Tam Nguyen – 12276989

May 20, 2018

ANTHRO 41A – Course Paper
TA: Jennifer Zelnick

Korea’s Peace. A Future or a Dream?

The 2018 Inter-Korean Summit was an event where the leaders from both North Korea

(Kim Jong-un) and South Korea (Moon Jae-in) met at the Inter-Korean Peace House on April

27th, 2018 (11 years after the second one) to discuss and perform actions that involved the future

relationship of Korea’s two halves. Some activities included the signing of the Panmunjom

Declaration of Peace between the two halves (denuclearization) as well as the participation in a

symbolic tree-planting ceremony that corresponds to a peaceful resolution with the Korean War.

Based on extensive research on newspaper articles from different countries, there is no doubt that

this event was a positive move. Whether the peace between the two halves of Korea is achieved

or not, the idea that the two came together to try and establish some kind of peace is a

noteworthy event. However, based on the country, some newspaper articles praise the event

more than others, whereas some countries show more skepticism. This paper will explore the

different attitudes of these countries and analyze how they are similar, different, and the impact

they have on their readers.

The first country’s newspaper article that will be discussed will be China’s. The article

comes from the China Daily written by Pan Mengqi and Zhou Jin and they start off the article

the same way all the articles will, by describing the event. Afterwards, they move onto details

about how China approves of this moment in history between the two Koreas. “Beijing

applauded the historical step taken by the leaders of Seoul and Pyongyang and said it appreciated
their political decision and courage” (Jin and Mengqi, 2018). Throughout the rest of the article,

the authors talked about how Korea’s event serves as a crucial example for other countries to

follow, and that the Inter-Korean Summit was an important move to promote peace in the

peninsula. According to the authors, “China has advocated the resumption of talks and a ‘dual-

track’ approach – advancing denuclearization and simultaneously establishing a peace regime”

(Jin and Mengqi, 2018). There were no criticisms or negative responses to the event. Only the

positives of the event and how China should follow Korea’s footsteps.

The next country whose newspaper article describing the event will be Japan, a

neighboring country of Korea’s like China. However, the article’s atmosphere is a little different

than China’s. Yes, the article explains the event in the same way China did (in an informative

manner), but instead of praising the event the article goes ahead and includes more on what the

local people of Japan thought about the event. The article specifically included opinions from

people of the Shin-Okubo district, a district that had mainly South Korean culture. Although a

couple locals were glad and hopeful about seeing the two Korean leaders joining hands, most of

the locals were rather skeptical and not so hopeful, as if they did not expect this “peace” to be

truly achieved. As one of the many skeptical locals of Shin-Okubo district said, “it’d be great if

the relationship improved, but I don’t think it will anytime soon” (Japan News, 2018). Therefore,

according to Japan News, most of the locals of Japan (or at least those that were described in the

article) believe that though it is a good first step for Korea as a whole, it will need many more

steps before Japan’s “sense of distrust has been expelled” due to past relations between North

Korea and Japan.

The third article comes from Thailand, specifically the Nation, and has a similar response

to the Inter-Korean Summit as Japan did. The tone of the article is distinguished right away as
the reader reads the first line from the article, “the Inter-Korean Summit had all the right

symbolism, but it is too early to celebrate” (Nation, 2018). This opening statement was enough

for the reader to determine that the writers (and those with similar attitudes towards the event)

for the Nation did not expect significant results from the summit. If anything, Thailand’s

newspaper article may be the most realistic out of all the other countries, even if a little

pessimistic. The article reminds the reader to look back in history, that it is never this easy to put

all the danger away and come to a peaceful conclusion, especially between the two Koreas which

have been in conflict for years. Based on the Nation’s article, “These are empty words unless

backed up by concrete steps. The bottom line is what are the concessions the two sides are

willing to make.” The article finishes up by talking about the results of the previous Inter-Korean

Summit in 2000 and how this one may not conclude as peacefully as the two sides want it.

Afterwards, it concludes by wondering if North and South Korea are really willing to make

sacrifices to achieve this peaceful idea they had in mind.

The last newspaper article that we will be visiting is from the Associated Press News

Service from the United States. This article, unlike the rest, is rather descriptive about the

information that the reader is reading, using big vocabulary and lengthy sentences to describe the

situation. For instance, when describing the summit, authors Foster Klug and Kim Tong-Hyung

said, “The summit produced the spectacle of two men from nations with a deep and bitter history

of acrimony grinning from ear to ear… marks a surreal, whiplash swing in relations for the

countries…” (Klug and Tong-Hyung, 2018). However, regarding its attitude towards the Inter-

Korean Summit, it was rather neutral. It spoke from a perspective that was informative about

both the good things and the bad things about the event. The article explained the positives, like

how this summit “allowed the leaders to step forward toward the possibility of a cooperative
future even as they acknowledged a fraught past…”, also explained the not so positives,

critiquing the summit by reporting that “skeptics have long said that the North often turns to

interminable rounds of diplomacy… giving it time to perfect its weapons and win aid for

unfulfilled nuclear promises.” Out of all the newspaper articles, this one remains the most neutral

and does not portray a preferred attitude from the writers towards the Inter-Korean summit.

Though these newspaper articles are about the same event, some countries use different

techniques and patterns to portray the information to their readers. The first article from China

for instance uses a lot of praising vocabulary like “applauded”, “encouraging”, “true peace”, etc.

to make the reader think how amazing the event was. It was an important event, but the authors

of the article boasted a lot more about how beneficial and influential the summit was to persuade

the reader to think the same.

On the other hand, the articles from Japan and Thailand were quite the opposite of China.

Japan’s article started off neutral, casually explaining the event. However, it then turned its focus

on inputting sayings and inputs from local people in the area. The article reported how people

felt about the summit and by doing this, it establishes a more personal connection to the reader. It

is something a person, just like everyone else, said and not a report or information a writer is

laying out for the reader. As an example, the writer for Japan’s newspaper article included the

words of “a 28-year-old from Uji, Kyoto Prefecture” that said, “A state prior to division is how

my homeland really is… I want North Korea to show its determination for denuclearization at

this meeting” (Japan News, 2018). It is a pattern used throughout the article to get on a more

personal and emotional level with the reader which could affect the reader the way the writer

hopes to. As for the article from Thailand, their technique was mainly just critiquing the Inter-

Korean Summit. It was by far the article most opposite in attitude of China’s. The writer of this
article wanted to make sure that the reader looks at the event more realistically and with a more

open mind rather than think because of this one peace meeting, there will be a happy ending.

However, the writer did not want to make the article sound like he or she is simply hating on the

event. They acknowledged the importance of this meeting between the two leaders, stating that it

“qualifies as a new era of peace” (The Nation, 2018). But once the acknowledgements and basic

information was out of the way, the writer begins throwing information to the reader to make

sure that hopes and expectations are not too high, that they are viewing this historical moment

through clear eyes and understanding what may and may not happen. The technique that this

writer used throughout the article was bringing up information about the previous Inter-Korean

Summit and how unsuccessful the plans were compared to what was expected or desired. A case

where this technique was used was in the article when the writer pointed out that “we saw the

same optimistic news coverage in 2000 for the summit… which had many parallels with what

one saw on Friday in Panmunjom” (The Nation, 2018). Though not as optimistic and joyful as

the other articles, it provides the most information not only about the necessities for the Inter-

Korean Summit to be successful, but also the past experiences and how to learn from them so

that better results are obtained. Both Japan and Thailand have attitudes opposite of China’s

regarding the Inter-Korean Summit, but it was done through different techniques and patterns in

the articles.

Sometimes remaining neutral and not choosing a side is also fine because then the author

would sound less biased and not leaning towards a side. That is how the article from the United

States is. It kept a neutral tone throughout the article at the same time still talking about both the

good and bad of the Inter-Korean Summit. The way Klug and Tong-Hyung wrote their article

using this technique does not sway the reader to love or hate the event, just neutral and informed.
How they described the event as “what happened Friday, [April 27th], should be seen in the

context of the last year… but also in light of the long, destructive history of the Koreas, who

fought one of the 20th century’s bloodiest conflicts and even today occupy a divided peninsula

that’s still technically in a state of war” (Klug and Tong-Hyung, 2018). Their writing uses

techniques where their statements have both perspectives (good and bad) so that it balances it out

and does not look like they are favoring an attitude or feeling towards the event. Like previously

mentioned, this allows the reader to see the summit from multiple perspectives rather than just

one. That way they can also see the event in a neutral stance and if they do they pick a side, at

least they are knowledgeable about the other side as well.

It is very fascinating to see how different countries portray information about the same

exact event. After witnessing this difference among the countries and reading all the

corresponding articles, a better sense of why or how these articles are written these ways is

gained. First, an article could be written based on its geography and relation to the country where

the event is happening. Countries that had past relations with the country in action may produce

articles that are more in favor or against depending on the relation of the 2 countries. Like how

Japan feels hopeful about the Inter-Korean Summit because perhaps the resulted peace could

lead to the release of Japanese captives held in North Korea. However, if a country wants people

to be more concerned about the situation, perhaps the article will point out more bad things about

the event or more things that are required to have good results. In this case, the article from

Thailand would be like this where a lot of critiquing was done, and a lot of skepticism shown to

the reader. Whether Thailand and Korea have good or bad relations, the idea that certain

techniques are employed for different purposes is present. However, writers should also be wary

about coming off as biased to their readers when using techniques that would only inform the
reader about one aspect of an event or persuade them, even when it is not intentional. In the end,

there are many factors that affect how an article is written in each country and because of these

factors, both the reader and other countries could be influenced in different ways as well.

Although the topic of this paper involves the 3rd Inter-Korean Summit, what is learnt

from the process used in this course paper can be applied to almost any topic. By going through

this process of researching and analyzing, one gets an idea that not all news reports about a

single topic are the same throughout the world. That no single article is an absolute report on an

event; there are multiple perspectives. And based on how the newspaper organizations use their

influential power and go about writing their articles, the reader could be influenced accordingly.

This could be good and bad, so it is the organization and author’s responsibility to use their

power responsibly, appropriately, and ethically. The news media is a powerful source for

information and it will always be around to inform and influence those that rely on it.
 Bibliography

“After the talks, time for some action” The Nation (Thailand), April 29th, 2018.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/16B94775319F2FA0?p=AWNB.

Klug, Foster. 2018. “North Korea remains silent on historic inter-Korean summit.” Associated

Press News Service, April 28th, 2018.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/16B8FB33A855F168?p=AWNB.

“Koreans in Japan mixed over summit…” Japan News (Tokyo, Japan), April 28th, 2018.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/16B8DB75CFEFDD50?p=AWNB.

Mengqi, Pan. 2018. "Kim-Moon meeting boosts hope for peace." China

Daily (Beijing, China), April 28th, 2018.

http://infoweb.newsbank.com/resources/doc/nb/news/16B9170A62E34E10?p=AWNB.