What we learnt about North Korea | The Australian Friend

What we learnt about North Korea | The Australian Friend



What we learnt about North Korea December 2, 2018/0 Comments/in 1812 December 2018 /by David Swain


David Swain, New South Wales Regional Meeting



We went to North Korea, or the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), not knowing what to expect. We knew from history that the Korean Peninsula had been controlled by Japan from 1910 until the end of World War II in 1945. After that North Korea was controlled by the USSR and South Korea by USA. Kim Il Sung was installed as leader in the north, and Syngman Rhee in the south.

Both wanted to unite the Korean peninsula; eventually the North invaded the South (but the North Koreans don’t tell it like that). In response, a United Nations force, mainly American and led by General Douglas Macarthur, attacked the invading force to drive it back. But instead of stopping at the agreed border at the 38th parallel, Macarthur pushed onward through North Korea, almost to the Chinese border. This brought the Chinese into the war on the North Korean side, forcing the UN forces to retreat. There followed a bloody war until 1953, when an armistice was signed, defining a Demilitarised Zone (DMZ) between North and South Korea. No peace agreement has ever been signed, so theoretically North Korea is still at war with South Korea and the United Nations.

During the war, virtually every building in North Korea, and a large proportion of the population, were destroyed by bombing. Since the war, North Korea has been under some form of international sanctions, limiting the ability to trade.


So what did we learn?
“You can’t get into North Korea!” they said


Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il are hard to avoid

North Korea has many tourists, mainly Chinese, but some European. The lack of American tourists is principally due to bans by the US government, not the North Koreans. There are several North Korean tourist companies delighted to welcome you.

But you must obey the rules. We had four minders, including the bus driver, looking after 12 of us and making sure we stayed in the approved areas. Yes, we know we only saw the things we were supposed to see, but the alternative was staying at home and seeing nothing.
Pyongyang


Arch of Triumph

We approached Pyongyang from the airport in expectation. The older buildings were unexceptional: basically Soviet Revival in concrete. The difference was that they were all brightly painted in pastel greens, blues and oranges. Further into the city, however, all changed. There were some buildings in traditional style, but many were modernist, indeed futurist. It was as though a group of architects had been gathered together and asked to have fun. Tall buildings (our hotel was 40 floors) are of many styles. And because the city was centrally planned, there was space around each building so it could be appreciated. Roads were wide, despite the lack of heavy traffic, and bordered by generous footpaths and bike lanes.

And throughout the central city were the ceremonial buildings: the 170-metre Juche tower, the Arch of Triumph, modelled on the Paris arch, but intentionally 10 metres taller, and many mosaic pictures and statues of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il, at least three or four times life size.


Juche tower

There were relatively few cars, and heavy trucks were rare. There were, however, substantial systems of buses, trolley buses and trams, as well as an impressive, if limited, underground railway system.

We noticed that many apartment dwellers had photovoltaic panels on their balconies or hung out of their windows. We didn’t see any large rooftop arrays of panels.
The countryside

Outside Pyongyang life is tougher. The lack of fuel and machinery means most tasks are done manually. Rice, the main crop, is cut by hand, then transported by small tractors with trailers, or in some cases by bullock carts, to a central thresher. The farms we visited had substantial greenhouses to extend the growing season. These have been designed to maximise solar gain, with the plastic covers facing south and a wall to absorb heat and give warmth back again at night, but heating is still necessary and expensive, and based on local coal. We were told that heavy oil was previously used for this, but this is no longer available because of sanctions..

North Korea has a population of about 25.6 million, and a land area of 120,505 square kilometres – roughly equivalent to the population of Australia living on twice the area of Tasmania. Only about 20 percent of North Korea can be used for food production, the rest of the country being mountainous. An official of the Ministry of Agriculture who met with us said that North Korea needs 8 million tonnes of grain per year to feed its population, but current production is only 6 million tonnes. The country would need to import 2 million tonnes to feed its people, but it does not have the finance to do this. Consequently the population is under-fed. This is supported by reports from FAO, which add that the North Korean population is particularly short of protein. However, as one of our group remarked, their food self-sufficiency is far greater than many of the world’s developed countries, such as the UK.


Buildings in Pyongyang

The situation is, however, better than in the 1990s when, largely because of climatic disasters, production fell to 3 million tonnes, and many people (hundreds of thousands, or millions, depending on who you talk to) starved.
How much does the average North Korean earn?

This is a difficult question. Initially, North Koreans obtained their food through the government Public Distribution System. During the 1990s famine, however, an unofficial market system grew up, with people growing food around their houses and selling it to their neighbours. The government initially tried to suppress this market system, but more recently have been more lenient towards it. This system has grown, and is now important in providing food to the average North Korean.

On a cooperative farm we visited, farm workers were provided with houses, with education for their children, with medical attention, and with community services such as a swimming pool. I understand that they received a cash bonus, perhaps once a year, and as a reward were taken to entertainments in the city. A silk mill we visited in the city seemed to run on similar lines, with some of the staff living on the premises, and education provided both for children and for workers. They also had a swimming pool and gymnasium.

With so much of their requirements provided by the state, it is difficult to compare the income of North Koreans with that of workers in a capitalist system.


The performing arts

North Koreans are proud of their ability to perform at all levels – in fact they consider their country the world champion in karaoke. Miss Kim, our leading tour guide, several times serenaded us on the bus – with Danny Boy.

The tour company obviously wanted to show us the best. Our first concert was at a kindergarten with children between 3 and 6 years old (North Korean children start formal education at 7 years old.) This included a remarkable percussion band, a group of violins, and one of harmonicas. One girl played the Janggu, a double-ended traditional drum, and younger children presented highly dramatic plays.


The Glorious Country Games. Note captions are in English and Chinese.

The next step was the Children’s Palace. This, we understood, is a large establishment where older children are given extra training after school. We saw lessons in painting and drawing, in computer skills, in dancing and in playing violins and the gayageum (a traditional stringed instrument). We were given a wonderful concert by these talented children.

The ultimate was the Glorious Country Games. These games, billed as “the Grand Mass Gymnastics and Artistic Performance”, are held in a stadium holding 100,000 people. Along one side of the arena was an ever-changing backdrop made up of placards held by at least 10,000 people (although I’ve seen some estimates of up to 30,000). The performances were outstanding, combining gymnastic and artistic ability with the coordinated movement of up to 1000 participants at a time in an area equivalent to an AFL field.

Many of the performances had a political note, emphasising the wish for the unification of the Korean peninsula, and desire for peace between nations.


Is North Korea a threat to world peace?

North Korea has one of the largest armies in the world, but it did not appear particularly threatening to us. We saw soldiers working on city building sites, harvesting rice, or just walking around town. There were only two places where we saw soldiers armed. In the DMZ, the few soldiers we saw wore steel helmets and carried small side arms. In the mountains, at the Friendship House that displays gifts given to the leaders by foreign supporters, soldiers formed a ceremonial guard with shiny automatic rifles. In general, North Korean soldiers were less intimidating than New South Wales policemen.


Soldiers in the field

The army, we were assured, is made up entirely of volunteers. It seems to be one of the few avenues of social and vocational advancement. A man or woman who performs well in the army can expect to be sent to university and fitted for a higher status job.

And of course North Korea, we are told, has nuclear weapons. We obviously wished this wasn’t the case, but it seems improbable that these weapons would be used. The North Korean leaders must be aware that if they launched a nuclear attack on any other country, the beautiful city of Pyongyang would be destroyed overnight – a case of Unilateral Assured Destruction. Nuclear weapons seem to be diplomatic rather than military weapons. The “political commissar” of our team of guides explained: “Before we had nuclear weapons nobody took any notice of us; we were ignored. Since we’ve had nuclear weapons all kinds of people are coming to visit us.”

So what does North Korea want? As far as we could see, it wants to be accepted as a member of the international community; it wants some form of unification with South Korea; it wants sanctions lifted so it can feed its people and become a prosperous country.

And that’s really not too much to ask, is it?

2Tags: art, famine, greenhouses, gymnastics, music, North Korea, peace, Pyongyang, rice,sanctions, tourists, unification, war

Share this entry











0REPLIES

Leave a ReplyWant to join the discussion?
Feel free to contribute!
Your comment *




Name *

Email *

Website

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker

Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds | The New Yorker



February 27, 2017 Issue
Why Facts Don’t Change Our Minds
New discoveries about the human mind show the limitations of reason.



By Elizabeth Kolbert









The vaunted human capacity for reason may have more to do with winning arguments than with thinking straight.Illustration by Gérard DuBois



In 1975, researchers at Stanford invited a group of undergraduates to take part in a study about suicide. They were presented with pairs of suicide notes. In each pair, one note had been composed by a random individual, the other by a person who had subsequently taken his own life. The students were then asked to distinguish between the genuine notes and the fake ones.

Some students discovered that they had a genius for the task. Out of twenty-five pairs of notes, they correctly identified the real one twenty-four times. Others discovered that they were hopeless. They identified the real note in only ten instances.

As is often the case with psychological studies, the whole setup was a put-on. Though half the notes were indeed genuine—they’d been obtained from the Los Angeles County coroner’s office—the scores were fictitious. The students who’d been told they were almost always right were, on average, no more discerning than those who had been told they were mostly wrong.

In the second phase of the study, the deception was revealed. The students were told that the real point of the experiment was to gauge their responses to thinkingthey were right or wrong. (This, it turned out, was also a deception.) Finally, the students were asked to estimate how many suicide notes they had actually categorized correctly, and how many they thought an average student would get right. At this point, something curious happened. The students in the high-score group said that they thought they had, in fact, done quite well—significantly better than the average student—even though, as they’d just been told, they had zero grounds for believing this. Conversely, those who’d been assigned to the low-score group said that they thought they had done significantly worse than the average student—a conclusion that was equally unfounded.

“Once formed,” the researchers observed dryly, “impressions are remarkably perseverant.”

A few years later, a new set of Stanford students was recruited for a related study. The students were handed packets of information about a pair of firefighters, Frank K. and George H. Frank’s bio noted that, among other things, he had a baby daughter and he liked to scuba dive. George had a small son and played golf. The packets also included the men’s responses on what the researchers called the Risky-Conservative Choice Test. According to one version of the packet, Frank was a successful firefighter who, on the test, almost always went with the safest option. In the other version, Frank also chose the safest option, but he was a lousy firefighter who’d been put “on report” by his supervisors several times. Once again, midway through the study, the students were informed that they’d been misled, and that the information they’d received was entirely fictitious. The students were then asked to describe their own beliefs. What sort of attitude toward risk did they think a successful firefighter would have? The students who’d received the first packet thought that he would avoid it. The students in the second group thought he’d embrace it.

Even after the evidence “for their beliefs has been totally refuted, people fail to make appropriate revisions in those beliefs,” the researchers noted. In this case, the failure was “particularly impressive,” since two data points would never have been enough information to generalize from.


The Stanford studies became famous. Coming from a group of academics in the nineteen-seventies, the contention that people can’t think straight was shocking. It isn’t any longer. Thousands of subsequent experiments have confirmed (and elaborated on) this finding. As everyone who’s followed the research—or even occasionally picked up a copy of Psychology Today—knows, any graduate student with a clipboard can demonstrate that reasonable-seeming people are often totally irrational. Rarely has this insight seemed more relevant than it does right now. Still, an essential puzzle remains: How did we come to be this way?

VIDEO FROM THE NEW YORKER
How the Midterms Will Shape the Next Two Years




In a new book, “The Enigma of Reason” (Harvard), the cognitive scientists Hugo Mercier and Dan Sperber take a stab at answering this question. Mercier, who works at a French research institute in Lyon, and Sperber, now based at the Central European University, in Budapest, point out that reason is an evolved trait, like bipedalism or three-color vision. It emerged on the savannas of Africa, and has to be understood in that context.

Stripped of a lot of what might be called cognitive-science-ese, Mercier and Sperber’s argument runs, more or less, as follows: Humans’ biggest advantage over other species is our ability to coöperate. Coöperation is difficult to establish and almost as difficult to sustain. For any individual, freeloading is always the best course of action. Reason developed not to enable us to solve abstract, logical problems or even to help us draw conclusions from unfamiliar data; rather, it developed to resolve the problems posed by living in collaborative groups.

“Reason is an adaptation to the hypersocial niche humans have evolved for themselves,” Mercier and Sperber write. Habits of mind that seem weird or goofy or just plain dumb from an “intellectualist” point of view prove shrewd when seen from a social “interactionist” perspective.

Consider what’s become known as “confirmation bias,” the tendency people have to embrace information that supports their beliefs and reject information that contradicts them. Of the many forms of faulty thinking that have been identified, confirmation bias is among the best catalogued; it’s the subject of entire textbooks’ worth of experiments. One of the most famous of these was conducted, again, at Stanford. For this experiment, researchers rounded up a group of students who had opposing opinions about capital punishment. Half the students were in favor of it and thought that it deterred crime; the other half were against it and thought that it had no effect on crime.

The students were asked to respond to two studies. One provided data in support of the deterrence argument, and the other provided data that called it into question. Both studies—you guessed it—were made up, and had been designed to present what were, objectively speaking, equally compelling statistics. The students who had originally supported capital punishment rated the pro-deterrence data highly credible and the anti-deterrence data unconvincing; the students who’d originally opposed capital punishment did the reverse. At the end of the experiment, the students were asked once again about their views. Those who’d started out pro-capital punishment were now even more in favor of it; those who’d opposed it were even more hostile.


If reason is designed to generate sound judgments, then it’s hard to conceive of a more serious design flaw than confirmation bias. Imagine, Mercier and Sperber suggest, a mouse that thinks the way we do. Such a mouse, “bent on confirming its belief that there are no cats around,” would soon be dinner. To the extent that confirmation bias leads people to dismiss evidence of new or underappreciated threats—the human equivalent of the cat around the corner—it’s a trait that should have been selected against. The fact that both we and it survive, Mercier and Sperber argue, proves that it must have some adaptive function, and that function, they maintain, is related to our “hypersociability.”

Mercier and Sperber prefer the term “myside bias.” Humans, they point out, aren’t randomly credulous. Presented with someone else’s argument, we’re quite adept at spotting the weaknesses. Almost invariably, the positions we’re blind about are our own.

A recent experiment performed by Mercier and some European colleagues neatly demonstrates this asymmetry. Participants were asked to answer a series of simple reasoning problems. They were then asked to explain their responses, and were given a chance to modify them if they identified mistakes. The majority were satisfied with their original choices; fewer than fifteen per cent changed their minds in step two.

In step three, participants were shown one of the same problems, along with their answer and the answer of another participant, who’d come to a different conclusion. Once again, they were given the chance to change their responses. But a trick had been played: the answers presented to them as someone else’s were actually their own, and vice versa. About half the participants realized what was going on. Among the other half, suddenly people became a lot more critical. Nearly sixty per cent now rejected the responses that they’d earlier been satisfied with.




This lopsidedness, according to Mercier and Sperber, reflects the task that reason evolved to perform, which is to prevent us from getting screwed by the other members of our group. Living in small bands of hunter-gatherers, our ancestors were primarily concerned with their social standing, and with making sure that they weren’t the ones risking their lives on the hunt while others loafed around in the cave. There was little advantage in reasoning clearly, while much was to be gained from winning arguments.

Among the many, many issues our forebears didn’t worry about were the deterrent effects of capital punishment and the ideal attributes of a firefighter. Nor did they have to contend with fabricated studies, or fake news, or Twitter. It’s no wonder, then, that today reason often seems to fail us. As Mercier and Sperber write, “This is one of many cases in which the environment changed too quickly for natural selection to catch up.”


Steven Sloman, a professor at Brown, and Philip Fernbach, a professor at the University of Colorado, are also cognitive scientists. They, too, believe sociability is the key to how the human mind functions or, perhaps more pertinently, malfunctions. They begin their book, “The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone” (Riverhead), with a look at toilets.

Virtually everyone in the United States, and indeed throughout the developed world, is familiar with toilets. A typical flush toilet has a ceramic bowl filled with water. When the handle is depressed, or the button pushed, the water—and everything that’s been deposited in it—gets sucked into a pipe and from there into the sewage system. But how does this actually happen?

In a study conducted at Yale, graduate students were asked to rate their understanding of everyday devices, including toilets, zippers, and cylinder locks. They were then asked to write detailed, step-by-step explanations of how the devices work, and to rate their understanding again. Apparently, the effort revealed to the students their own ignorance, because their self-assessments dropped. (Toilets, it turns out, are more complicated than they appear.)

Sloman and Fernbach see this effect, which they call the “illusion of explanatory depth,” just about everywhere. People believe that they know way more than they actually do. What allows us to persist in this belief is other people. In the case of my toilet, someone else designed it so that I can operate it easily. This is something humans are very good at. We’ve been relying on one another’s expertise ever since we figured out how to hunt together, which was probably a key development in our evolutionary history. So well do we collaborate, Sloman and Fernbach argue, that we can hardly tell where our own understanding ends and others’ begins.


“One implication of the naturalness with which we divide cognitive labor,” they write, is that there’s “no sharp boundary between one person’s ideas and knowledge” and “those of other members” of the group.

This borderlessness, or, if you prefer, confusion, is also crucial to what we consider progress. As people invented new tools for new ways of living, they simultaneously created new realms of ignorance; if everyone had insisted on, say, mastering the principles of metalworking before picking up a knife, the Bronze Age wouldn’t have amounted to much. When it comes to new technologies, incomplete understanding is empowering.

Where it gets us into trouble, according to Sloman and Fernbach, is in the political domain. It’s one thing for me to flush a toilet without knowing how it operates, and another for me to favor (or oppose) an immigration ban without knowing what I’m talking about. Sloman and Fernbach cite a survey conducted in 2014, not long after Russia annexed the Ukrainian territory of Crimea. Respondents were asked how they thought the U.S. should react, and also whether they could identify Ukraine on a map. The farther off base they were about the geography, the more likely they were to favor military intervention. (Respondents were so unsure of Ukraine’s location that the median guess was wrong by eighteen hundred miles, roughly the distance from Kiev to Madrid.)

Surveys on many other issues have yielded similarly dismaying results. “As a rule, strong feelings about issues do not emerge from deep understanding,” Sloman and Fernbach write. And here our dependence on other minds reinforces the problem. If your position on, say, the Affordable Care Act is baseless and I rely on it, then my opinion is also baseless. When I talk to Tom and he decides he agrees with me, his opinion is also baseless, but now that the three of us concur we feel that much more smug about our views. If we all now dismiss as unconvincing any information that contradicts our opinion, you get, well, the Trump Administration.

“This is how a community of knowledge can become dangerous,” Sloman and Fernbach observe. The two have performed their own version of the toilet experiment, substituting public policy for household gadgets. In a study conducted in 2012, they asked people for their stance on questions like: Should there be a single-payer health-care system? Or merit-based pay for teachers? Participants were asked to rate their positions depending on how strongly they agreed or disagreed with the proposals. Next, they were instructed to explain, in as much detail as they could, the impacts of implementing each one. Most people at this point ran into trouble. Asked once again to rate their views, they ratcheted down the intensity, so that they either agreed or disagreed less vehemently.

Sloman and Fernbach see in this result a little candle for a dark world. If we—or our friends or the pundits on CNN—spent less time pontificating and more trying to work through the implications of policy proposals, we’d realize how clueless we are and moderate our views. This, they write, “may be the only form of thinking that will shatter the illusion of explanatory depth and change people’s attitudes.”



One way to look at science is as a system that corrects for people’s natural inclinations. In a well-run laboratory, there’s no room for myside bias; the results have to be reproducible in other laboratories, by researchers who have no motive to confirm them. And this, it could be argued, is why the system has proved so successful. At any given moment, a field may be dominated by squabbles, but, in the end, the methodology prevails. Science moves forward, even as we remain stuck in place.

In “Denying to the Grave: Why We Ignore the Facts That Will Save Us” (Oxford), Jack Gorman, a psychiatrist, and his daughter, Sara Gorman, a public-health specialist, probe the gap between what science tells us and what we tell ourselves. Their concern is with those persistent beliefs which are not just demonstrably false but also potentially deadly, like the conviction that vaccines are hazardous. Of course, what’s hazardous is not being vaccinated; that’s why vaccines were created in the first place. “Immunization is one of the triumphs of modern medicine,” the Gormans note. But no matter how many scientific studies conclude that vaccines are safe, and that there’s no link between immunizations and autism, anti-vaxxers remain unmoved. (They can now count on their side—sort of—Donald Trump, who has said that, although he and his wife had their son, Barron, vaccinated, they refused to do so on the timetable recommended by pediatricians.)

The Gormans, too, argue that ways of thinking that now seem self-destructive must at some point have been adaptive. And they, too, dedicate many pages to confirmation bias, which, they claim, has a physiological component. They cite research suggesting that people experience genuine pleasure—a rush of dopamine—when processing information that supports their beliefs. “It feels good to ‘stick to our guns’ even if we are wrong,” they observe.

The Gormans don’t just want to catalogue the ways we go wrong; they want to correct for them. There must be some way, they maintain, to convince people that vaccines are good for kids, and handguns are dangerous. (Another widespread but statistically insupportable belief they’d like to discredit is that owning a gun makes you safer.) But here they encounter the very problems they have enumerated. Providing people with accurate information doesn’t seem to help; they simply discount it. Appealing to their emotions may work better, but doing so is obviously antithetical to the goal of promoting sound science. “The challenge that remains,” they write toward the end of their book, “is to figure out how to address the tendencies that lead to false scientific belief.”

“The Enigma of Reason,” “The Knowledge Illusion,” and “Denying to the Grave” were all written before the November election. And yet they anticipate Kellyanne Conway and the rise of “alternative facts.” These days, it can feel as if the entire country has been given over to a vast psychological experiment being run either by no one or by Steve Bannon. Rational agents would be able to think their way to a solution. But, on this matter, the literature is not reassuring. ♦This article appears in the print edition of the February 27, 2017, issue, with the headline “That’s What You Think.”



Elizabeth Kolbert has been a staff writer at The New Yorker since 1999. She won the 2015 Pulitzer Prize for general nonfiction for “The Sixth Extinction: An Unnatural History.”

論壇委員が選ぶ今月の３点（２０１８年９月・詳報）：朝日新聞デジタル

論壇委員が選ぶ今月の３点（２０１８年９月・詳報）：朝日新聞デジタル

△朴裕河「文在寅『慰安婦記念日』私はこう考える」（文芸春秋１０月号）

　去る８月は、慰安婦の記念日関連式典が韓国で初めて実施された月でもある。そんなおり、文芸春秋誌は、『帝国の慰安婦』の著者であり、それによって慰安婦の名誉を傷つけたとして韓国で係争中の朴裕河（パクユハ）のインタビュー記事を掲載している。

ここで朴は、戦後史、世代、帝国（支配）などの観点から「韓国」 十把一絡げの問題設定を相対化している。それによれば、慰安婦の争点化は冷戦終結後の比較的新しい現象であり、それに対するスタンスには世代間の相違がある。また、朴は、戦争に付随する民族的問題と見なされがちな慰安婦問題を、帝国という支配という文脈に位置づけ、階級抑圧や性差別などと連結した問題として提示しなおす。

--

じっぱひとからげ【十把一絡げ】 いろいろなものを雑然とひとまとめにすること。 一つ一つ取り上げるほどのことはないとして、まとめて扱うこと。

十把一絡げ(ジッパヒトカラゲ)とは - コトバンク

https://kotobank.jp/word/十把一絡げ-521652

--

△ 朴裕河 "문재인"위안부 기념일 "나는 이렇게 생각한다」(문예 춘추 10 월호) 

지난 8 월 위안부 기념일 관련 행사가 한국에서 처음 실시 된 달이기도하다. 

그런 있으며, 문예 춘추 잡지는 "제국의 위안부"의 저자이며,이를 통해 위안부의 명예를 훼손로서 한국에서 분쟁 朴裕河 (빠쿠유하)의 인터뷰 기사를 게재하고있다. 

여기에서 박유하는 전후사 세대 제국 (지배) 등의 관점에서 '한국'十把一絡げ의 문제 설정을 상대화하고있다. 그에 따르면 위안부 쟁점 화는 냉전 종결 후 비교적 새로운 현상이며, 그에 대한 자세는 세대 간 차이가있다. 또한 박찬호는 전쟁에 관련된 민족적 문제로 간주되기 십상 인 위안부 문제를 제국이라는 지배라는 문맥에 자리 매김 계급 억압과 성 차별 등과 연결된 문제로 제시하고 다시.

간척지 염분 0.3% 이상이면 밭농사 실패해 - 한국농정신문

간척지 염분 0.3% 이상이면 밭농사 실패해 - 한국농정신문



간척지 염분 0.3% 이상이면 밭농사 실패해

김황수진 기자
승인 2011.07.04

‘논 소득기반 다양화 사업’ 둘러싼 각계각층의 목소리 (2)

간척지 염분 0.3% 이상이면 밭농사 실패해
제염, 배수시설 갖춘 뒤 해야

-이경보 과장 (농진청 국립식량과학원 벼맥류부 간척지농업과)

-간척농지의 특징은?

• 첫째 염이 높다. 바다, 갯벌을 막아 농지화한 거라서. 바닷물의 염분농도가 3%이다. 이게 간척농지에 영향을 준다. 그래서 염분이 높게는 3%까지 나온다. 대부분 3% 이하지만. 간척농지 염분은 대체로 0.1~3%로 분포되는데 염이 높으면 작물재배가 불가능하다. 염을 제거해야 농사가 가능하다. 벼가 자랄 수 있는 염분 한계는 0.3%다. 
• 둘째, 염분이 많으면 그 안에 모래, 점토, 비사가 분산되기 때문에 물이 잘 안빠져 배수가 불량해진다. 
• 셋째, 간척지는 농업환경 조성이 안되있어서, 비옥도가 낮다. 비옥도가 낮으면 농사가 잘 안된다.

-간척농지에서 재배 가능한 작물은?
제염이 되면 밭작물도 농사가 다 가능한데, 내염성이 어느정도 있어도 재배가 가능하다.
연구결과 맥류-청보리, 밀, 호밀, 트리필케일, 귀리 등의 경우 염분 0.2%에서 70%의 수량성(수확량)을 보였다. 염분 0.3%에서는 50%의 수량성을 보였다. 율무,조,수수,땅콩,옥수수도 0.2% 농도에서 70~80% 수량성 보인다.
염분이 0.4% 이상이 돼버리면 밭작물 재배는 불가능하다. 0.4~0.5% 상태에서 계속 환수(물 공급)를 해서 염도를 낮춰줘야 한다.

-간척농지에서 사료작물 재배시 문제점은?
간척지의 특성상 비가 안오고 가뭄이 되면 염이 밑에서 계속 올라온다. 표토에서 염이 축적되면 작물 생육이 불가능하다. 물을 대줘서 제염을 시켜줘야 한다.
안정적으로 재배를 하려면 염을 차단해주기 위한 시설을 해야 한다. 지하관개나 암거(땅을 깊게 팜)를 통해 물빠짐을 좋게 만들어야 한다. 나무톱밥을 집어넣는다던지… 그런데 이런 시설은 비용이 많이 들어서 쉽지 않다.
간척지의 최소 95% 이상은 논농사이다. 작년까지 논농사를 짓고, 올 해 밭농사를 하려면 바로는 실패한다.

-최근 정부 장려로 간척논에서 사료작물 재배로 전환한 농가들에 어려움이 많다.
그런 농가들을 방문하고 토양특성도 보고 하는데 대부분 제염, 배수기반 조성이 안돼있다. 고랑도 깊이 파줘야 하는데... 새만금을 제외한 대부분의 간척지는 미사 함량이 모래 함량보다 많아서 물빠짐이 좋지 않다.
원래 간척지 농사는 벼 위주로 했었는데… 우리 과도 2008년 10월에 과가 생겼다. 아직 2년밖에 안됐다. 그동안 정책건의도 하고 영농활동자료도 만들어서 제공하고 있다. 농가들로부터 간척농지에서 사료작물 재배로 어려움을 겪는다는 문의가 많이 들어온다. 농민현장에 나가서 문제점을 발굴하고 개선하도록 노력하겠다.

-간척농지 전국에 얼마나 있나?
간척농지 규모는 전국 13만5천ha이다. 그 중 밭작물 규모가 어느정도인지는 모르겠다. 대부분, 거의 논농사라고 보면 된다. 밭작물 재배는 근래에 새롭게 하는 것이다.

자급률 높이기 위한 무리수… ‘전시행정’

-중앙대 윤석원 교수

-간척지 논을 밭으로 전환해 농사를 짓다가 피해를 봤다는 농민들이 있다.
작황이 좋지 않은 이유를 봐야 한다. 기후가 안좋아서인지…

-염해와 습해 때문이라고 농민들은 보고 있다.
간척지는 염해와 습해를 입는게 어찌 보면 당연하다. 아마 정부 입장에서는 옥수수나 밀 등 타작물들의 자급률이 낮으니 높여보자는 취지였을 것이다. 취지는 좋았는데 농지에 적절하고 농사에 적합한 건지 정교하게 따져서 권장해야 하는데 제대로 파악하지 않은 것 같다. 천재지변으로 인한 흉작이 아니라 염분과 물 때문이라면 이것은 목표를 채우기에 급급한 전시행정이다. 너무 서둘렀다. 급하게 보여주려 한 것이다. 자급률을 높이기 위해 무리하기 추진한 것이다.
농민들은 정부가 하라고 하면 하지 말아야 하는데…(웃음)

-간척논에 사료작물을 심는 정책은 쌀에 대한 감산정책이다, 이 정책에 대해 어떻게 봐야 하나.
옥수수나 대체곡물을 심어서 타작물 자급률을 높여야 하는 건 맞은데. 쌀이 많기 때문에, 쌀이 남으니까 거기다 이거(타작물) 심어라, 하는 것은 적절하지 않다. 그보다는 타작물의 자급률을 높이기 위한 정책을 세워야 할 것.
쌀은 별개의 문제로 봐야 한다. 장기적으로 남쪽과 북쪽 모두를 고려해야 하고, 식량주권과 안보 문제도 고려해야 한다. 쌀이 남는다지만 그렇게 많이 남는 것은 아니다. 쌀이 남으니까 줄여야 한다는 발상은 경계해야 한다.

사업자체 반대는 일러… 부작용 검토해야

- 민주노동당 강기갑 의원실 양서란 보좌관

-논 소득기반 다양화 사업에 대해 들어봤나
작년에 쌀이 너무 많아서 문제가 되니 정부가 고육지책으로 고안해낸 사업이다. 지난 해 8월 쌀산업 대책의 일환으로 나왔는데, 작년에는 신청자가 별로 없어서 지원을 높이고 작물을 다양화하는 등 조치를 취했던 것으로 알고 있다. 당시에는 제도 자체에 대해서 농업계도 필요성을 인정했었다.

-간척지 논을 밭으로 전환해 농사를 짓다가 피해를 봤다는 농민들이 있다. 이에 대한 입장은
(간척지 피해사례의 경우) 예견된 인재였는지, 예측하지 못한 불상사였는지 봐야 하나… 정부와 농민 모두가 부작용을 예측하지 못한 상황이라고 본다. 문제가 발생했다면 해결 방법을 찾아야 한다. 논소득기반다양화사업 제도 자체를 반대하는 것은 시기상조라고 생각한다. 시행해 나가면서, 시정해야 할 부분인지 제도 자체가 문제인지 판단해야 한다. 피해사례를 더 조사해보도록 하겠다.
농민들이 사업 신청을 할 당시에, 밭농사에 적합한 땅인지 등이 점검되어야 하는데 상세한 지도 없이 이루어졌다면 이 부분은 개선되야 한다.

그러나 간척지에서 밭농사가 잘 되지 않는다고 해서, 간척지만 신청대상에서 제외한다면 간척지 농민들 입장에서 ‘왜 우리만 안돼나’ 하고 생각할 수 있다.
작년에는 쌀이 너무 남아돌아 문제였고, 올해 기상 악재로 쌀 생산량이 대폭 줄었다. 농민도 정부도 그 때 그 때 반응하기보다 장기적인 안목을 가지고 접근해야 한다.

“밭작물 강요한 적 없어” 선택은 농민 몫 … 실패 정부 탓 아니다

- 농진청 식량축산과 정동완 담당자

-농진청에서 하는 대체작물 사업은 어떤 것이 있나?
금년에 논 벼 대체 팝콘옥수수 상품화 시범사업이 있다. 가급적 밭작물 사업은 논에서 하는 것으로, 논에서 밭작물 확대 재배를 유도하고 있는 추세이다. 내년에는 다양하게 논에 타작물 사업이 이루어질 예정이다. 예를들어 대규모 콩·옥수수단지 조성, 작부체계 시범사업 등이다. 예산은 단지당 2~3억으로 예상하고 있으며 올 9~10월에 윤곽이 잡힐 것이다.

-간척지에서 사료작물을 심었다가 실패한 농가들의 사례가 보여지고 있는데?
간척지의 경우 무작정 작목을 심는 것은 바람직하지 않고 시범적인 도입이 필요하다. 밀의 경우 간척지에서 적응하려면 5년~10년씩 걸린다고 전문가들은 말한다. 무턱대고 작목 선정을 하는 것은 위험에 노출될수 있다. 시범적으로 해봐야 한다.

-그런데 정부가 간척지 농민들에게 정책적으로 권장한 것 아닌가?
권장이라는 표현은 적절하지 않다. 밭농사로 전환한 농가들에게 지원을 해준 것 뿐이다. 농가들이 간척지에 맞는 품목인가는 전문가들에게 자문을 구했어야 했다. 실증시범포를 운영해보고 리스크를 줄여가며 해야 한다.

-정부의 정책에 의해서 간척지에 밭작물을 심었는데 실패를 했다. 어떤 보상이나 대책이 필요한 것 아닌가?
정부가 농민에게 무한봉사를 해야 한다는 관점에서보면 그렇겠지만 정부도 나름대로 교육을 많이 시행했다. 논에다가 타작물을 재배하는 기술 책자를 시군 농업기술센터에 보급을 했고 도·시·군 대상으로 교육도 해왔다. 그러나 모든 농가들이 교육을 받았다고 보여지지 않는다. 금년에 39회에 걸쳐 2600명에게 교육이 진행됐다.
간척지에 대해 정밀하게 지도하지 못한 것은 사실이다. 그러나 농가의 책임도 있다. 내 땅이 이 작물이 적합한지 아닌지는 해당 농가가 가장 잘 알 것이다. 시군 농업기술센터에 전화 한통화 하면 전문가의 컨설팅을 받을 수 있었다. 아무리 자본주의라지만 300평당 돈 30만원 지원받겠다고 무턱대고 자기 땅에 맞지 않는 작물을 심어서야 되겠나. 정부가 거기까지 책임을 질 수는 없다.

-간척논을 밭농사로 전환하려는 농가들에게 조언을 한다면.
재배품목을 정하기에 앞서 간척지가 된지 몇년이 됐나를 먼저 알아야 한다. 그리고 논 토양의 성분 분석과 염분 측정을 해야 한다. 지역별로 품목별 전문가의 자문을 구해서 해야 한다. 가장 첫째로, 적지를 선정해야 하고 두번째로 그 지역의 주산품목, 안정적인 작물을 선정해야 한다.
간척지 타작물 재배에 앞서, 할 수 있는 곳인지 기술 검증이 먼저 필요하다. 아무래도 (전환하는 것 보다는) 안정적으로 해오던 품목이 나을 듯 하다.

간척지 밭작물재배 연구 2년 채 안돼 “정책 시기상조다”

- 농진청 식량과학원 맥류사료작물과 이상복 담당자

-간척지에 사료작물을 심으면 어떤 문제가 있나?
먼제 제염화가 이루어져야 한다. 염분이 0.3% 이내여야 한다. 특히 신간척지의 경우 더 그렇다. 수확량은 염농도에 따라 0.3% 이내라면 많게는 70~80%에서 적게는 40~50% 정도 나온다. 0.3% 이상이 되면 아예 수량을 얻을 수 없다고 봐야 한다.

-어떤 조치가 필요한가?
어떤 작물을 심으면 좋을지 농민들에게 문의가 종종 들어온다. 사료작물 중에서 청보리, 밀은 그나마 (염분을) 견딘다. 견딜 수 있는 작물을 먼저 도입하는 것이 좋고, 무엇보다 조기에 간척지 염도를 낮추는 작업을 해줘야 한다. 물로 한 번 벼농사를 짓고 난 후에 (밭작물을) 심으면 훨씬 그런게 줄어든다.
염농도가 얼마인지 파악을 우선 하고... 한계치(0.3%)에 가까우면 어떤 작물도 못자랄 수 있다.
농가들이 정부지원금을 받을 때에는 염농도 제거를 먼저 시작하겠다고 말해야 한다. 정부는 (밭작물을) 도입하는 것을 먼저 원하기 때문에…(간과할 수 있다) 그러나 정부지원을 받고도 어떤 작물도 자라지 못하면 안되지 않겠나.

-간척농지에 타작물을 심는 사업이 많이 있나?
아직 많지는 않다. 최근 영산강지구에 콩을 도입시키려고 하는데, 갈대가 많이 나서 지난해에 실패를 봤다. 잡초는 한번 제거해도 다음해에 또 나기 때문에 2~3년은 제거해야 한다.
정부에서는 쌀이 남아도니 타작물 사업을 희망하는데 아직은 시기상조다. 실패사례가 많은 상황이라 더 많은 연구가 필요하다. 아직까지 전국적인 실패사례를 조사하지는 못한 상태이다.

<김황수진 기자>

김정은, 방북 쿠바 지도자 내외 집무실로 초대 '특급의전' | 정치 | 한경닷컴

김정은, 방북 쿠바 지도자 내외 집무실로 초대 '특급의전' | 정치 | 한경닷컴

김정은, 방북 쿠바 지도자 내외 집무실로 초대 '특급의전'
2018.11.06 07:39
클린뷰
광고 없이 기사를 집중해서 읽어보세요닫기
북한





사진=연합뉴스김정은 북한 국무위원장이 방북 이틀째를 맞은 미겔 디아스카넬 쿠바 국가평의회 의장 내외를 자신의 집무실이 있는 노동당 본부청사로 초대하고 공연을 함께 관람하며 이틀째 '특급 의전'을 이어갔다.


6일 조선중앙통신에 따르면 김 위원장은 지난 5일 노동당 본부청사로 디아스카넬 의장과 부인 리스 쿠에스타 여사를 초청해 담화와 만찬을 했다.

김 위원장과 리설주 여사는 노동당 본부청사 현관에서 디아스카넬 의장 내외를 맞이했으며, 김 위원장이 직접 본부청사를 소개하고 면담실로 안내했다.

통신은 김 위원장과 디아스카넬 의장이 이날 담화에서 "호상(상호) 자기 나라의 형편을 통보하시고 사회경제발전과정에 이룩한 성과와 경험들을 교환하시었으며 두 당, 두 나라의 당 활동과 사회주의 건설, 조선반도(한반도) 정세와 국제관계 분야에서 나서는 여러 문제에 대하여 솔직하고 진지한 의견을 나누시었다"고 전했다.

김 위원장은 본부청사에서 담화에 이어 만찬도 함께했다며 "두 지도자 내외분들께서는 한 가정처럼 모여앉은 만찬장에서 서로의 가족들에 대한 소개로부터 두 나라의 정치, 경제, 문화, 생활풍습에 이르기까지 다양한 화제로 즐거운 시간을 함께 보내시었다"고 분위기를 전했다.

3층 건물인 노동당 본부청사는 '당 중앙'으로 일컬어지는 북한의 최고지도자만을 위한 건물이다. 김 위원장은 9월 평양에서 열린 남북정상회담 당시 문재인 대통령과도 이곳에서 회담한 바 있다.

김정은, 쿠바 지도자 노동당 집무실로 초대…이틀째 '특급 의전'
같은 날 저녁에는 김 위원장 부부가 평양 5월1일경기장에서 디아스카넬 의장 내외와 함께 대집단체조 '빛나는 조국'을 관람했다.
김 위원장과 리 여사는 디아스카넬 의장 내외가 만수대창작사를 참관하는 자리에도 동행했다고 중앙통신은 전했다.

방북 첫날인 4일 평양국제비행장 영접을 시작으로 대부분의 시간을 함께한 데 이어, 이틀째에도 여러 일정을 소화하며 극진한 환대를 이어간 셈이다.

디아스카넬 의장은 이 외에도 이날 만수대의사당에서 김영남 최고인민회의 상임위원장과도 회동한 것을 비롯해 김일성종합대학과 만경대혁명학원도 참관했다. 김일성·김정일 시신이 안치된 금수산태양궁전을 찾아 헌화했다.
부인 쿠에스타 여사는 리 여사와 함께 김원균명칭음악종합대학을 참관하며 이틀 연속 퍼스트 레이디끼리의 별도 일정도 소화했다.

한경닷컴 뉴스룸 open@hankyung.com
#북한

Thicker Than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia

Amazon.com: Customer reviews: Thicker Than Oil: America's Uneasy Partnership with Saudi Arabia

Customer reviews
4.4 out of 5 stars

All reviewersAll starsAll formatsText, image, video

Victor55
4.0 out of 5 starsDrilling Deep in Saudi ArabiaAugust 10, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
I have spent over a year of my life in Saudi Arabia over the course of a twenty year career. This book helped me gain understanding and context to the bigger picture of what was going on in SA during my times there in the 80's and 90's. It also provided deep background and details that influenced thinking and decisions through the various crisis's in the region since the 1950's and explains the royal families push for Islam to control it's people and deter communism. Unfortunately the seeds sewn through the cold war are now reaping radical Islam fanatics that hate the western world and what we represent. Although a bit long, this book does have detail, and provides some solutions worth reading and keeping.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful Comment Report abuse

Boyce Hart
4.0 out of 5 starsArguably that's another book but there should be off-ramps because the Monarchy and these two are like the Hooper TripletsJanuary 26, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
Missing lots about US intel and big oil Regime building in Saudi Arabia. Arguably that's another book but there should be off-ramps because the Monarchy and these two are like the Hooper Triplets. Overall, however, well worth the kindle price. Nice and useful brief overview of Monarchy from 1740s up to WWI.

The Strongest point of this book is it's depiction of US and Saudi intelligence overlapping in what some writers call The Safari Club of late 1970s and how this sowed the seeds of today's plural of ISIS from Africa all the way to Indonesia.
-----

George Mason
4.0 out of 5 starsGreat outline of both Security and Economic TiesDecember 20, 2011
Format: PaperbackVerified Purchase
Great Book. Rachel Bronson does some great analytics on the various security, economic, and relational aspects of US-Saudi interaction over the last 80 years. It starts where Denny leaves off ("We Fight for Oil" 1928) and leads us through the various twists and turns of US - Saudi relations from the end of WWII and British Empire through the Cold War up to Operation Iraqi Freedom. She also highlights some of the more blunt realities in that relationship: "The fact that Saudi Arabia controls the largest oil resources in the world gives it a long-term interest in stable and long term prices to dissuade conservation and alternative fuels off the market." The only down side of this book is that Bronson argues strongly that we need Saudi Arabia as a partner but neglects to point out the full ramifications of past outcomes of that pairing. Perhaps we (the US) need to focus more on energy independence from the Middle East rather than how to ensure stability for the current fuel economy?



Helpful Comment Report abuse

Lee L.
5.0 out of 5 starsan absolutely remarkable piece of researchAugust 4, 2006
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Saudi Arabia, and America's relationship with it, is quite possibly one of the most important aspects of the Middle East today. While issues such as Iraq, and conflicts involving Israel are also of great importance, Rachel Bronson has done a great service by producing a compelling piece of work that is really unmatched in terms of approach, documentation, and presentation. There are many poorly written books about the Middle East today that do more harm than good. Bronson's book certainly does not fall into this category and is one of the best books on the area that I have ever read.

What you'll get in this book is a history of America's relationship with the modern state of Saudi Arabia. As the title suggests, there is much more to this relationship than oil, and the relationship goes far beyond that of the Bush family. Bronson has gone a long way in debunking much of the conspiracy theory garbage that has been produced from both the left and right on this subject. Her sources and methods are close to perfect here, and it is rare to find an author that goes to such great lengths to make sure that a full and accurate picture is presented. The amount of sources in this book is beyond belief, and her selected bibliography is filled with enough books to keep you busy for a long, long time.

The most refreshing aspect of this book is that Bronson demonstrates how so much of what would be considered "common knowledge" about Saudi Arabia is flat out wrong. What Bronson has done with this book is shown how lazy most other observers of the region actually are in their research. Since reading this book, I have flipped through a number of other books about Saudi Arabia, and I can clearly see at this point that most other authors start with their conclusion and work backwards from it. Bronson conducts honest research, lets her work speak for itself and as a result, her biggest strength is her ability to take a subject that so many authors have sensationalized, and produce a serious work that actually contributes to a greater understanding of that subject, rather than a book that detracts from it. By taking a quick look at the titles of many other books about Saudi Arabia, it is clear that more often than not, authors are taking a subject of vital importance, and making things worse rather than better.

This goes for films too. It makes me queasy to think back to the days when I thought Fahrenheit 9/11 had provided me with a sufficient understanding of Saudi Arabia and America's relationship with it. After reading this book, I can't even begin to describe how poorly equipped a person would be if they thought Michael Moore's film gave them a better grasp of U.S.-Saudi relations.

Put simply, this book is a must-read if you seek a greater understanding of Saudi Arabia, and the Middle East in general. There is no excuse for serious observers of the region to pass over this book. But even if you are new to the subject matter, this book will be immensely helpful. It is well-written, and quite clear in its presentation. It is my sincere hope that as many people read this book as possible.

2 people found this helpful

Helpful Comment Report abuse

Gary
5.0 out of 5 starsThis is a very very good book. The relationship between Said and American interests are very well reviewed. The best part is mucJune 28, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
.the interrelationships between Israel and PALESTINE is very moonlighting. Also the Cold war and communist aggression in the middle east was presented very well. The amount of money that Sadi Arabia spent was new information that I had never heard. I would highly recommend this book to anyone interested in the Middle east.
Helpful Comment Report abuse

Shaman
5.0 out of 5 starsI loved the historical background and seeing where it all beganMay 5, 2018
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
Finally a book that puts the Middle East into a framework we can all understand. I loved the historical background and seeing where it all began. Great read.



Helpful Comment Report abuse

sigirl617
5.0 out of 5 starsEye opening!June 22, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
Eye opening; it explains a lot of actions taken by our country that were never revealed to the public. Seeing the progression of events succinctly organized in one volume shines a light on a multi-decade partnership by giving the reader answers to questions about the U.S.attempts,for example after 9/11, and why the government worked so hard to try and keep the the fact that most of the terrorists on that fateful day were Saudi nationals. Great book.



Helpful Comment Report abuse

Larry Franklin
3.0 out of 5 starsInformity Read On Our PartnershipJune 25, 2016
Format: Kindle EditionVerified Purchase
I found the book informity about our relationships in the middle east. If you want a quick read, I recommend this one. By reading this book, I am now reading others books about the area and what a pain the in side they are to us.



Yousef
5.0 out of 5 starsFive StarsAugust 21, 2017
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
Very informative! This book deserves more attention than it has received. Well written!



Helpful Comment Report abuse

J. Burgess
5.0 out of 5 starsBest Current Book on Saudi ArabiaApril 17, 2006
Format: HardcoverVerified Purchase
As one very familiar with Saudi Arabia--and who blogs about it at Crossroads Arabia--I find Rachel Bronson's book to be the current best on the topic.

Without shying away from problems in Saudi Arabia, or within the US-Saudi relationship, Bronson treats all parties involved fairly. I lived and worked in Saudi Arabia in the early 80s, and then again from shortly after 9/11 'til October of 2003. Much of what she writes about, I experienced from within the US Embassy in Riyadh and my travels around the country. Her observations and assessments almost exactly match my own.

She carefully points out that for most of its history, Saudi Arabia and the US had mutual interests, primarily in fighting the Cold War against the Soviet Union. These mutual interests overrode differences. For example, using religion as a weapon in that war was something both the Saudis and the American governments--from Eisenhower through the early Clinton administration--saw as desirable and useful. But due to domestic political pressures, as well as those from a revolutionary Iran, the Saudi government let things go too far.

After jointly chasing the Soviets out of Afghanistan, the US government--as well as the Saudis--largely forgot about all the people who were sent there on a mission, both religious and military. We are all still facing the consequences of that negligence today.

Bronson also points out that Saudi reforms are real; that the Saudis provided far more support to the US government in its wars against Afghanistan and Iraq than it's generally credited for; and that pressuring the Saudi government to pick up the pace of reform requires something more careful than simply shouting at them from a newspaper or Congressional hearing.

If you're interested in what's going on in Saudi Arabia right now, there's no better place to start than with this book.

17 people found this helpful

釜山従軍慰安婦・女子勤労挺身隊公式謝罪等請求訴訟 - Wikipedia

釜山従軍慰安婦・女子勤労挺身隊公式謝罪等請求訴訟 - Wikipedia



釜山従軍慰安婦・女子勤労挺身隊公式謝罪等請求訴訟


Jump to navigationJump to search


釜山従軍慰安婦・女子勤労挺身隊公式謝罪等請求訴訟（プサンじゅうぐんいあんふ・じょしきんろうていしんたいこうしきしゃざいとうせいきゅうそしょう、通称：関釜裁判（かんぷさいばん）または関釜元慰安婦訴訟）は、慰安婦と朝鮮女子勤労挺身隊に関する謝罪と賠償を日本政府に求めて日本で起こした訴訟。最高裁判所にて原告の敗訴が確定している。


目次
1概略
2判決
3脚注
4関連項目
5外部リンク
概略[編集]

韓国釜山市などの元日本軍慰安婦3人、元女子勤労挺身隊ら合計10人が、日本国の公式謝罪と賠償を求めて1992年に日本で起こした訴訟。
1992年12月25日　、山口地方裁判所下関支部に提訴。（1次）92.12.25（2次）93.12.1（3次）94.3.14。
1998年4月27日、山口地裁下関支部は、判決で立法不作為による国家賠償責任について一部原告側の訴えを認め（平成4年（ワ）第349号、平成5年（ワ）第373号、平成6年（ワ）第51号　訴訟は3次に渡る　判例時報1642号24頁）、計90万円の支払いを日本政府側に命じる[1]。
2001年3月29日、広島高等裁判所は、下関支部の判決を取り消し原告の訴えを棄却した（平成10年（ネ）第278号）（判例時報1759号42頁、判例タイムズ1081号91頁）。原告側は判決を不服として上告[1]。
2003年3月25日、最高裁判所（第3小法廷）は、控訴を棄却。原告側の敗訴が確定した[1]。
判決[編集]
原告の元慰安婦3人の名前は、河順女、朴頭理、李順徳。3人の原告全てについて下関地裁判決で、事実認定が行われている。認定は、1 従軍慰安婦制度の実態、2 慰安婦原告らの被害事実の2点で行われており、従軍慰安婦制度の実態では、1993年（平成5年）8月4日の内閣官房内閣外政審議室から発表された文書「いわゆる従軍慰安婦問題について」(PDF)、をそのまま引用し、これを事実認定している（内容は、慰安婦制度一般についてその存在、国・軍の関与があったこと、募集方法に甘言畏怖などにより本人の意向に反して集めることがあったこと、朝鮮半島出身者が多いことなど[2]）。
地裁における事実認定では、「2 慰安婦原告らの被害事実」で、3人の原告の出身地、慰安婦になった経緯、慰安所での強要の状態などが事実認定されている。また慰安婦原告の陳述の信頼性についても、「貧困家庭に生まれ、教育も十分でなかったことに加えて、現在同原告らがいずれも高齢に達していることを考慮すると、その陳述や供述内容が断片的であり、視野の狭い、極身近な事柄に限られてくるのもいたしかたないというべきであって、その具体性の乏しさのゆえに同原告らの陳述や供述の信頼性が傷つくものではない」とし、「その信頼性は高いと評価され、先の通りに反証の全くない本件においてこれを全て採用することができる」としている[2]。
なお、広島高裁でも慰安所制度の実態について「争いがない」と認定し、各原告についても事実を認めた上で、朴頭理、李順徳についてはPTSDを追記認定している。事実認定はこの判決で確定し、最高裁での棄却は賠償などの訴えを棄却している[2]。
脚注[編集]
^ a b c “韓国人元慰安婦ら敗訴確定 「関釜裁判」の上告棄却”. 共同通信社. 47NEWS. (2003年3月25日) 2013年3月16日閲覧。
^ a b c 『日本の裁判所が認定した日本軍「慰安婦」の被害事実（上）』、戦争責任研究2007年夏季、第56号
関連項目[編集]
慰安婦
女子挺身隊
日本の戦争賠償と戦後補償
外部リンク[編集]
関釜裁判を支援する会
この項目は、法分野に関連した書きかけの項目です。この項目を加筆・訂正などしてくださる協力者を求めています（P:法学/PJ法学）。

カテゴリ:
裁判例
慰安婦問題
国家賠償請求訴訟

20180915「抗議文」への感想.pdf

20180915「抗議文」への感想.pdf

「関釜裁判を支援する会」会員より 文書「映画『허스토리』（ハーストーリー）の製作者に抗議する！」を読んでの感想文 「関釜裁判」は 1992 年、韓国の女性たち 10 人が日本政府に謝罪と賠償を求めて起こした裁判 で、原告は３人が日本軍「慰安婦」、７人が女子勤労挺身隊の被害者でした。下関地裁で原告の 訴えを一部認める判決が出るも、広島高裁で覆され、最高裁で敗訴しました。 ごく短い期間ですが、私はこの裁判の支援活動に関わったことがあり、現在私が韓国に深い関心 を寄せるのはこの時の体験がもとになっています。10 人の原告との出会いが、その後の私の人 生を変えたのです。 この関釜裁判が「허스터리（ハーストーリー）」というタイトルで、韓国で映画化されました。 残念ながら私はまだ見ることができていませんが、実際に見た関係者によると「荒唐無稽といっ てもいい内容」とのことで、失望を禁じ得ません。一言の取材もないまま勝手に実名で登場させ られている関係者もおり（ご本人とは似ても似つかぬキャラクターとのこと）、戸惑いも感じて います。 また、この映画では「慰安婦」被害者の原告のみが取り上げられ、挺身隊被害者の原告は登場し ないようです。何故なのでしょう。もし、監督が挺身隊の被害より「慰安婦」の方が深刻で重大 であると考えて、「慰安婦」被害者のみクローズアップしたのだとすれば、それは誤りです。ど ちらの被害がより重い、軽いと単純化できる話ではありません。 挺身隊被害者は性暴力は受けていません。しかし、戦後も重度の不眠症や原因のわからない身体 の不調に苦しみ、ＰＴＳＤと思われる症状を抱えている原告が何人もいました。「慰安婦」と混 同され、韓国社会の蔑視にさらされてきた人たちもいます。誰にも言えない思いを長年抱え、苦 しんできたのは「慰安婦」も挺身隊も同じなのです。 そのような原告たちの証言を聞くのは、辛いことでもありました。しかし、辛い、悲しいだけの 支援活動ではなかったから、私は現在も韓国に関わる活動を続けているのです。私は原告たちに よって初めて生の韓国語を聞き、その言葉の美しい響きにひかれました。私は原告のおばあさん たちが好きで、会うのが楽しみでした。私だけでなく支援者は皆、原告たちと会うのを楽しみに していたし、原告たちもまた、裁判で来日するのを楽しみにしていたと聞いています。そのよう にして、原告と支援者の間には徐々に信頼関係が築かれていきました。そしてその信頼関係なく して、裁判を最高裁まで戦うことはできませんでした。しかし、この映画にはそこがほとんど描 かれていないようです。 商業映画ですから、多少の脚色が入るのはやむを得ないと思います。監督の主観も入るでしょう。 しかし、関釜裁判の名前を出し、実話をもとにしたとうたうのなら、最低限守らなければならな い線があるのではないでしょうか。 この映画を通して「関釜裁判」の名前が広がっていくことに、かつての支援者の一人として深い 憂慮を覚えます。(A・H)

Park Yuha <허스토리>라는 영화는 이른바 関釜재판,

(1) Park Yuha










Park Yuha

9 September at 18:35 ·



나온 지 좀 되었지만, IPTV에서도 하기에 써 둔다.
<허스토리>라는 영화는 이른바 関釜재판, 釜山의 관계자들이 (지원자, 위안부할머니, 정신대할머니) 下関를 왕복하며 싸웠던 재판을 다루고 있다. 그런데 이 재판을 지원한 지원자는 일본에도 있었다.

영화에는 재일교포 변호사만 부각되고 있지만, 후쿠오카에서 음식점을 경영하면서 오랜 세월을 할머니들을 맞아 숙소와 음식을 제공하며 지원한 하나후사부부야말로 관부재판 하면 빼 넣을 수 없는 또 다른 주역. 그런데 영화엔 고작 처음 일본 땅에 내렸을 때 “하나후사입니다”라면서 맞아 준 장면 말고는 거의 부각되지 않았다. 이 영화가 예고편 당시엔 “관부재판”이라는 제목이다가 나중에 제목을 바꾼 이유이기도 하겠지만, 영화를 보면서 나는 그 완벽한 삭제가 서글펐다.
물론 나역시 사재를 털어 피해자들을 지원한 김문숙회장님을 존경한다. 하지만 일본 측 지원자의 역할이 결코 작지 않았음에도 관계자들을 취재조차 하지 않았다는 건, 비용문제로 이해하기도 힘들다.


또하나, 이 재판의 정식이름은
<釜山従軍慰安婦・女子勤労挺身隊公式謝罪等請求訴訟「関釜裁判」>.
즉 정신대 할머니들과 위안부 할머니들이 같이 싸운 싸움이다. 그런데 영화는 위안부할머니에게만 포커스가 맞춰져 있었다.
내용에 대해선 노코멘트.

하나후사 부부는 이제는 운동전선에서 물러났고 홈페이지만 관리하고 있지만, 그래도 지원했던 할머니들을 만나러 정기적으로 한국을 방문한다.


KANPUSAIBAN.BIT.PH

関釜裁判を支援する会




「戦後責任を問う・関釜裁判を支援する会」編
福岡発信ホームページ！！



powered by 忍者カウンター 人目
since：2000/02/11
最終更新日：2018/10/02

ご意見・ご感想は下記メールアドレスまで
h3emiko★gmail.com
(★を@に変えて下さい)


「関釜裁判を支援する会」は２０１３年９月２９日をもって会を閉じました。

その理由は「関釜裁判ニュース61号＝最終号」に記載されている通りです。

２０年間にわたって，ご声援・ご協力ありがとうございました。

このサイトは閉鎖せず，重要な情報は今後も載せていきます。


更新履歴
（下にいくほど古くなります）
▲抗議文「映画「ハーストーリー」の製作者に抗議する！」を読んでの本会員の感想（2018/09/15）

▲映画「ハーストーリー」の製作者に抗議する！（日本語）　製作会社に抗議文を送り、対話をよびかけています。 （2018/10/02）

▲映画「ハーストーリー」の製作者に抗議する！（韓国語）　製作会社に抗議文を送り、対話をよびかけています。 （2018/10/02）
▲「柳賛伊さんありがとう！」花房恵美子（2018/06/13）

▲「朴順福（パク・スンボク）さんを追悼して」花房恵美子（2018/01/21）

▲「日韓合意を巡る韓国政府の新方針を憂う」花房俊雄（2018/01/12）

▲「ハルモニたちに会ってきました」花房恵美子（2017/06/17）

▲「訃報:李順徳ハルモニ　ソウルでの葬儀に参列して」都築寿美枝　「会員から李順徳ハルモニへのメッセージ」（2017/04/08）

▲故朴小得さんの国民学校時代の恩師・杉山トミ先生が8月15日の朝日新聞に投稿なさいました（2016/09/15）

▲「ハルモニ訪問報告」（花房恵美子）（2016/09/05）

▲「法律事務所の資料棚」（山本晴太弁護士作成）にリンクしました（2016/6/23）

▲「韓国の関釜裁判の原告ハルモ二たちに会いに行ってきました」（花房恵美子）　および，これを読んだ会員からの感想（2015/12/04）

▲戦争被害者たちの心に届く謝罪を～首相の70年談話に思う（花房俊雄）（2015/08/11）

▲『関釜裁判ニュース・号外２号』をアップロードしました。（2015/01/11）

▲不二越韓国訴訟のソウル中央地方法院（地裁）判決 判決文（2014/11/22）

▲『関釜裁判ニュース全号記録集』は完売いたしました。（2014/11/06）

▲関釜裁判の原告ハルモニたち　　２０１４年３月１９日記　　　花房恵美子（2014/06/21）

▲「関釜裁判を支援する会」を閉じるにあたって～会員からの声 （2014/05/10）

▲北海道新聞～「軍の資金で慰安所口止め」　元日本兵、６０年代に供述（2014/03/24）

▲『関釜裁判ニュース・号外』をアップロードしました。（2014/03/14）

▲籾井勝人NHK会長発言への抗議声明「籾井勝人氏のＮＨＫ会長辞任を強く求めます！」 （2014/01/28）

▲「慰安婦強制」の新資料　国立公文書館に６点保存（西日本新聞、東京新聞、共同通信） （2013/11/22）

▲「慰安婦」問題における軍や国の「強制」をどのように考えるか　花房俊雄（2013/10/29）

▲国立公文書館、慰安婦「軍強制」を示す記録を開示（東京新聞TokyoWeb、東京新聞、北海道新聞、中日新聞、その他） （2013/10/07）

▲関釜裁判「下関判決 判決文」（PDF 25MB）をアップロードしました。

　Copyright (c) 2017 関釜裁判を支援する会 All rights reserved.



=========

Park Yuha

Yesterday at 15:31 ·


<허스토리>에 대한 일본인 지원자들의 항의

페이스북을 쉬고 있었는데, 관부재판을 오랜 세월 지원해 왔던 후쿠오카의 일본분들이 영화 <허스토리>에 대한 항의문을 발표했기에 오랫만에 씁니다. 저도 얼마 전에 언급한 적이 있었지요.

간단히 말하자면 이 영화가 역사왜곡을 했다는 항의입니다. 이 모임의 대표는 저도 잘 아는 노부부인데, 그저 죄송스러운 마음입니다.
이런 지적은 그동안 별로 나오지 않았지만, 더 기탄없이 지적하고 반성하고 대화했으면 좋겠습니다.
한국언론사에도 보낸다고 하니, 기자님들 특히 주목 해 주세요. 또, 이 영화 관계자들 아시는 분들은 좀 알려주세요. 감독과 대화하고 싶답니다.


—————
<영화 『허스토리』의 제작자에게 항의한다！>

우리는 후쿠오카에 살고 있는 「전후 책임을 묻고・ 관부재판을 지원하는 모임」의 회원들입니다.
이 영화는 관부재판을 소재로 한 실화에 바탕한 영화라고 선전했는데, 변호사도 지원모임도 취재하지 않았을 뿐 아니라 원고들조차 취재하지 않았습니다. 이 점을 먼저 말하고 싶습니다.
우리는 이번에 이 영화를 보고 경악했고, 분노와 슬픔을 참을 수 없었습니다. 1] 원고들의 바램과 2] 지원모임의 바램이 무시되고 왜곡되고 있었기 때문입니다.

관부재판은 일본군 「위안부」 피해자와 근로정신대 피해자 양측이 함께 원고로서 임했던 재판입니다. 열 분의 원고중 일곱분이 근로정신대피해자입니다.

그 분들은 자신들의 피해가 한국사회에서 정확히 알려지지 않는 환경 속에서 고독하게 투쟁해야 했습니다. 정신대가 곧 「위안부」라는 한국사회의 기존 인식 속에서 가족들과 지역사회의 편견의 눈초리를 받으며 싸워 왔고, 이제 겨우 그런 차이와 근로정신대의 피해실태가 인식되게 된 시점에서 그간의 편견을 증폭시키는 듯한 스토리를 만들어 근로정신대의 실태를 관부재판에서 지워 버린 것은　범죄적이라고까지 말할 수 있겠습니다.

더구나, 「위안부」 원고들의 피해실태에 관해서도 증언기록이 존재하는데 왜 이 재판과는 관계가 없는 몇몇 피해자들의 경험을 짜집기해서 과다하게 각색한 걸까요. 이러한 제작자세로 보건대, 피해가 심하면 심할수록 좋다는 식의 상업주의에 감독이 사로잡혀, 피해자의 고통에 귀기울이는 작업은 하지 않고 제작한 것은 아닌가 싶고, 감독의 불성실함과 태만을 느끼지 않을 수 없습니다. 또한 최고재판소(대법원)에 이의를 제기하며 시모노세키판결을 내렸던 재판관들의 성의와 용기에 대한 헤아림도 전혀 없어 보입니다.

절대로 픽션화해서는 안되는, 진실이라는 것이 세상에는 존재합니다. 바로, 원고인 피해자가 목숨을 걸고 법정에서 호소한 「피해사실」입니다.

영화 속에서, 후지코시에 근로정신대로 동원되어 「위안부」가 된 것으로 설정된 분은, 이 재판 원고였던 박SO할머니입니다. 이분은 98년 당시 시모노세키판결얘기가 한국에 보도되면서, 지역사회와 교회 사람들로부터 「위안부였던 거네」라는 소리를 듣게 되었고, 「창피하니까 재판은 하지 말아요！」라는 말로 가족들이 애원하는 정황 속에서 분노와 슬픔으로 인해 가벼운 뇌경색을 일으키기도 했습니다. 훗날 치매 증상을 보이게 된 것은 이때 일이 계기가 된 것이 아닐까 생각하지 않을 수 없는 분이기도 합니다.
박SO 할머니는 물론 「위안부」가 되지 않았고, 이 분을 정신대에 보낸 것으로 설정된 스기야마선생님은 국민학교 4학년 때 담임교사였으며 박할머니께서 많이 존경하고 사랑해 온 분입니다. 실제로 정신대로 보낸 교사는 6학년때 담임, 그러니까 다른 사람입니다. 그런데 영화는 스기야마선생님과의 후쿠오카에서의 감동적이었던 상봉장면을 완전히 다른 스토리—픽션으로 만들어 버렸습니다. 만약 박SO할머니가 살아계셔서 이런 사실을 알았다면 얼마나 분노하고 상처받으셨을까요. 스기야마선생님은 황민화 교육에 관계했던 자신을 깊이 후회하고, 한일간 진정한 우호를 위한 활동에 일생을 바쳐오신 분입니다. 아직 생존중이신 스기야마선생님이 이 영화를 우연히라도 만나는 일이 없기를 우리는 기도하지 않을 수 없습니다.

재판이 시작된 이후로, 우리는 원고분들께 지원모임회원들의 집 혹은 교회에서 숙박하실 수 있도록 해 드렸습니다. 그곳에서 재판관련 회의를 했고 할머니들과 함께 식사를 했으며, 노래도 불렀고 춤도 추었습니다. 친해지면서 그때까지 누구에게도 하지 못했던 고민을 토로하실 때도 있었고, 그러면서 우리는 피해자들이 입은 깊은 상처를 만나기도 했습니다. 그 과정은, 원고들과 지원자들간의 상호신뢰와 사랑과 존경심이 깊어지면서 자신을 바꿔나가는 과정이었습니다. 영화에서 원고들이 여관에서 숙박한 것으로 묘사된 부분과 그곳에서 발생한 일 전부가, 감독의 황당무계한 공상일 뿐입니다.

지원모임이 바랐던 것은, 원고 피해자들과 함께 하며 함께 싸우는 일, 그리고 일본사회에 그녀들의 피해를 알리면서 일본정부를 향해 해결을 촉구하는 일이었습니다. 일본국내의 「새로운 역사 교과서를 제작하는 모임」등의 역사수정주의자들과 싸우면서 전쟁피해진상규명법을 국회에서 성립시키기 위한 활동도 했고,「위안부」 피해자에 대한 사죄배상법을 만들 수 있도록 우리 지역인 후쿠오카에서 국회의원을 배출하기 위한 선거전등의 활동도, 부족하나마 해 왔습니다. 

재판을 통해 만들어진 원고들과의 소중한 인연이, 우리모임의 역량을 넘는 싸움에까지 우리를 나서게 만들었던 것입니다. 그런데 이 영화는 원고들과 지원자들의 그런 교류와 운동은 전혀 묘사하지 않았고, 당시 전혀 존재하지 않았던 우익들의 조롱이나 시민들의 차가운 태도를 여기저기 끼워 넣어 일본사회에 대한 반감을 부채질하고 있습니다.

　이 영화는, 재판의 진실을 전하지 못하고 있을 뿐 아니라 원고들의 바램과 명예에 또한번 상처를 입히고 있습니다. 관부재판을 통해 무언가를 배우려 하지는 않았던 영화 『허스토리』제작자들에게 통렬한 반성을 요구합니다！

2018년 10월 2일
전후 책임을 묻고/관부재판을 지원하는 모임