| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| South Koreans turn anger at hostages |
| 2007-08-31 |
| I was wondering if it was gonna turn out this way... SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea's relief at the release of 19 countrymen held hostage by the Taliban gave way Friday to anger at the victims themselves, members of a Christian church who are being criticized for ignoring warnings against travel to Afghanistan. Critics said the group's actions forced their government into negotiations with the Islamic militants that damaged the nation's international reputation. A day after the last hostages were let go, some of the church workers apologized for the trouble caused by their captivity, and a few collapsed when told the militants had slain two male colleagues. One said she secretly kept a diary on the lining of her pants. With the crisis over, South Koreans turned their focus to what went wrong, who is to blame and what lessons can be drawn from the six-week ordeal. Public anger toward the hostages had been expressed in one form or another from the beginning, and it was rising on Friday. Scathing comments, written with the cloak of anonymity, flooded Internet message boards. Newspapers published critical editorials. Most noticeable was the feeling the hostages themselves and the church that sent them to Afghanistan were to blame because they did not heed repeated government warnings to stay away from the volatile Central Asian country. One advisory cited an intelligence report that insurgents were targeting Koreans. "They were told not to go," said Kim Young-soo, 42, a travel agency employee in Seoul. "They shouldn't have gone there in the first place." The apparent ignoring of the warning levied a high price on the government, critics argued, forcing it to deal directly with the Taliban in violation of the international principle of not negotiating with terrorists. Seoul is also alleged to have made a secret ransom payment to the insurgent group, although the government denied it. The U.S., a South Korean ally, welcomed the hostages' release, but it also alluded to the talks with the Taliban. Asked Thursday if meeting with the militants set a dangerous precedent, State Department spokesman Tom Casey said: "I'd simply reiterate that the long-standing U.S. policy is ... not to make concessions to terrorists." The hostage crisis has hurt the pride of many South Koreans, who have sought international recognition for their homeland's rise from the rubble of the 1950-53 Korean War to become one of the world's richest nations. "Of course, the country has a duty to protect its people, but I'm worried that the status of South Korea will slip a lot in the international community," said Kim Kwang-ho, 32, an employee at a consulting firm. Local media also raised concerns about the ramifications of any ransom being paid. A senior Afghan official close to the negotiations alleged Friday the South Koreans had paid money to win their release. "Speculation has been rife over a ransom payment. And we are concerned that other kidnapping incidents targeting our nationals might occur," the newspaper Dong-a Ilbo said in an editorial. Officials have hinted at the possibility of seeking compensation from the former hostages for expenses incurred by the government in winning their release — at least airfare and medical fees — an unprecedented move seen as reflecting public anger over the crisis. Still, there were some calls for sympathy. "Two of them have already died in the crisis. They are also victims," said Kim Kwang-il, an activist with an anti-war group that has argued Seoul's dispatch of some 200 soldiers to Afghanistan caused the hostage crisis. The Taliban freed the hostages after South Korea's government repeated a pledge to withdraw those troops before year's end. The two male hostages were slain soon after the Taliban seized 23 South Koreans on July 19. The militants freed two female captives last week, and the remaining 19 hostages this week. Yonhap news agency reported that some of the former captives fell to the ground in shock when they were told that the two members of their group had been slain. Television showed the former hostages tearfully reuniting and hugging at a hotel in the Afghan capital. It was too early to tell if emerging accounts of the hostages' ordeal and profuse apologies could cause more widespread sympathy. "I can't sleep due to concerns that we caused so much trouble," Yoo Kyung-sik, 55, one of the hostages, said in an interview shown Friday evening on South Korean television. He said the captives had been separated into groups of three or four and were repeatedly moved, mostly by motorbike or on foot. Suh Myung-hwa, another freed hostage, also apologized. "We caused so much anxiety to the people and our government was hit hard," the 29-year-old said in a televised interview. She showed reporters a pair of white pants on the inside of which she had written detailed records about when the kidnappers moved her, the times they had meals, the kinds of Korean food she longed to eat and other details. "All I could think about was staying alive," she said. "I didn't feel any pain under captivity, I guess because I was in a panic the whole time. But now that the tension is gone my body aches all over." As another condition for winning the hostages' release, the government promised that it will stop Christian missionary activity in Afghanistan, and Korean media raised questions about what they called "rash" evangelical activity in a Muslim nation. The suburban Seoul church that sent the 23 volunteers to Afghanistan and the hostages' relatives have said the group was working on humanitarian projects and not evangelizing. But their trip has been widely seen by their countrymen as being related to mission work in a country of which many South Koreans have an unclear understanding. "I really can't understand they tried to do missionary work on the streets of an Arab nation," Kim, the travel agency worker, said, confusing the ethnic makeup of Afghanistan, which is largely Pashtun, with that of many Middle Eastern countries. Referring to the government's move to seek reimbursement for its expenses, the liberal newspaper Hankyoreh said, "The Protestant churches should thoroughly reflect (on their behavior) with regard to why such demands have been raised." |
| Posted by:tu3031 |
| #8 There are places where those without training/experience simply shouldn't go, mrp. F'r instance, I don't wander around bad neighborhoods alone at night, where no doubt you'd be just fine. I'm apparently not aware of bad people... or even a drug deal that took place as I walked past with my brother many years ago (his youth was somewhat wilder than mine, it seems). Likewise, while the missionary and perhaps an aide or two would have likely been just fine travelling in Afghanistan as he'd done at least twice before, taking along a bunch of nice, middle class, middle aged ladies, who apparently had not been warned of the risks -- to a country where kidnapping foreigners has a long tradition and recent successes -- was simply not smart. Equally, when a neighbor of mine sold the family business to a Fortune 500 company, there were guards keeping watch over the house and his wife and child until the deal was consummated, because there really are people who'll kidnap a toddler for ransom, even in an outer suburb of a third tier city in the middle of America. (Some months later they moved to a big Victorian in a much more expensive neighborhood, but that's not germane to the issue.) It's not about being told where you can't go, nor of the value of the endeavor, but exercising judgment about the risks involved. Daniel Pearl was tortured to death, after all. But he chose to take that risk alone, not bring along his wife. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-31 21:25 |
| #7 But because of him another died, nineteen women suffered, and his country's government was put in a very difficult position... and because of what many assume was their response, Koreans around the world will be put at risk. No, it wasn't because of him that he and his fellow missionary died. It wasn't because of him that nineteen others suffered. They were kidnapped by the Taliban. They went to Afghanistan knowing the consequences, and dis so in service to a higher cause. Tell me, do Korean Christians live and travel at greater risk of persecution than US agnostics/atheists? Was their mission less worthy than Daniel Pearl's? I'm getting fed up with people saying we shouldn't do this, or say that, or go there because Others don't approve. The lists of things we can say, the things we can do, and the places we can go are getting shorter every day. Muslim intolerance is rewarded when governments curtail the freedoms of their own citizens. Heaven forbid that the SK reined in their Christian missionaries because of that country's near-total dependence on foreign oil supplies. |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-31 20:56 |
| #6 there is enough of that to make the Muslim religious leaders insecure. I think we can safely say that even a single individual remotely considering the mere existence of an alternative to Islam is enough "to make the Muslim religious leaders insecure". |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-31 20:40 |
| #5 They went to resupply and support an orphanage and school, if I recall correctly, not to proselytize. It's illegal in Muslim countries, and in India, for Christian missionaries to proselytize -- rather they show by their example of loving kindness what Christians are and do because of their beliefs. Conversions come from those that proactively seek answers to the questions the contrast raises... and it sounds like there is enough of that to make the Muslim religious leaders insecure. But the minister that brought the group over had been warned, from what I've been able to gather, of the likelihood of exactly what happened, and he brought those women along anyway. Had he gone on his own as he'd done the previous two trips I would have sympathized. But because of him another died, nineteen women suffered, and his country's government was put in a very difficult position... and because of what many assume was their response, Koreans around the world will be put at risk. Having good intentions does not excuse idiocy. |
| Posted by: trailing wife 2007-08-31 20:34 |
| #4 I have profound respect for the Korean missionaries. Two of them died for their beliefs, they died for simply preaching to anyone willing to hear the Good News. Islam is usually defined, correctly it seems to me, as "Submission". Fervent Muslims refer to themselves as "slaves for Allah". Faithful slaves , serving a long history of Islamic governments that employed slave armies (as a dodge against religious proscriptions forbidding Muslims to kill their co-religionists), it seems worthwhile to compare the violent reaction to Christian missionaries in most Muslim countries to the reception given to abolitionists in the pre-Civil War South (and in some parts of the North, too). |
| Posted by: mrp 2007-08-31 19:38 |
| #3 In the early eighties, Hizbollah was able to seize hostages from non-governmental morons who insisted on staying in a hot area. My attitude then and now: other than use of normal diplomatic channels through lawful governments, they are on their own. Exactly how much useful work can be done by a Christian missionary in Islamofascist Afghanistan? |
| Posted by: Ulomoth Squank7617 2007-08-31 18:43 |
| #2 They've already done that too. Funny how EVERYONE is to blame EXCEPT for the fargin' iceholes who actually TOOK hostages. |
| Posted by: Abdominal Snow BlameGameMonster 2007-08-31 17:46 |
| #1 When are they going to get around to blaming America for the entire snafu? |
| Posted by: Zenster 2007-08-31 16:47 |