Search results
experienced this, and some have dared to describe this blindness. One was Jack London, the famous American writer sent to Korea to cover the Russo-Japanese war in 1904, who wrote, confused, of ‘black moving specks’, the ‘hubbub’, in short, ‘a war of ghosts’ (quoted in Audouin-Rouzeau, 2008 : 244). And when Le Figaro sent special correspondent Tanguy Berthemet to Sévaré (Mali) as France began its 2013 military operation (Operation Serval), he reported: ‘There is a war in
involvement in a concerted campaign ( Gilbert, 2018 ). According to FireEye, the security firm that discovered the campaign, these accounts were a coordinated operation that leveraged ‘a network of inauthentic news sites and clusters of associated accounts across multiple social media platforms to promote political narratives in line with Iranian interests’ ( ibid ., 2018), including of the Israel–Palestine conflict, politics in North Korea and the UK’s departure from the EU. In Syria, there is a fervent propaganda war between the Americans
of Terror in Chechnya 1994–2004 MSF Speaks Out . Médecins Sans Frontières International Movement ( 2014c ), MSF And North Korea 1995–1998 MSF Speaks Out . Médecins Sans Frontières International Movement ( 2015a ), MSF and Srebrenica 1993–2003 MSF Speaks Out . Médecins Sans Frontières International Movement ( 2015b ), MSF and the War in the Former Yugoslavia 1991–2003 MSF Speaks Out . Mueller , G. E. ( 1958 ), ‘ The Hegel Legend of “Thesis-Antithesis-Synthesis” ’, Journal of the History of Ideas 19 : 3 , 411 – 14
One of the most distinctive traits of Korean film is its strong political nature. Since its introduction in 1903, film in Korea has always been under governmental censorship. During the Japanese colonial period (1910–45), the government severely suppressed those films that would inspire anti-colonial sentiments among the Korean audience. On the other hand, the colonial government employed film as a
Situated in one of the most militarised regions in the world, South Korea has a long-standing relationship with nuclear weapons that is evident in three domains. The first is that South Korea initiated and subsequently shelved an indigenous nuclear weapons programme. Fearing abandonment and looking to reinforce South Korea’s capacity for military self-reliance in the face
Who is responsible for the national division of Korea? This is the central question for contemporary Koreans in defining their identity as a nation. Contemporary Koreans have a strong sense of nationhood since the peninsula had been ruled by a single polity since being unified in 668 by Shilla, one of the three ancient Korean kingdoms. 1 Moreover, the boundaries of this single polity coincided with
2 To cross or not to cross The 38th parallel To cross or not to cross the 38th parallel I n Korea the initial deployment of under-trained US forces led to serious military setbacks for the UN. Very quickly it seemed as if the American ground commitment was going to be driven out of Korea and into the sea. On 17 July the Chiefs of Staff in London reported the grim news from Korea to their political masters. The best that the Americans could now hope to achieve was to hold a bridgehead around Pusan until they were reinforced. But some weeks must elapse before
The film industries of North and South Korea adopt totally different production and distribution systems under opposite state ideologies: communism and capitalism. This is manifest in the representation of ideology in their films. The comparative analysis of the selected films from South and North Korea divulges a complex relationship between the political and economic bases, and the cultural forces of society
In order to achieve the harmonious merging of the Japanese and Korean people, nothing was more necessary than the [1914] reform which placed both of them on an equal footing in the same administrative framework. 1 Just when the Japanese migration to Korea was soaring – eventually bringing about one of the largest new communities in the colonial world – the colonial authorities in Seoul curiously set out to dissolve it within a unified political body, Chôsen, which was neither Korea
Democratization is a major political phenomenon of the age and has been the focus of a burgeoning political science literature. This book considers democratization across a range of disciplines, from anthropology and economics, to sociology, law and area studies. The construction of democratization as a unit of study reflects the intellectual standpoint of the inquirer. The book highlights the use of normative argument to legitimize the exercise of power. From the 1950s to the 1980s, economic success enabled the authoritarian governments of South Korea and Taiwan to achieve a large measure of popular support despite the absence of democracy. The book outlines what a feminist framework might be and analyses feminist engagements with the theory and practice of democratization. It also shows how historians have contributed to the understanding of the processes of democratization. International Political Economy (IPE) has always had the potential to cut across the levels-of-analysis distinction. A legal perspective on democratization is presented by focusing on a tightly linked set of issues straddling the border between political and judicial power as they have arisen. Classic and contemporary sociological approaches to understanding democracy and democratization are highlighted, with particular attention being accorded to the post-1989 period. The book displays particularities within a common concern for institutional structures and their performance, ranging over the representation of women, electoral systems and constitutions (in Africa) and presidentialism (in Latin America). Both Europe and North America present in their different ways a kind of bridge between domestic and international dimensions of democratization.