The Brexit is not only an issue for Britain and EU, but also for us in Korea. As students, we must stay tuned, enlightened on global current events, and keep a critical mind to become a true comprehensive citizens.

Anti terrorism

Youjung Kwon

kwon1996@gmail.com

   As society advances simultaneously with the expansion and amalgamation of various nations and cultures, terrorism and anti terrorism movements have gained momentum over the past few years. The abysmal episode of the 9/11 attacks and recent IS terrors among Middle Eastern nations have intimidated governments and struck fear into individuals all over the world. In order to alleviate this paranoid atmosphere, the Korean government promulgated and enforced a new Anti Terrorism legislation, number 14701 on May 3rd, 2016. In this article, we plan to examine the definition, purpose, and dynamics of anti terrorism, and finally the controversy that it stimulates.

   Anti terrorism legislation aims to prevent terrorism, prepare the nation for imminent danger, and protect its people from the threat it projects. “Terror,” according to anti terrorism laws, is defined as the unlawful use of force to intimidate or coerce against the government or local agencies for social objectives. Terrorism has five notable characteristics: First, it is premeditated. Second, it is directed at a wider audience than the victims. Third, it attacks random yet symbolic targets. Fourth, these acts are perceived by society as abnormal. Lastly, it tries to influence political behavior in some way, such as to persuade revenge tactics or undermine the government.

   During the 1970s, Italy suffered from the Red Brigades, a national terrorist group. They were led by Marxist university students that were ready to rise up against their "capitalist masters." They committed more than 10,000 terrorist acts throughout Italy, including kidnappings, bombings, political assassinations, and shootings, killing over 400 people. As the Red Brigade’s violence germinated over the years, the Italian government increased the authority of the police to stop them. One of the most successful tactics the Italian government used was to reduce the sentences of convicted terrorists if they volunteered to provide information about the Red Brigade activities. Many eventually decided to cooperate with the authorities, and the Red Brigade consequently began to collapse. By the mid-1980s, the Red Brigades were nearly extinct. This way, Italy was able to successfully counter its threat.

   However, although there have been effective measures taken to combat anti terrorism, there have been times where repercussion diverged from those actions have occurred. In the case of the US, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI, the US’ prime law enforcement organization) was criticized severely for consistently phone tapping without a warrant. According to the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the FBI had used an elaborate program called Stingray in order to eavesdrop on suspicious phone calls over the past five years. Stingray is a system that includes an antenna, computer software, and a particular installation, and imitates a phone base station in order to connect to a phone without direct connection. When this fact was leaked, the FBI was denounced nationally. However, there was only public rage that took place, but no specific actions were taken in order to change the system. This was a public instance where an anti terrorism countermeasure had backfired.

 

   As expected, Korea is also going through controversy after this anti terrorism legislation was passed. The arguments of those who agree are as such: first, the nation is protected by a minimum amount of safety. As Korea has been a divided country with constant threats from the North, there is more need for the government to be cautious. Most of OECD countries have already passed counterterrorism laws and ran institutions that act as a control tower. However, domestic counterterrorism regulations are very weak, for there is a total of only five legislations related to terror statutes. Second, those who support anti terrorism assert the importance of premeditated elimination of those who are in great suspicion of terror acts by eliminating a small portion of everyone’s rights, rather than fully taking away everyone’s right to be safe. Lastly, ordinary citizens are not inspected, meaning there is no risk of personal information to be exposed or hacked.

 

   However, there is another side that disagrees to this legislation. Their reasons are as follows: when the government has the right to gather information without the consent of individuals, there is a possibility to abuse this power. This inevitably leads to those in power becoming only stronger with this dominance. Anti terrorism legislation opposes the basic human rights stated in the constitution, disregards the existing separation of powers, and fully goes against warrant requirement laws. Second, the anti terrorism law’s definition of “terrorist” is flexible and vague, meaning that anyone can be defined within this category with a bit of fabrication and comprehensive investigation. Although the nominal objective of anti terrorism laws was intended for the good of everyone, the end does not justify the means. In other words, individual rights should still be respected.

 

   Then what is an appropriate measure that the government can take in order to properly counter this problem? In a broad view, the government must focus on increasing education. Prevention is better than a cure, but unfortunately, our laws are more to serve as a cure than prevention. Nothing is better than fundamentally understanding the differences between one another to reduce hate and terrorism. On a more elaborate view, the government must modify the legislation that they have passed. The indiscriminate power to investigate without a warrant must be reassigned from the National Intelligence Agency to the counterterrorism center. Also, an institution of restraint must be set up in order to rein in rash decision-making.

 

   The recently passed anti terrorism legislation has created a permanent burden for the government and the nation. There are still many that hold suspicion against each other and authority, let alone uncertain regulations. Hardly a week goes by without an act of terrorism affecting innocent people in the wrong place and wrong time. When the nation is able to finally reassure its people, countering this scourge will become much easier.

 

Halal

Youjung Kwon

Kwon1996@gmail.com

 

   In such an ever growing technological society, which has inevitably resulted in instant and even unsanitary foods, reliability towards everyday dietary and tools has unfortunately plummeted. For this reason, halal food and cosmetics have become an upcoming trend to compensate for these problems. In this article, we aim to focus on what halal is, the two most latent contents of halal: food and cosmetics, and how Korea and even sejong is adjusting to the dissemination of this new movement.

 

What is halal?

   

   About one-fourth of the earth’s population, estimated to be about a little more than 1.5 billion, are Islamic muslims. Muslims base their lives on the scriptures of the Qur’an and thoroughly follow the contents indicated in the texts. Among the narratives that they specify, “Halal” means to be “allowed.” According to the Shari-ah law, halal is one of the five measures of morality: Ford (compulsory), Mustahabb (suggested), Halal (allowed), Makruh (not recommended), and Haram (prohibited). These five commandments are enforced as long as one does not suffer from it and are merged into the Islam culture, making them inseparable.

 

What is halal food?

   Halal food is food that has been processed according to the halal regulations, also known as Dhabihah. As the nature of halal food, it does not include haram: no poisonous substances, no liquid that stupefies (ie. potable alcohol), and no materials detrimental to the body. The reason why halal has funneled into the spotlight owes its reason to halal’s morally produced procedures and clean sanitation, which ultimately guarantees its taste, freshness, and quality. As a matter of fact, halal industry takes up 16 percent of the world’s, approximated to be about 160 trillion dollars worth.

   To understand “morally produced by Islamic law,” it means to avoid haram. First, hygiene and exact declaration of its components are crucial. There must be no excretion, blood or saliva originating from animals, and the ingredients inputted must be written according to the halal certification format. Second, additives contaminated by haram or humans are not allowed. This applies to the time beginning from its production to transportation and even retail.

   Extending on to Dhabihah, Dhabihah is a humane method of slaughter, purposed to kill with the least amount of pain required. The steps in butchery goes as such: one must first hold the animal’s head towards the Mecca, the holiest city according to Qur’an, and shout the phrases, “bismillah ir rahman ir rahim, Allahu ekber (In the Name of Allah, the Most Gracious. the Most Merciful / God is greater). Then, with a metal knife specifically made for the slaughtering process, the butcher must quickly cut from the neck through the veins to its esophagus. This is done in order to push out all of the blood in the animal’s body since Islamic law prohibits drinking of animal blood. A small merit rooting from this commandment is that the meat becomes softer, but a downside is that there is little gravy to enjoy after cooking. Along with the rules mentioned above, it is essential that the slaughtered animal is killed for the one purpose of being consumed.

   As demonstrated as above, halal food undergoes rigorous inspection in safety and hygiene, which promises establishment of trust amongst customers. In fact, credence towards halal food has heightened its popularity among wellbeing and vegetarian groups in countries such as US and Europe. Korea’s domestic market has also caught up to the pace by signing the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU: official partnership) with the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and by even promoting halal food in the Korean industry.

 

How does one obtain halal certification?

   In order to obtain halal certification, one must first fully understand the procedure that international halal certification institutions, such as JAKIM (Malaysia) and MUI (Indonesia), undergo to validate its process. As the expiry of halal certification is only one year, one must take into account and annually take note of the small changes of the process that the institutions make. After fully comprehending the procedure, one must visit Korean halal certification institutions, such as Pentaglobal, GCC, or Halal Industry Research Center, and go through the authentication process. Certification fundamentally depends on the Islamic law, which means full understanding of Islam as a religion is also required.

 

What is halal cosmetics?

   Halal cosmetics is, alike halal food, cosmetics that uses ingredients from halal substances. Because it does not include extractions from pigs or potable alcohol, countries such as Indonesia, favoring natural looks, are increasingly becoming interested in halal cosmetics. According to 2015’s, “Present Islam’s Economic Briefing,” global halal cosmetics is predicted to double, from 2013’s 40 billion dollars to 2019’s 73 billion dollars. These numbers are proportionately large in scale, considering it only includes halal cosmetics, not the whole halal industry.

 

How does halal differentiate from other types of cosmetics?

   As the nature of halal cosmetics, there are restrictions into what can be included as ingredients. Recycled water is not allowed and any substance affiliated with haram and animals classified as Convention of International Trade in Endangered Species and Flora (CITES) are prohibited. Although potable alcohol is banned, khamar, which is alcohol that does not intoxicate no matter how much consumed, such as Cetyl or Ethanol, is allowed.

   

   Halal cosmetics also shares differences and commonalities with Natural / Organic and vegetarian cosmetics. Organic cosmetics is usually regulated under the US Department of Agriculture, which legally monitors their cosmetics and other substances to be composed of 70 percent organic ingredients. This means it must be mostly naturally extracted, and preservatives, such as paraben and sulfate, are banned. Extending onto this guideline, companies thoroughly follow the expiry date and store their cosmetics in glass, rather than plastic or rubber, in order to maximize the quality.

   Similarly, Cruelty-free cosmetics and Vegan Beauty parallels with halal cosmetics in their faith. Vegan beauty, rooting from vegan and vegetarian, is usually classified by dermatologists as cosmetics that do not contain by-products of animals, such as fatty acids, collagen, and gelatin. Cruelty-free also shares the ideology of Vegan, where it does not include anything associated with any type of animal cruelty or animal testing. Halal can be seen as an ultimate combination of Organic, Cruelty-free, Vegan cosmtics, and essentially the halal certification.

 

What are Sejong students doing to raise awareness?

   Sejong Nanuri, Sejong’s Innovative and Sharing Volunteer Group, has fast realized this latent field of halal food and formed a volunteer group named Stimulating Culture Interaction (SCI). SCI aims to solve the lack of awareness in halal amongst Sejong students. They have held various programs, such as making halal rice balls, improving perceptions of Muslim culture by education, and selling halal food in the school cafeteria. Yoonjung Yang, one of the volunteers, commented, “It felt rewarding to visually be able to perceive the people's perceptions slowly change as we carried out the volunteer work.”

 

How should Korea prepare for the bloom of latent halal industry?

   Halal industry, including not only the above mentioned halal food and cosmetics, but also a whole obscure fields yet to be discovered, is expected to become the next big current. Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC: regional intergovernmental, political, and economic union of Arab states in the Persian Gulf) and international halal product certifying institutions are taking steps to cooperate, finding a way to better certifying procedures and environments.

   As halal is becoming not only a lifestyle tendency of the Islamic countries, but also of anyone who wishes for an upswing of daily customs, halal industry is expected to be a big hit. Hence, it is important for Korea to follow the current with eager anticipation, keeping up with the pace of International Halal Integrity Alliance (IHIA), to target consumer layers.