S. Korea shocked and shamed by attack on US ambassador

S. Korea shocked and shamed by attack on US ambassador

South Korea has reacted with shock and a little shame to a violent knife attack on
the US ambassador that jarred harshly with the self-image of a largely safe, well-ordered society.
Civic and political protest is something of a national past-time in South Korea, but
while demonstrations can be loud, passionate and physical, acts of extreme
violence or civil unrest are rare.
And, putting the threat posed by North Korea to one side, the country has largely
been untouched by the spectre of terrorism, domestic or external.
So the very public assault on the envoy of the country’s most important military
and diplomatic ally at a breakfast function in central Seoul, has led some to
question whether South Korea has become complacent in what can seem like an
increasingly hostile world.
In the case of Thursday’s attack, there was particular disquiet that a known
political activist with a record of violence against foreign envoys was able to get
so close to his target.
Kim Ki-Jong, whose assault saw Ambassador Mark Lippert hospitalised with a
deep gash on his face that required 80 stitches, had received a suspended jail
sentence in 2010 for hurling a rock at the Japanese ambassador.
– ‘Shameful incident’ –
Mark Lippert escorted to a police vehicle
“It was a shameful incident because our country, the world’s 10th largest
economy, was helpless in the face of such a rudimentary act of terror,” the
country’s largest circulation daily Chosun Ilbo said in an editorial.
Powerful images of Lippert bleeding profusely and clutching a cloth to his gashed
cheek appeared in newspapers and TV broadcasts around the world.
Prominent politicians, including opposition leader Moon Jae-In also echoed the
feelings of embarrassment and shame, while the English-language Korea Times
said it was time South Korea accepted the realities of a world where the
“undercurrent of terror” runs strong.
“There should be no more complacency,” the newspaper said.
Security for diplomatic personnel is the responsibility of the host nation and, until
now, South Korea has had a near perfect record in that regard.
The foreign ministry said Lippert was the first foreign ambassador to be injured in
such an attack.
The assault came on the heels of two unsettling shooting incidents that left a
total of eight people dead in a country where gun control is tight and gun crime
extremely rare.
– North Korea link? –
The profile that has emerged of Kim Ki-Jong is of a maverick nationalist who
blogged with particular vehemence about the perfidy of “foreign powers” like
Japan and the United States.
The fact that he had visited North Korea half-a-dozen-times in the past has raised
an inevitable red flag, but there has been nothing to suggest he acted other than
alone.
As he was wrestled to the floor, Kim had shouted his opposition to ongoing South
Korea-US military exercises which have raised tensions with North Korea.
There are nearly 30,000 US troops permanently stationed in South Korea, and
while anti-US sentiment has waxed and waned over the decades, there is
overwhelming public support for the military alliance.
US and South Korean officials both moved quickly to dismiss concerns that the
attack would have any impact on the overall relationship.
“I think most people accept this was an isolated case that won’t have any major
diplomatic repercussions,” said Lee Dae-Woo, an analyst at the Seoul-based
Sejong Institute think-tank.
“If anything, it will go the other way, with the public sympathy for the ambassador
providing an opportunity to shore up the alliance,” Lee said.
North Korea, meanwhile, has been widely condemned for its reaction which came
in the form of a dispatch by the official KCNA news agency, describing the attack
as “just punishment” for Washington’s refusal to cancel this years joint exercises.
A US State Department official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said
Pyongyang’s response was “outrageously callous, but unfortunately consistent
with the nature of the regime and its rhetoric.”