Guryong Village
Guryong Village in the Gangnam district of Seoul represents some of the absurdities in present-day Korea. Many of the people who live in about 1,200 shacks at Guryong Village, located near the plush Tower Palace high-rise block, moved in from other parts of Seoul when they were evicted by city authorities for redevelopment projects in the 1980s. The urban migrants settled at the foot of Guryong Hill, which was a part of the “Green Belt” around Seoul, designated to restrict urban development.
They erected huts on land owned by others. As the authorities were busy with other businesses, the shanty town grew, joined by people who were aiming at “compensation” at the time of their eventual eviction. Occasional attempts by city officials to remove the squatters at the request of landowners failed in the face of collective resistance by residents claiming their right to survive.
A developer began purchasing plots in the 70-acre area from frustrated landowners. He plans to build some 2,700 units of apartments and lease 1,200 of them to present Guryong Village residents at low rents and later give them ownership for a set price. Gangnam district authorities, however, turned down the private development project and announced its own plan to provide 2,793 apartment units, including 1,200 permanent rental apartments for the present residents.
Villagers are divided in two groups, one in support of the private development plan attracted by the assurance of apartment ownership in the future and the other in favor of the district office plan which carries an official guarantee. Residents with differing opinions are quarreling over which would be more beneficial.
While the authorities racked their brains on how to eliminate the eyesore in Gangnam in the least troublesome way, the rights of the landowners were ignored for decades. The district office offers to take over the land at officially-assessed prices but the authorities are considering no compensation for their failure to protect the landowners’ rights for such a long time.
Collective resistance has become one of the most powerful social weapons in this country to thwart government programs or to deter the exercise of private property rights, as in the case of Guryong Village. At the moment, what the authorities fear most is a repetition of the tragic Yongsan incident in January 2009 in which five citizens and a riot policeman were killed during a violent clash over relocating tenants from a commercial building for a redevelopment project.
Officials assert that Guryong Village is different from the case of Yongsan as the latter involved small-business owners who refused to leave their places of work, while the former represents the problem of illegal occupation. Whatever the differences, the residents are feared to resort to “extreme struggles” until they come to a satisfactory settlement.
Gangnam is now to face a grave test with its Guryong Village project. It is about the authorities’ determination to carry out what they believe is in the best interest of the community and their ability to achieve it through the exercise of legal power as well as reasonable dialogue with those concerned.
They erected huts on land owned by others. As the authorities were busy with other businesses, the shanty town grew, joined by people who were aiming at “compensation” at the time of their eventual eviction. Occasional attempts by city officials to remove the squatters at the request of landowners failed in the face of collective resistance by residents claiming their right to survive.
A developer began purchasing plots in the 70-acre area from frustrated landowners. He plans to build some 2,700 units of apartments and lease 1,200 of them to present Guryong Village residents at low rents and later give them ownership for a set price. Gangnam district authorities, however, turned down the private development project and announced its own plan to provide 2,793 apartment units, including 1,200 permanent rental apartments for the present residents.
Villagers are divided in two groups, one in support of the private development plan attracted by the assurance of apartment ownership in the future and the other in favor of the district office plan which carries an official guarantee. Residents with differing opinions are quarreling over which would be more beneficial.
While the authorities racked their brains on how to eliminate the eyesore in Gangnam in the least troublesome way, the rights of the landowners were ignored for decades. The district office offers to take over the land at officially-assessed prices but the authorities are considering no compensation for their failure to protect the landowners’ rights for such a long time.
Collective resistance has become one of the most powerful social weapons in this country to thwart government programs or to deter the exercise of private property rights, as in the case of Guryong Village. At the moment, what the authorities fear most is a repetition of the tragic Yongsan incident in January 2009 in which five citizens and a riot policeman were killed during a violent clash over relocating tenants from a commercial building for a redevelopment project.
Officials assert that Guryong Village is different from the case of Yongsan as the latter involved small-business owners who refused to leave their places of work, while the former represents the problem of illegal occupation. Whatever the differences, the residents are feared to resort to “extreme struggles” until they come to a satisfactory settlement.
Gangnam is now to face a grave test with its Guryong Village project. It is about the authorities’ determination to carry out what they believe is in the best interest of the community and their ability to achieve it through the exercise of legal power as well as reasonable dialogue with those concerned.
Libya bombing
NATO’s bombing of Tripoli on Saturday, which reportedly killed Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s son and three grandchildren definitely went beyond the U.N. Security Council mandate. However the alliance may try to stretch the mission given under UNSC resolution 1973 on Libya, which was to establish a no-fly zone over the country to protect civilians from military attacks, NATO commanders cannot justify the airstrikes on the homes of Gadhafi’s relatives.
If Western powers want regime change in Libya through the ouster of Gadhafi, they could stage an incursion into the territory as they did in Iraq in 2003. But the apparent assassination attempt on the dictator by airstrikes, in the fashion of the U.S. bombing on Gadhafi’s residential compound in 1986, cannot win international support.
NATO denied its fighters targeted any individuals. Its spokespeople claimed that all targets it chose were military and linked to Gadhafi’s systematic attacks on civilians. Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who commands NATO’s operation in Libya, said the strike was part of NATO’s strategy to disrupt and destroy the command and control of Gadhafi’s forces.
News dispatches from Tripoli indicated that NATO warplanes have shifted their focus from direct support for rebel forces on the front lines to attacking the regime’s communications centers. Destroyed in Saturday’s airstrikes was Gadhafi’s family compound in a residential section of Tripoli, where reporters who were given a guided tour saw no trace of military activities.
Seif al-Arab Gadhafi, 29, the second youngest of Gadhafi’s eight children who had survived the 1986 U.S. bombing, was among the dead, according to Libyan officials who said he had no political or military position and had studied economics in Germany. The ages of Gadhafi’s three grandchildren who were reportedly killed in the airstrikes were not known. Neither were their occupations.
Washington made no comment on the results of Saturday’s bombing but condemned Libyan protesters’ attacks on Western embassies on Sunday. The State Department spokesman referred to the Vienna Convention on the protection of diplomatic missions. The burning and ransacking of British, Italian and U.S. Embassies in Tripoli by angry mobs fortunately left no casualties.
There is a stalemate in the Libyan uprising and the NATO airstrikes in Tripoli risking the loss of civilian lives suggest desperation on the part of alliance commanders. Yet, it is bad tactics if they seek Gadhafi’s capitulation with threats on the lives of his relatives and himself.
If Western powers want regime change in Libya through the ouster of Gadhafi, they could stage an incursion into the territory as they did in Iraq in 2003. But the apparent assassination attempt on the dictator by airstrikes, in the fashion of the U.S. bombing on Gadhafi’s residential compound in 1986, cannot win international support.
NATO denied its fighters targeted any individuals. Its spokespeople claimed that all targets it chose were military and linked to Gadhafi’s systematic attacks on civilians. Canadian Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, who commands NATO’s operation in Libya, said the strike was part of NATO’s strategy to disrupt and destroy the command and control of Gadhafi’s forces.
News dispatches from Tripoli indicated that NATO warplanes have shifted their focus from direct support for rebel forces on the front lines to attacking the regime’s communications centers. Destroyed in Saturday’s airstrikes was Gadhafi’s family compound in a residential section of Tripoli, where reporters who were given a guided tour saw no trace of military activities.
Seif al-Arab Gadhafi, 29, the second youngest of Gadhafi’s eight children who had survived the 1986 U.S. bombing, was among the dead, according to Libyan officials who said he had no political or military position and had studied economics in Germany. The ages of Gadhafi’s three grandchildren who were reportedly killed in the airstrikes were not known. Neither were their occupations.
Washington made no comment on the results of Saturday’s bombing but condemned Libyan protesters’ attacks on Western embassies on Sunday. The State Department spokesman referred to the Vienna Convention on the protection of diplomatic missions. The burning and ransacking of British, Italian and U.S. Embassies in Tripoli by angry mobs fortunately left no casualties.
There is a stalemate in the Libyan uprising and the NATO airstrikes in Tripoli risking the loss of civilian lives suggest desperation on the part of alliance commanders. Yet, it is bad tactics if they seek Gadhafi’s capitulation with threats on the lives of his relatives and himself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment