[Editorial] Violence counter to protestors' goals

Violence occurred in the course of nationwide protests November 22 against a free trade agreement (FTA) with the United States. Protests were peaceful in Seoul, but in cities like Daejeon and Gwangju there were violent clashes between protesters and police. At one protest, the fence barrier surrounding the South Chungcheong provincial government house was ignited.

It has been a long time since Korea has seen this kind of violence, and it does give one a sense of the rage felt by workers and farmers. You can particularly appreciate how farmers feel about the FTA negotiations. A free trade pact with the U.S. would about continuing to sacrifice agriculture in order to increase industrial product exports, so urbanites - who, after all, are largely descendants of farmers - sympathize with the unease farmers feel as they demand to know if the country is really going to give up its farming sector completely as it signs an FTA. It would have to be a serious concern, as the farmers went to their respective provincial government offices to demand of their governors that the FTA negotiations be stopped. This desperation is surely matched by the workers who took to the streets.

However, violence is not necessary in making sure your views are fully conveyed. Protesters are clearly going to take issue with what they must think is the government acting against "trivial violent resistance" to what they will perceive as "a greater violence" on the part of the government. This greater violence would be the police's harsh suppression of the protests, as well as Korea's pursuit of its trade policy without their participation.

We appreciate these views, but one still needs to take into consideration how the general public reacts to violence. Back in the days of dictatorships and authoritarianism, it was easy for a lot of people to understand drastic actions by protestors, but this situation is no longer the case, given the advances we have seen in democracy since then.

The widely held sentiment is that it is one thing to put up with the traffic congestion that results from street protests, but violence is something that cannot be tolerated. Violence, therefore, makes it hard to take one's argument seriously and have it appeal to the masses. Out of consideration of the original goals of a protest, violence needs to be avoided.

The police, for their part, need to refrain from inciting violence among protesters. They need to consider what it must feel like for farmers to hear verbal abuse aimed at them, or be beaten by riot police who are young enough to be their children. The police must also not forget that protests get more intense when a group of protesters is prevented from being able to freely express its views. It was wrong for national police commissioner Lee Taek-soon to say the police would be considering prohibiting a public assembly by the national coalition of anti-FTA organizations. It is inexcusable to say you are going to block a protest because of the possibility it might be illegal. You can always prosecute someone if he breaks the law. Elements in our society who call for harsh treatment of violent protests need to be more prudent. Harsh responses are the perfect catalyst for inciting violent protests, rather than reducing them.

Please direct questions or comments to [[e-mail]]