A bridge over the troubled ‘worlds’? or a donor with an identity crisis? : an ethical case for South Korea aid

Soyeun KimLecturer, Department of East Asian Studies

s.s.kim@leeds.ac.uk

A high time for ethical questions • Two major views on the rise of ‘emerging’, ‘non-DAC’

donors– Hostile phobia: non-compliance therefore

undesirable impacts – Apologetic mania: alternatives and

complementarity• However, both are problematic – largely judging

against the current DAC (neoliberal) norms and principles (positively AND negatively) for what they are not! other than what they actually are

• such ways of gazing/ labelling still deeply rooted in the Orientalist view of the world

Three interlinked ethical issues

1. The judgemental gaze – reducing the diverse group of emerging donors into a monolithic entity and essentialising as a set of deviances (n.b. Japan)

• Why can’t they be more like us? (Fallows 1989)2. Romanticisaiton -‘A dangerous cultural relativism’

(Rist 2009:59, Kiely 1995; Corbridge1998; Mawdsley (2010) : post-colonial donors deserve the moral high ground?

3. ‘White man’s burden’ = ‘Non-white man’s frontier or prestige’? a tricky question : compassionate ‘comrades’ advancing national interests (domestic situation)

OR

Has this been changed much???

OR Africa has just got more burdens to carry?

Here comes the questions

• an urgent need for a proper debate on the ‘emerging’ donors moral obligation (if any) to their less fortunate peers

• How and to what extent they claim/fulfil such obligations

• In what form and on what basis such intervention are made (Corbridge 1998)

• A case study : South Korea – the latest DAC membership (January 2010) yet still ‘in-betweener’ or a ‘bridge’ over the troubled ‘worlds’

Several contexts that condition Korea’s donorship

1. ‘the only’ country in history - ‘successful’ transition from a recipient to a donor

2. Technically still at war – a divided nation• Aid to North Korea - ‘one-country’ policy: economic

gains first (e.g. Kaesong industrial complex) • Debts’ to the Korean Veteran countries

3. Recently heightened interests in int’l development• Global branding strategy via ODA to move away from

its peripheral image: ‘contributive’ Korea• Media and ‘helping developing countries’ boom

Media – small (often unheard) critical voices within Korea

• Portraying as the Southern local communities as an object of charity and sympathy through images of dirty water, hunger, terror and poverty

• ‘Black/ dark’ continent ?...• new emerging markets with burgeoning

middle-class consumerism ; resource rich frontier with full of business opportunities for Korea

Korean media

Korean Journalists with President Mugabe

Korea’s view on its ‘moral’ obligation’ to the world

“… a young boy who once stood in line to receive used clothes from foreign missionaries now stands before you as president of the Republic of Korea... I have benefited form other people's compassion… we are now in a position to provide help to those in need … [Our] remarkable achievement goes out to all those who fought for us and for those who helped us when we were in desperate need …. The Korean people who have been through wars and destitution are now prepared to contribute to global peace and prosperity … We are ready to do our part” (Lee 2010, emphasis added).

But… contradicting reality: (1) Humanitarian aid

• the humanitarian aid budget has been frozen at the level of USD 8.1m per annum since 2007 - while the series of aid doubling and tripling announcements in recent years

• Also aid to North Korea as more problems at ‘home’ : ‘distant-decay model of morality’ – wherein charity if it begins at all, begins at home (Cobridge 1998)

• Opinion poll on ODA

Opinion poll on ODA 2005

Reasons for opposition

not rich enough yet 76.1%

not beneficial for national interest 8.8%

No good for poverty reduction in developing countries 8.7%

none of our business 4.2%

0100200300400500600700800

95 '96 '97 '98 '99 ' 00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

USD million

UK Humanitarian ODAKorea Governmental Aid to North Korea Humanitarian ODAKorean Humanitarian Aid total

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

95 '96 '97 '98 '99 ' 00 '01 '02 '03 '04 '05 '06 '07 '08

%

% humanitarian ODA -- KOREA % humanitarian ODA – DAC TOTAL

Notion of development aid

• History of Post-war reconstruction/ rehabilitation

• The word construction – synonymous with development: Reconstruction Department established in 1955 later became Ministry of Construction in 1961

• Emphasis on economic infrastructure and loans – debt sustainability issues raised by 2008 OECD DAC special review

Korea’s ODA Loan Commitments]2009 Cumulative Total since 1987

Sector Number Amount % Number Amount %

Social Infrastructure 11 281,323 22.2 95 2,257,795 38.1

Education 5 92,092 7.3 22 482,021 8.1

Health 5 130,572 10.3 27 646,808 10.9

Water Supply & Sanitation

1 58,659 4.6 33 894,201 15.1

Government & Civil Society

- - - 13 234,765 4.0

Economic Infrastructure 17 955,794 75.3% 113 3,289,324 55.5%

Transport & Storage 12 755,297 59.5 63 2,097,832 35.4

Communications 3 97,694 7.7 28 582,042 9.8

Energy 2 102,803 8.1 22 609,450 10.3

Production Sectors 1 25,514 2.0 10 216,994 3.7

Agriculture, Forestry & Fishing

1 25,514 2.0 10 216,994 3.7

Multisector - - - 3 23,195 0.4

Unallocated 2 7,078 0.6 10 138,674 2.3

Total 31 1,269,709 [1,067.07]

100 231 5,925,982 [5,343.27]

100

Source: EDCF 2009:67 (by sector): as of 31 December 2009 [KRW million

Something Old:from the past experience

“… I know what it is like to be in want. I have benefited from other people's compassion and so I know more than others what kind of help should be given to those in need” (Lee 2010, emphasis added) “What took developed countries more than 100 years to work on, Korea was able to make it in 40 years since the end of Korean War. Now Korea is sharing its development experience/ knowledge with developing countries, and is doing its best to support the latter” (PCNB Online).

Knowledge Sharing Programme• A request based comprehensive policy consultation• Sharing Korea’s experience with developing countries

(in key economic areas) – even its bitter experience with IMF! to prosper together

• ‘Sentimental connection’ & ‘emotional consensus’ - friendship first then business later

• Best option to differentiate its aid strategy from CHN, JP – for e.g. Korea- Africa Forum

• KR official aware of the difficulties of ‘transferring’ – different contexts.

• The danger of we know best approach

Something New: DAC membership in pursuit of ‘universal’ values

• Seoul’s sales tactics largely based on Korea’s unique development experience – a relativist position as a donor

• But to “truly contribute” – “needed to build universality”

• ALSO! DAC membership instead of simply following the norms and rules set by those ‘old’ players, “Korea should be able to participate and even lead in agenda and norm setting, which in turn enables Korea to universalise back some of its successful experience”