ssallzip

[Captured Article]Is Korea’s Military Ignoring Recruits’ Health?

Despite warning signs during his national service, a young man’s stomach cancer goes undiagnosed

A 28-year-old South Korean, whose fight with stomach cancer prompted an unprecedented wave of sympathy and online fundraising, has died.

Roh Chung Guk, a former taekwondo major at Yongin University, who served full-term mandatory military service until June 24, 2005, died of stomach cancer in the early hours of Oct. 27.

Roh Chung Guk

The poignancy of Roh’s story — the rapid progression from chronic ulcer to stomach cancer in just a few months — has sparked a lot of finger pointing between the military and his family about his death. Could it have been detected earlier, and who is responsible for any lapse?

His father has said that the family will not hold a funeral until the underlying reasons for his son’s death are settled with the Defense Ministry.

Yet at the same time, Roh’s story has prompted yet another of a rare online fundraising in South Korea, one of the world’s most wired country and where mililitary service is mandatory for healthy young males.

Since his story appeared on OhmyNews on Monday, readers have raised a total collection of 9.3 million won (US$9,000) for the Roh family. Donations varied from smaller amounts of several thousand won to 30,000 won. Five million won has been delivered to the family thus far.

One online reader, who uses the ID “catseye” wrote: “The military might regard Roh’s case as an individual one, but for a large majority of us Koreans it’s like a story about a brother. I don’t know how the military could have let its service member develop cancer. It’s just too unfair to dismiss it as a lot of one unfortunate individual.”

The news of his death is prompting a flood of online goodbyes from readers on major online portals as well as on OhmyNews.

In April 2005, Roh was diagnosed with a chronic ulcer at a South Korean military hospital in Gwangju. He was a soldier serving at the Army’s ammunition headquarters, with only two months left before returning home.

Back as a civilian, he went for a checkup at a private hospital and on July 7, the hospital said he was suffering from late-stage cancer of the stomach. Last week, his father, Roh Chun Seok, 62, was told by the doctor “prepare for your son’s funeral.”

Prior to his treatment at the Army’s Gwangju hospital, in March, he had knocked on the doors of his unit’s military doctor. Roh was turned away from an endoscopy procedure, because he had come on a full stomach, military officials have said.

Roh’s parents, whose father makes his living on daily labor, has petitioned the South Korean Defense Ministry, and other related military agencies. “My son developed cancer while serving in the Army, and did not receive proper medical treatment, therefore, the military officials should be held responsible.

But the Army has cautiously rebuffed any accountability. One official with the Army headquarters, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, has told OhmyNews that while Roh’s case was regrettable, “It’s important to determine whether Roh’s cancer developed from stress of military service, or whether because of his genes.”

“If it’s the latter, the military cannot be held responsible,” the official said.

Mandatory military service for healthy, young South Korean males has been in the spotlight lately. Earlier this year, a young soldier, stressed from serving on the frontline unit along South Korea’s demilitarized zone facing North Korea, killed eight of his fellow soldiers in a shooting rampage.

Many parents are still petitioning to find out the truth of “mysterious” deaths of their sons who have died while in the mandatory military service.

Web sites of the presidential Blue House and the Ministry of Defense have been bombarded with letters appealing for help for Roh and his family, as well as those condemning what they viewed as nonchalance on the part of the military.

2005-10-27 15:53
?2005 OhmyNews

[Captured Article]

25% of North Korean Defectors Suffer PTSD
With more women escaping than ever before, mental and gynecological care is critical

Pulling out a tooth must have been scary for an elderly defector at Hanawon, a government-run resettlement center in Seoul. He quickly gets up and says he will come back, as soon as the dentist suggests the prognosis of an extraction. ?2005 Jang Y.S.

Between 20 to 30 out of 100 North Korean defectors require mental health assessments, and some women defectors are in need of gynecological treatment, a volunteer nurse at Hanawon said in an interview with OhmyNews.

Jeon Jeong Hee, a 43-year-old nurse based in Seoul, volunteers at Hana clinic, a hospital affiliated with Hanawon, a South Korean government-run settlement center for North Korean defectors. South Korean government mandates that all North Korean defectors go through the three-month adjustment training at Hanawon, which is largely closed to the media. But on Oct. 19, Hanawon was opened to the several members of the press.

Jeon Jeong Hee ?2005 Jang Y.S.

Jeon works with at least 80 patients a day: Hanawon guests frequently seek medial treatment, she said. Settlers complain of illnesses varying from headaches to bad teeth and indigestion.

Many times, the physical symptoms stem deep within, coming from the mind and heart. About 60 percent of defectors speak of psychological difficulties such as depression, panic attack, anxiety disorder and hysteria.

“They tend to reveal these emotional conflicts through physical symptoms,” she said. “Some people I talk to have hard time controlling their emotions when they talk about their past ordeals. They repeat a pattern of reliving their ordeals even amid a new-found safety in the South.”

“Also gynecological treatment is needed as more and more women their 20s and 30s, are defecting,” Jeon said, adding that 70 percent of the new settlers that defect via a third country are women.

Multiple Hanawon officials, speaking on the condition of anonymity, detected signs of post-traumatic stress disorder.

“Women are more susceptible to post-traumatic stress disorder because in their long course of defection, they have been subject to prostitution or witnessed indescribable tragedies such as murder of their children, right in front of their eyes,” the official said.

In a change from initial defection following North Korea’s 1995 famine, where mainly men fled the North, more women and family-unit defectors are arriving in the South. Part of the reason is that husbands who have settled first in the South are bringing in their wives and family members.

Hanawon offers treatment in internal, Oriental and dental medicine.

The internal medicine department has ultrasound and endoscope equipment. The dental department last year provided dental prosthesis including dentures for 98 recent North Korean defectors, making use of a government-subsidy worth 60 million won.

Jeon is one of the three South Korean recipients who will receive the Nightingale Award from the International Red Cross on Oct. 27.

Jeon believes what is more crucial for the North Korean defectors is after leaving Hanawon to treat PTSD, that treatment continue at the local level. While at Hanawon, they at least have access to decent medical services.

“It’s hard for people who have lived in peaceful times to understand the hardships of these people who traveled with no identity or nationality,” Jeon said.

Kim Won Ho, an official with Hanawon, said that the facility is providing individual mental health programs to deal with post-arrival anxieties for its inmates.

“We are currently talking with the Ministry of Health and Welfare about having a resident psychiatrist at Hanawon,” Kim said.

2005-10-25 17:37
?2005 OhmyNews

[Captured Article]
Does N. Korea Really Want to Make a Deal?
[Interview] Peter Beck, the North East Asia project director for the International Crisis Group

Peter Beck ?2005 Cheong W.S.

Peter Beck is the North East Asia project director for the International Crisis Group in Seoul. His Korean adventure started in 1987 when he came to South Korean to study the ongoing democratization movement. With the crisis in North Korea, his interest shifted more towards the North Korean issue.

This interview was conducted at the Seoul office of PeaceKorea.org, Oct. 6.

What are your thoughts on the outcome of the six party talks of last September?

I was quite surprised that they achieved a breakthrough because it looked as if they were closer to a breakdown. However the media overreacted to the breakthrough. The Joint Statement is not a real agreement; it is very vague and there are no precise details on the deal. The better way is to regard the outcome of the six party talks of last September as a minor breakthrough.

I remain rather pessimistic actually. My fundamental question is: Does North Korea really want to make a deal? Are they serious on giving up weapons? I don’t know the answer to those questions. This round of six party talks didn’t help to answer that question. North Korea’s actions were a little bit surprising. If their real goal is energy then it is not the issue of what type of energy, but where it is built. They would want to have control over their energy sources. If I were Kim Jong Il, then I would not want to rely on power from South Korea. So why do they seem to ignore the South Korean proposal?

It will be very difficult in the future, but it is a small step forward. Starting is half the effort. I was also very impressed with the U.S. delegation being more flexible.

What made the U.S. delegation more flexible?

It is a combination of factors. There was the change in the foreign policy team where we now have Condoleezza Rice and Christopher Hill. There is also a new dynamic in the foreign policy towards Asia. Hill is just separated from Bush by Rice, who has tremendous trust from George Bush. Christopher Hill is extremely capable and respected. He is a true diplomat who has the trust and the confidence of Rice, so he has the space to be a little more flexible. In addition to this, recent difficulties such as the mismanagement of Iraq and the hurricanes, Katrina and Rita, weakened Bush’s negotiation position. The U.S. has also no plan if the negotiations with North Korea fail since sanctions will not be supported by China and South Korea. Fortunately they have a capable negotiator.

In meetings with the U.S. team my advice was to stop the competition in name-calling and start a competition in reasonability. So both in Washington and Pyongyang there is a current dynamic that neither wants a breakdown but they are not handling a breakthrough at this moment. Hill should go to Pyongyang to hold the momentum. Why wait two months if they could talk now. The so-called “hawks” in Washington cannot stop Hill from going to Pyongyang. They have no alternative and Hill has through Rice the trust of Bush.

Thus the reason why the United States were more flexible during the 6 party talks was mainly because of personnel and situation changes. Is this sustainable or temporary?

It is sustainable because of the trust Bush has in Rice, like I said before. But North Korea shouldn’t wait too long because then Hill’s position in the U.S. can get weaker. North Korea has now the best opportunity in the next years. The U.S. seems to be incapable of electing good leadership. Democrats are weaker and even with the Democrats in power we would see the same policy on North Korea. Look at the Human Rights Act: it was unanimously adopted. But then again we can remember the expression characterizing Kim Jong Il his behavior: “He never misses an opportunity to miss an opportunity.”

The Light Water Reactor

Did the U.S. show clear incentives to North Korea?

Yes they did. The North got security assurance, normalization talks, energy assistance and peace talks: anything that North Korea wants. But they haven’t agreed on the more specific elements of the deal, like the Light Water Reactors.

What about the Russian model for the Light Water Reactor?

This would not be a useful proposal at this point because U.S. doesn’t want to give any nuclear power before North Korea gives up their nuclear program and show compliance to the IAEA commitments. It would be a premature proposal and then again: who would trust Russia? Maybe three to four years after North Korea complies with IAEA. The Light Water Reactor discussion should only start after North Korea finished the dismantlement of their nuclear program

North Korea made clear however they would want a simultaneous sequence of events, because, according to them, the U.S. also violated the 1994 Agreement.

Agreement on sequence will come later. But in regard to the violations of agreements the North lost its right to nuclear power by violating the NPT. You can look at the NPT like a driving license. If you drive drunk, you loose your license. There is no question the U.S. did not hold up the 1994 Agreement either but there are different types of violations. They only delayed oil supplies and committed minor violations. North Korea’s offense was much more serious. So North Korea has temporarily lost its right.

The light water reactor is a non-starter for the next round. It is a signal from North Korea that they are not serious about negotiations. It is the key obstacle at the moment. Sequencing and inspections will be a problem and North Korea still hasn’t admitted to having a uranium program.

There are three big steps that have to be taken from now. Step one is to agree on the elements of the agreement. North Korea will have to make a declaration on its programs. Like Hill said: “We will not have an Easter egg hunt.” That will create some vulnerability for North Korea and gives the U.S. a target to hit. So just step one is a huge concession for North Korea. On the other hand, North Korea can hit Seoul back at any time, so they don’t have to be afraid of any security threat, really.

Step two will be an agreement on the sequence of actions and the last step will entail inspections and verifications. Taking these three steps will be a long and difficult process.

The ultimate goal of the United States seems to be regime change. If this is so, how is it compatible with ultimate North Korean goals?

At the end of the 1980s we saw signs of changes in North Korea, something was happening. Members of the Bush team thought they just had to wait a little longer until North Korea would collapse, but I am skeptical. The United States should start from the assumption that Kim Jong Il is going to be in power longer than Bush will be in the United States.

The United States ultimately does want a regime change, but certain pragmatism has been introduced. North Korea knows very well the United Sates wants regime change. There is always a struggle between ideology and pragmatism. Now the degree of pragmatism has set in the Bush administration and they have to balance the ideological goal with the following fact: if Bush leaves office he cannot leave behind a failing situation. Does Bush want four more years of failure? They will never get Iraq right, but they have still a chance with North Korea, so they should try.

The more reasonable and pragmatic the United States is, the higher the pressure on North Korea. But of course the downside for the United States is then that they will have to live with the fact that maybe in the near future there will be a light water reactor in North Korea. But the cost for not making a deal with North Korea is very high. It would make of North Korea a Wal-Mart for nuclear power. China and South Korea play also a role in putting pressure on both sides. The South Korean proposal did not single handedly twist the Joint Statement, maybe Beijing has been a more important factor. It is very hard to set out what was more important. All in all, the last Joint Statement was the combination of pressures and the situations of the Bush administration.

Test North Korea’s Intentions

In the meantime what should the first step be before the next round starts?

Christopher Hill should go to Pyongyang to show U.S. flexibility and to test North Korea’s real intentions.

The framework of the six party talks still works. Four party talks were tried in the past and failed. The future will tell if for North Korea, these six party talks are a vanity game, a trophy project or if North Korea will not get a reactor but other energy sources instead. If North Korea plays charades for another 10 years they must not be serious about getting energy. As said before, it is not what kind of energy but where it comes from. If North Korea is serious about their energy, they are barking up the wrong tree.

Some people say Kim Jong Il pushes for the reactors as a demonstration of the juche-ideology.

Juche can explain everything and nothing. It is not persuasive. The juche ideology is malleable and not at all pragmatic. It may be just an unwillingness to give up their nuclear program. They will never trust the United States, but they are not ready for confrontation either. Indications show they may not be ready to make a deal yet at this point.

What should the role of South Korea be in the next six party talks?

First they would have to agree on the elements of the Joint Statement. Will it involve civic nuclear power? Will it involve KEDO? South Korea has to get a better sense of North Korea and of what North Korea wants.

South Korea has played a very positive role in creating momentum and pushing the U.S. to be more reasonable. However, I think North Korea will try to exploit as much as possible differences between South Korea and the U.S. In the future, will South Korea accept that North Korea has a say in their business? North Korea’s behavior also puts the South in front of a dilemma. The North tries to kick out the World Food Program (WFP) and other western NGO’s when it gets unconditional aid from the South. In addition to this I am not convinced that North Korea is sincerely reaching out to South Korea. Reconciliation is inherently a threat to the North Korean regime. The more contact between each other’s citizens, the bigger the threat to the regime.

All in all, I want reconciliation for North and South Korea, but I just don’t trust Kim Jong Il.

2005-10-12 14:26
?2005 OhmyNews