위안부 할머니 41명, 외교부장관 상대 헌법소원 제기 | 다음뉴스

위안부 할머니 41명, 외교부장관 상대 헌법소원 제기 | 다음뉴스

한일 위안부 문제 합의

위안부 할머니 41명, 외교부장관 상대 헌법소원 제기

민변 "한일 합의내용에 심각한 문제"한국일보 | 강철원 | 입력 2016.03.27. 17:41

카카오스토리트위터페이스북

툴바 메뉴

• 폰트변경하기
• 폰트 크게하기
• 폰트 작게하기
• 메일로 보내기
• 인쇄하기
• 스크랩하기
• 고객센터 이동

위안부 피해자 41명이 지난해 한국과 일본 정부의 ‘위안부 합의’로 기본권을 침해 당했다며 헌법소원을 냈다.

민주사회를 위한 변호사모임(민변)은 위안부 피해자 할머니 29명과 유족 및 생존 피해자 가족 12명을 대리해 헌법재판소에 헌법소원 청구서를 접수했다고 27일 밝혔다.

민변은 한일 외교장관이 발표한 합의내용에 심각한 문제가 있다고 주장했다. 민변은 청구서를 통해 “일본 정부는 중대한 인권침해에 대해 법적 책임을 져야 하지만, 합의에서는 도의적 책임을 인정하는 데 그쳤다”며 “또 위안부 징집과 성폭력은 일본 정부의 국가범죄이고 불법행위이므로 일본 정부가 책임을 져야 하는데도 합의 발표에서는 군의 문제로 축소해 책임을 극도로 희석시켰다”고 비판했다. 민변은 정부의 이 같은 합의로 위안부 피해자들의 헌법상 기본권이 침해됐다고 비판했다.

지난해 12월29일 위안부 피해자 할머니들이 정부의 일본군 위안부 협상 타결 내용을 설명하기 위해 나눔의 집을 방문한 조태열 외교부 2차관에게 항의하고 있다. 서재훈기자 spring@hankookilbo.com

절차상 문제점도 지적했다. 민변은 “일본 위안부 문제에 대해 최종적이고 불가역적인 해결을 확인하는 협상을 타결하면서 피해자 당사자들과 가족들의 의사를 묻지 않아 헌법상 보장된 절차적 참여권과 알 권리를 침해했다”며 “한일외교장관합의는 피해자들의 기본권을 침해한 ‘정치적 타협’에 불과하다”고 했다.

정부는 지난해 12월 28일 일본 정부가 위안부 문제에 대한 책임을 인정하고 위안부 피해자를 위해 설립하는 재단에 10억 엔을 내놓는 대신 이 문제를 최종적이고 불가역적으로 마무리 짓는 데에 합의했다. 하지만 일본 정부는 이후 박근혜 대통령과의 전화회담에서 “일본군 위안부 문제가 1965년 청구권 협정으로 최종적이고 완전하게 해결됐다는 일본 정부 입장에는 변함이 없다”며 “또 위안부를 강제로 연행한 증거가 없고 위안부는 조작된 것”이라고 주장하는 등 합의 전 입장을 고수하고 있다.

앞서 헌법재판소는 2011년 8월 위안부 피해자 64명이 “정부가 한일청구권 협정과 관련한 외교적 보호권을 행사하지 않아 헌법상 인간의 존엄과 가치를 침해 당했다”며 낸 헌법소원에서 재판관 6(위헌) 대 3(각하)의 의견으로 “국가가 청구권 협정 절차에 따라 위안부 문제를 해결하지 않은 것은 위헌”이라고 결정했었다.

박지연기자jyp@hankookilbo.com

Revised outline for Presentation at Peace Forum

Educating for Peace on the Korean Peninsula
http://www.afsc.org/document/educating-peace-korean-peninsula

Wuna Reilly
American Friends Service Committee (AFSC)
Dalian, China



Presented at the Conference:
“The Tasks of Peace Education in Asia and the Role of Religions”
November 9-10
Seoul, Korea


For most scholars, non-government organizations (NGOs), and educators, “peace education” generally refers to providing education about peace—teaching, writing, and talking about various aspects of promoting, achieving, and maintaining peace. In my presentation today, I would like to talk instead about “educating for peace.” By educating for peace, I refer to the use of diverse educational programs in order to advance the cause of peace. I believe that education can be one of the most powerful ways to promote peace on the Korean peninsula and in Northeast Asia. In particular, educational programs can be very effective in building ties of cooperation across dangerous divisions and in reaching out to North Korea. I believe that educational programs have perhaps the greatest potential to bring about the kinds of mutual understanding, personal friendship, cooperation, and confidence at the personal, institutional, and national levels which are necessary for the transition to a more peaceful and prosperous region.

I should first define what I mean here by education. I am referring to all types of education and training, including capacity-building projects, exposure study tours, educational exchanges, as well as more traditional classroom education and professional training programs. Educational programs which are done with the goal of helping other people, without personal benefit, are uniquely suited to building interpersonal trust and mutual assistance. Education can strengthen mutual understanding and bolster the confidence and capacity of all participants. As anyone who has ever been a teacher understands, in any good educational setting, the teachers learn as much as the students, if not more. Such education which is given without prejudice, with respect and with sincerity, can be transformative for everyone involved. Education, if we understand it broadly enough, can be a powerful force for peace. But it is necessary that we design and implement educational programs with a clear sense of what are the obstacles to peace in this particular situation, and an understanding of how an educational program will help contribute to transforming the situation into a more peaceful one.

My presentation will proceed in three parts. First, I will define the current political situation in relations with North Korea, focusing on the roles and involvement of the major political actors in the region, including the United States. Laying out this groundwork is essential for understanding how education can play a role in this particular situation. Then, I will talk about the potential for educational and training programs to address some of these divisions and problems, focusing particularly on engagement with North Korea. I will give some examples of the kinds of programs that I believe to be particularly important, and talk about the obstacles and potentials that these programs may face in the future. Finally, I will explain how this approach of “educating for peace” can help to broaden and deepen our understanding of peace education.

I. Situational Analysis

To reach peace in Northeast Asia is a long and difficult journey. The memories of the Japanese invasion and colonial era, the cold war ideological division, and the different social political systems have influenced generations of people in different countries. The polarization along different economic systems among these countries has magnified the fault line. These multi-layered deep conflicts can not be solved in a short time or by one document. Patience and forgiveness is the only way to help us work toward peace.

At the present time, the situation in the region is still extremely tense. The North Korean nuclear test poses powerful challenges on many levels. At the global level, it challenges and could further undermine the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty as well as international norms established to contain and ultimately eliminate the catastrophic dangers posed by nuclear weapons.  At the regional level, the nuclear test exacerbates anxieties among North Korea’s neighbors about their own national security and could in time generate a regional nuclear arms race. The nuclear test also tears open one of Northeast Asia’s deepest wounds - the Korea War.

The Korean War is not over.  Fighting ceased with an armistice, not a peace treaty, and US troops remain in South Korea. For many in the North, the presence of the world’s most powerful military on their southern border is a vivid reminder of their continued vulnerability to powerful external actors.  The fact that the United States forces fought under the United Nations flag in Korea undermines North Korean trust of the UN even today. The US invasion of Iraq has further eroded North Korea’s confidence in relying upon the international system to ensure its national security.

The nuclear test signals, in part, a declaration by the government of North Korea to their own citizens that, with or without foreign assistance or cooperation, they will defend themselves. The world should not underestimate or ignore this sentiment, just as we cannot pursue policies of non-proliferation without considering the security environment which leads states to pursue nuclear weapons capabilities. The security concerns of North Korea must be taken seriously. Isolating or ignoring North Korea is not only unrealistic; it is dangerous.

After the second nuclear test, the Unite Nation member states have increased sanctions towards DPR Korea. As a result, the situation around the Korean Peninsular has been getting more complicated. Political changes and tensions within key countries which relate to the DPRK have greatly increased uncertainty over the future direction of the Korean Peninsula.  While the new Obama administration in the United States has not yet clearly laid out its policy toward Northeast Asia, South Korea’s president has turned his more hard-line DPRK policy into a domestic political struggle with groups who are less critical of the North.  Adding even more uncertainty to the situation is the concern over Kim Jong Il’s health, the transition to the next generation of DPRK leadership, and questions about DPRK domestic stability.

Since President Lee Myong Pak took office early last year, the denouncing of the Sunshine policy developed by former President Kim Dae-jung has turned into a total reversal of the ROK’s policy toward DPRK over the past decade. All major intergovernmental projects between the North and South have either totally stopped or been severely damaged. To echo the ROK’s denunciation of the Sunshine policy and the related joint declarations, DPRK has announced its intent to abolish all agreements with the ROK, including the peninsular peace treaty. The results of this hard landing in response to the ROK’s policy change were not expected by either the ROK or the DPRK. They seem to have both miscalculated the other’s response, due perhaps to a failure to acknowledge the hard realities of each other’s domestic environment.   For the DPRK, it has lost millions of dollars of income generated by inter-Korean cooperation.  For the ROK, it has lost immeasurable value in its soft power gained by Kim Dae-jung’s Sunshine Policy.

In February 2009, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton visited three Northeast Asia countries: Japan, South Korea and China. Clinton’s visit has shown that the Obama administration has chosen a practical and limited approach toward Northeast Asia and the DPRK issue. For the Obama administration, the first and most important issue is the financial crisis and global economic recession. The second set of issues is related to the Iraq war and Middle East issues including Iran.  Within Northeast Asia, the North Korea issue is not very closely linked to the US’s domestic economic concerns, and therefore has not been particularly high on the foreign policy agenda.

From the perspective of costs and benefits, this approach to the DPRK is a logical choice for the Obama administration. Fully ‘solving’ the Korea Peninsular issue is an ambitious goal which would require that the DPRK to give up all nuclear weapons and sign a peace treaty with the US.  This would ultimately mean that the US has to restructure its entire Asia-Pacific security structure, including the alliances and military bases in Japan and South Korea. At this stage, given the US’s current political and economic priorities, it is not possible for the new administration to take on such a shift.  The new administration’s approach may disappoint the wish of some in the DPRK to resolve the nuclear issue and advance diplomatic relations as soon as possible both for domestic political reasons and financial reasons.  However, the DPRK may have very little leverage on the negotiations with the US since the pros of solving the issue do not exceed the cons, at least in the US’s point of view. If the DPRK misunderstands the viewpoint of the US government, it may take other extreme steps to attract attention, as it has in the past.

Finally, this year marks 60 years of Sino-DPRK diplomatic relations. Premier Wen Jiabao’s trip to Pyongyang to commemorate the ‘year of friendship’ reiterated the alliance ties, and also may have provided some stimulus to re-start diplomatic talks in the region. Kim Jong Il’s trip to the airport to receive Wen was a clear signal of the importance that relations with China hold for the DPRK. Even though these high level exchanges did signal some warmth in Sino-DPRK friendship, they did not change the fundamental nature of the Sino-DPRK relationship.

In sum, regardless of the conflict at the moment, without bring a society to a sustainable economic level, all conflict will continue to worsen. On both the economic and diplomatic fronts, the DPRK still faces many obstacles. It lacks the political and economic structures to effectively deal with the outside world, and lacks personnel to carry out long-term, extensive exchanges.  Officials persistently underestimate the time and changes needed to fulfil their own domestic needs, much less to address the necessary changes in the international political environment.  The political and economic situations are closely related: both demonstrate the scarcity of human expertise to devise and carry out successful policies of economic reforms and political engagement. After half a century of a command economy, knowledge of how to conduct profit-oriented business and administer a modern market economy is extremely scarce within the DPRK.  North Korean institutions pursuing important reform initiatives lack access to information, international resources, networks, and innovative concepts. Without any comparative context, it is difficult for North Korean officials and experts to evaluate their own economic situation or develop new strategies.  Developing such “human capital” is essential for sustainable, equitable economic development in North Korea and for moving toward a more peaceful Northeast Asia region.  

II. Role of ‘Educating for Peace’ with North Korea

In this difficult environment, educational programs can help to build the human capacity necessary within North Korea to support sustainable engagement with the outside world and to support its domestic economic change and development. I will just list a few of such typical programs:

1. Long-term educational programs

Projects which bring North Korean experts and students out to China and other neighboring countries for extended study programs can provide a number of important benefits for peace. First, they give an opportunity for individual exchanges and first-hand experience of life in a very different society. Building such ties of personal trust and familiarity with the outside world will be critical in fostering the level of confidence that is necessary for the DPRK to make successful transitions to a more open economy and society. Second, such programs can work with a younger generation of DPRK experts and students—ideally people in the 20s and early 30s. This provides an invaluable opportunity to influence their life-views for decades to come. Sociologists have found that formative experiences in these younger years have a profound impact upon people’s life choices and values for the rest of their life. Finally, such programs build institutional ties between North Korean institutions and their partner institutions in the region. This provides a long-term foundation for further engagement and cooperation as the political environment improves.

2. Short-term study tours

For higher-level DPRK officials, it is more valuable to have brief study tours to neighboring countries in Asia. These programs can provide an invaluable ‘eyeopening’ opportunity for influential individuals to learn about institutions, policies, and experiences in critical areas of economic development for other similar countries.
Learning from others’ experiences provides a valuable comparative context for DPRK officials and experts who will have to develop their own, unique path forward, based on their specific context, strengths, and limitations. These study tours and other exposure programs can have more direct or immediate impact, as influential officials have the resources and opportunity to direct resources and make policy decisions within the DPRK.

3. Workshops and Conferences

Multilateral gatherings which bring together experts, officials, and other organizational representatives can provide an important opportunity for people to build ties of personal trust, to exchange information and experiences, and to plan joint programs together. Such workshops with the DPRK are generally most productive if they are conducted in a quiet, ‘off-the-record’ format, and are oriented toward the discussion of practical issues. They work best if they are oriented toward a collective program or issue, rather than everyone focusing on North Korea or prescribing a certain solution for the DPRK. If it is a truly equal and open gathering, with everyone moving together toward a common goal which has clear and obvious benefits for the participants, then such workshops can be a productive venue for collaboration, trustbuilding, and future cooperation.

In sum, all of these programs are examples of how “educating for peace” can play an important role in promoting peace on the Korean peninsula. There are several common factors which must be remembered, however. First, all such programs should be practical, oriented toward delivering real, specific benefits for the DPRK. Rather than talking about abstract ideas or vague concepts, it is better to have a focused, technically-oriented program which meets the real and pressing needs of DPRK participants today. Secondly, the programs should always be sensitive to the very real and pressing limitations imposed on DPRK participants by their domestic environment. An unrealistic expectation of what DPRK participants might be able to say or do once they leave the country temporarily can damage long-term cooperation and harm fragile trust. A sophisticated understanding of the complex realities of North Korean politics, society, and economy is essential. Finally, as all good educational programs, these should never been seen as ‘preaching’ or prescribing a given answer or approach. Only educational programs which are truly designed and implemented with an approach of sincere respect and equality can be effective contributors to peace.

III. Conclusion

In conclusion, I would like to suggest that we should broaden our understanding from “peace education” to “education for peace.” I believe that we should broaden our understandings in several ways. First, we should adopt a broader definition of what we consider as education, to include a wide variety of exposure visits, study tours, short-term training programs. Second, we should broaden the focus and content of these programs. Paradoxically, simply talking about “peace” will not bring peace. Instead, we need to recognize in each particular situation, what are the obstacles to peace and how can we use a diverse range of educational programs in order to advance toward a real and sustainable peace. Finally, we should expand beyond the traditional focus just on youth in doing education for peace. We are never too old to learn. The definition of what we teach, who we teach, and how and where we teach should be driving our activities in the area of education for peace. Only then will we bring the full power and potential of education to our work for peace, in Korea and around the world.

Quakers in the World - Quakers in Korea

Quakers in the World - Quakers in Korea

Quakers in Korea

The Quaker presence in Korea dates from the end of the Korean War (1950-53).  In the aftermath of the war, The Friends Service Unit (FSU) – a joint arm of the British Friends Service Council and the American Friends Service Committee – provided humanitarian and medical aid to refugees and others affected by the war.

From their base in Kunsan, the FSU initially tackled problems of severe malnutrition.  Later Houses for Korea was set up by AFSC’s Floyd Schmoe, providing refugees with the materials and training to construct their own houses.  Schools were started in the camps, with Korean teachers paid for by the FSU.  Adult literacy classes were started for war widows, and games of volleyball and basketball were organised.

The FSU was heavily involved with training local Korean doctors and nurses.  They set up a physiotherapy unit to help war amputees, and ante-natal and midwifery service and both out-patient and in-patient services for sick children.

When the FSU was wound up, at the end of 1957, local Koreans who had been working with the Quakers wanted to continue their connection with Quakerism.  With the help of American Quaker families living in Seoul (in particular, Reginald Price and Arthur Mitchell), a group began to meet regularly for silent, unprogrammed worship, and for study and discussion.

The first Quaker text to be translated into Korean was Rufus Jones' Quaker's Faith  in 1960.  It watranslated by Yoon Gu Lee and printed for distribution among members.

Seoul meeting was eventually recognized as a monthly meeting in 1964 under the care of the Friends World Committee for Consultation (FWCC), and in 1967 moved into its own Meeting House.  As one member of the meeting was blind, the meeting became involved in the welfare of the blind. Some members gathered periodically to transcribe religious articles into Braille and a work camp was organized to repair a road near one of the homes for the blind.

One Korean who had first encountered Quakers through their work in Kunsan was the human rights activist, Ham Sok Hon. Ham was impressed by the Quakers’ pacifism, egalitarianism and their active participation in questions of social justice.  Ham started to attend Seoul Quaker meeting and became a member of the Society of Friends in 1967, after attending the Friends World Conference in North Carolina.

“You were already a Quaker before you became one,” an American Friend, Arthur Mitchell, told him.

Ham spoke out against dictatorship and injustice in South Korea.  He carried out a hunger strike in 1965, was imprisoned in 1976 and 1979, and was placed under house arrest in 1980.  South Korea finally achieved full democracy in 1987. The following year, when the Seoul Olympics were held, Ham was selected to be the head of the Peace Olympiad, which drew up a declaration calling for world peace.

Under Ham’s leadership, and with the support of Mary and Lloyd Bailey, who stayed in Korea during 1983/4 under the auspices of the Friend in the Orient Committee of Pacific Yearly Meeting and continued to correspond with the meeting for many years after, Seoul Meeting flourished.  Although membership declined after Ham’s death in 1989, it has revived again since 1998.

Conscientious objection has been a key issue for Quakers in South Korea.  In a country still technically at war with North Korea, compulsory military service is considered essential and for many years COs had no option but to serve or to go prison.  QUNO (Quaker United Nations Office) and FWCC were among those who campaigned for some form of alternative service to be offered, and this was finally implemented in 2007.

The American Friends Service Committee has maintained a presence in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea).  They currently run an agriculture programme, helping farmers introduce techniques of rice cultivation adapted to the short growing season in DPRK.

AFSC continues to campaign against North Korean nuclear tests, while warning that isolating or ignoring North Korea is not only unrealistic but dangerous.

Print this article

Further Reading and Credits

EXTERNAL LINKS

• Friends in Korea
• Papers of C Lloyd and Mary Margaret Bailey
• AFSC in North Korea

History of Korean Quakers

jboard

1. History of Korean Quakers

By Bo-Kyom Jin

After the Korean War, some British and American Quakers came to Korea for rehabilitation programs. After the overseas workers had left Korea, some of the Korean assistants of the programs held the first Quaker Meeting in 1958 and some American Friends who worked at the international Cooperation Administration in Seoul supported them. Meeting began with silent worship for thirty minutes, and about an hour was given for study and fellowship.

FWCC encouraged Seoul Friends to build relationship with Japan Yearly Meeting or with Honolulu MM and two of the Koreans became Quakers whose membership belonged to Honolulu Meeting in 1958. Historically, Japan and Korea have had a difficult relationship since Korea was colonized and devastated by Japan. So it was difficult for us to intervisit for some time. The same year, AFSC energetically tried to bring some Koreans to the seminars and work camps in Japan and Korean Friends began to participate in the program. As the result of their visits, correspondence with Japanese Friends began taking place. In 1961, FWCC began sponsoring some
visitors and Friends in residence in Korea and Seoul Friends
requested a direct and official relationship with FWCC. The Meeting then had about thirty regular attenders and study programs were actively carried out and FWCC helped strengthen its links with overseas Friends.

In 1964, with the help of overseas Friends, a meeting place for the Seoul Friends was purchased after having had to change places of worship ten times in 6 years.“Seoul Friends Meeting Monthly Newsletter” was published in 1966. The Meeting decided to take up the leper village in Tandong as its main service project. The visiting Friends from Japan, USA, Australia and England, have strengthened us very much.
Every Sunday, Bible study was led by Sok Hon Ham, who was a
widely recognized spiritual leader in Korea. In 1967, Seoul Meeting became a Monthly Meeting under the care of the FWCC. The visit of the Chairperson of FWCC, Douglas Steere and his wife Dorothy in 1967 and his public lecture at the YMCA with about one hundred people in the audience meant a great deal in Quaker outreach. At the same year, Sok Hon Ham left Korea for the USA to attend the Greensboro Gathering and the tenth triennial meeting of FWCC.
After the meeting, he attended the Pacific Yearly Meeting, studied at Pendle Hill and visited many Friends Meetings and Friends in the United States and Japan. International Quaker contacts such as work camps, travel and study abroad(at Pendle Hill or at Woodbrooke in England), participation in Quaker conferences, an inter-visitation program with Japanese Quakers, and numerous visiting friends contributed greatly to nurturing Korean Friends during the 1970s and 1980s and are still an enriching experience to us.

In 1980, SMM was active having a study group, outreach activities and raised a voice of conscience under the dictatorship of military government. Under the leadership of Sok Hon Ham, Seoul MM flourished with members and attenders at its height numbering close to fifty. In 1988, a second floor was added to the meetinghouse to meet the demand of the growing memberships. In 1990s, Seoul MM
went through a dark period after the demise of Sok Hon Ham.
Fortunately, since 2000, Seoul MM has revived some of its vitality.

2. State of the Meeting
Over the past year our number of members has decreased from 20 to 10. Some of the attenders are Americans who are married to Koreans In the past few years, a worshipping group began to meet regularly and more than 10 F/friends continues to gather every week in Daejon (a city 2 hours far from Seoul) They have established a vibrant, worshipping and studying community. We used to have a retreat annually but there were no retreats in 2007/8 because of the absence of initiatives or the decrease of members. Vocal ministries are rare in Seoul MM and sometimes I feel eager for vocal ministries in my Meeting. In addition, the financial situation of SMM has gotten worse mainly as monthly donations decreased.

Since 2007, AVP programs have been introduced by a Korean Friend (Jonghee Lee) and co-facilitated by her and German Friends (including Ute Caspers). Most of the participants were NGO activists. A Direct Education workshop facilitated by George Leakey from the USA was also held in Seoul last year.
We are planning a Korea version of Faith and Practice. I know you have made your own Faith and Practice and hope that Australian Friends will give some useful advice to us.

Last year we had quarterly gatherings named Family gatherings. The intention is for us to invite our family members who are not Quakers and sing together and share food and fellowship.

We have an annual gathering (business meeting and fellowship)

3. Committee activities

We have Peace Service committee, Learning committee, Outreach committee, library and website committee, Facilities care committee, Finance committee. Our committees are not fully functioning partly due to shortage of manpower but we are thankful that we could maintain this Meeting and carried out some service activities.
From the beginning of the Korean Quaker history, service work was emphasized. As a first step, medicines were supplied to two Tuberculosis patients beginning in 1961 for two years. Work camps for orphans and the blind, In 1964, a house for leper patients was built. Emergency food was supplied in 1960s. In 2003, the Meeting participated in an anti Iraq War demonstration and actively raised funds to help anti Iraq War activists’ organizations. The meeting now supports Foreign Migrant Workers Center , Ssi-Al Women’s Center, and the Anti-Mine Association. Since the Korean War, landmines that were buried during the war have become a threat to civilians but those victims haven’t been cared enough by Korean government.
Our program consists of Business Meeting every 1st Sunday; George Fox Journal reading 2nd Sunday; Pendle Hill pamphlet discussion group every 3rd Sunday; Bible reading group every 4th Sunday.

4. Children in the Meeting

Child care issues emerged again during the 2008 annual meeting. At present, a few children attend the Meeting irregularly and SMM is going to assign F/fs to take care of them during the worship in case children come.

5. International Contacts

Sister Meetings : Canberra/Australia, Kapiti/ New Zealand, JYM
Hosted 2005 AWPS Section Gathering. Korean Friends have
attended international Friends gatherings including Bhopal, India gathering and Auckland and Dublin Triennials.

Epilogue :In December 2008, Seoul Friends had their annual meeting to review the past year and to think about and plan 2009. We are thankful that we could maintain this tiny meeting and that our worshiping group is getting more active.

퀘이커 서울모임 자유게시판

jboard

전체 858개 - 현재 1/58 쪽

	858	함석헌 선생 탄신 115주년 기념강연회에 초대합니다	권술용		2016-03-14	16
	857	1,000명 모이는 교회, 다음 주 문 닫는 사연	권술용		2016-03-14	19
	856	펌) 어느 퀘이커교도의 '신성한 실험' 월리암 펜	권술용		2016-03-14	15
	855	[보도자료]	와단		2016-03-07	26
	854	연락처 문의 ... [1]	박성실		2016-01-21	89
	853	안녕하세요 ... [2]	시민K		2016-01-02	163
	852	퀘이커 모임은 언제 어디서 하나요? ...[7]	Joshua Lee		2015-12-16	286
	851	Anyone looking for a teaching job?	Little Hands		2015-11-11	132
	850	2015 평화세미나	서울모임		2015-10-16	184
	849	[김조년의 맑고 낮은 목소리]칠흑같은 밤에 빛나는 별빛처럼 ... [1]	권술용		2015-08-12	217
	848	8월9일(일요일) 영퀘이커 수련회및 서울모임 야외예배 안내...	한 결		2015-07-29	230
	847	Clearness Committee	정승구		2015-07-02	167
	846	Clearness Committee	와단		2015-07-03	169
	845	6월20일 평화세미나 연기합니다...	한 결		2015-06-18	164
	844	팟캐스트 투돼지쇼 "종교친우회"편	한 결		2015-06-18	330

It Begins | commentary

It Begins | commentary

Obama and the Quakers’ North Korea Problem

MICHAEL RUBIN / FEB. 18, 2011

1

shares

In 1947, the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) and the Friends Service Committee — non-governmental organizations belonging to the Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers — shared the Nobel Peace Prize. Presenting the award, Gunnar Jahn, chairman of the Nobel Committee, described the AFSC’s actions both during and after World War II. Seldom had the need for the Quakers’ relief operations been so great as during World War II. The Nazis, however, refused to allow the Quakers to operate in territory they controlled. The Third Reich was willing to make one exception, however. The Quakers could work in Poland, so long as they limited their assistance to those approved by the Germans. The AFSC refused to accept such restrictions. As the Allies beat back the Germans, the AFSC was ready, however, to assist “the prisoners who were released from concentration camps in 1945, all those who had to be repatriated from forced labor or POW camps in enemy countries, all the displaced persons who have no country to which they can return, all the homeless in their own countries, all the orphans, the hungry, the starving.”

Fast-forward to the present day. The AFSC operates a project in North Korea to help make collective farms more efficient. “In 1997, AFSC was one of the first two NGOs allowed to work directly with cooperative farms in the DPRK,” they explain, adding, “AFSC now works with four cooperative farms and with technical institutions to address production and soil fertility issues. AFSC country program also works with regional institutions and experts on training and exchange projects with DPRK.”

How times and values have changed. While the Quakers refused to compromise with the Nazis, they have no such qualms about Kim Jong-il’s conditionality. They ignore the fact that North Korea’s collective farms are slave-labor camps. Nor does the AFSC seek neutrality or to assist the true victims of the North’s reign of terror. For example, the AFSC does not help North Korean defectors who often arrive in the South traumatized and destitute.

The American Friends Service Committee reports that it teaches Human Rights Education at Sidwell Friends, where the Obamas send their daughters. Certainly, ideology played a role in their selection of Sidwell. “The choice makes sense at a philosophical level as well, because of how Quakers view the challenge of shaping children into socially responsible and spiritually aware adults,” Time explained.

Given the AFSC’s relationship with Sidwell, perhaps President Obama might ask the school and the AFSC to explain why enabling brutal dictatorships is consistent with the AFSC’s understanding of human rights, unless, of course, Obama also suffers from such moral blindness.

Quaker-Stories - Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia Inc.

Quaker-Stories - Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia Inc.

QUAKER STORIES

The aim of the Quaker Stories series is to describe how individual Australian Quakers are applying their Quaker beliefs in their lives.

	''I thought that we were pretty good with regards to plastic: we use reusable shopping bags; buy our fruit & veg loose; and much of our food is from bulk food shops where we use glass and reusable plastic containers. Giving up plastic for the month of January 2013 was an exercise in plastic awareness. It was a bit expensive and it was more time consuming; however, it opened our eyes to the large amount of plastic we acquire on a weekly basis. Our plastic consumption for the month was greatly reduced." Susan Hill   Read full story here.
	'When people hear about the problems with the environment, they often start to feel hopeless: powerless, overwhelmed, that the problem is too big, there are too many issues, how will their children cope, and where would they start. I suggest we start where we are at, and when we get stuck, use strategies to get unstuck: silence, going inward, dealing with our feelings. Sharing our feelings with another person can be very helpful to free us up again; sharing our emotions with a group is even more powerful.' Margaret Emily Whittle   Read full story here.
	‘What contribution can Quakers uniquely and powerfully make in regards to Earthcare?' Friends’ experience of consensus decision making is a way of doing things—not just the practicalities of making decisions but a frame of mind towards individuals in a community and the whole way a community moves forward on all manner of issues—that isn’t widely practiced or understood in mainstream Australian society. Peggy Storch   Read full story here.
	'I had a boss who used to refer to me as the "last of the amateur naturalists". In fact, "amateur naturalists" were the start of a whole new breed of people interested in the environment as a whole, rather than different aspects of it ... I've been very fortunate. People are prepared to pay me for what I'm interested in doing--providing environmental services.' Peri Coleman   Read full story here.
	'The initial concept of Sustainable Communities South Australia was that people would work together in community groups to reduce their ecological footprint. We worked on the basis that if people are going to make changes in behaviour, they need a support group. We focused on five areas: energy, food, transport, waste and water. Food often comes up first. Even when you do your ecological footprint, food is the biggest component. In the beginning, we decided to start with individual household behaviour change.' Beth and Ray Mylius   Read full story here.
	'I am a founding member of the Devonport Worshipping Group and this commitment is important in building a personal base from which to work towards peace and sustainability ... But the main way I work to support a peaceful and sustainable Australia is in my home. We have a big garden and we grow most of our own vegetables and fruit ...' Sally O'Wheel   Read full story here.

Quakers & First Nations Peoples - Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia Inc.

Quakers & First Nations Peoples - Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia Inc.

Quakers & First Nations Peoples

First Nations Peoples Concerns Committee Ways forward for Quakers and other concerned Australians to support First Nations Peoples Preamble This we can say: Millennia before Britain occupied Australia there were many complex indigenous relationships to country, which included the entire continent and its surrounding seas. First Nations Peoples (FNP) were unlawfully and immorally deprived of their lands and liberties through force of arms, by the application of legal fictions such as terra nullius and the ignoring of specific articles from the British Crown for the protection of FNP rights. The ongoing trauma felt by FNP as a result of past and continuing policies and attitudes of Australian governments and many non-FNP Australians, will be felt for generations to come. It will take time, love and support for the healing of all. Reconciliation between FNP and non- FNP can only happen when we engage in compassionate listening, acknowledge past wrongs, and work together to create a process where the need for self-determination is acknowledged and respected. The basic building block of a reconciliation process is created when trust, respect and deep relationships are undertaken by people engaging with each other, and learning from each other at all levels. We believe that the process to achieve national reconciliation, freely agreed between FNP and non-FNP, should be supported by Quakers. This may include but not be limited to appropriate amendments to the constitution; and treaties, agreements and reparation documents at both national and regional levels. Quakers will seek to create opportunities for FNP and non-FNP Australians to come together to develop a process of reconciliation and will bear witness to ensure fairness and equality for FNP if they choose to follow this course. Role of Quakers in support of First Nations Peoples Involvement in the reconciliation process. What actions? Acknowledge our advantage and our responsibility to educate ourselves with regards to history, culture, and spirituality Individually and collectively reflect on right relationships with FNP Make contact at a local level Identify and offer tools, for example, AVP and other modes of non-violence training, governance, mediation and negotiation skills; and provide facilitation if and when requested. We ask Regional Meetings to report to AYM about their work with FNP, reflecting on these questions adapted from Reconciliation Australia: What might I do differently and what might Quakers do differently to build better relationships with the First Nations Peoples of Australia? What might I do differently and what might Quakers do differently to have and show respect for the First Nations Peoples of Australia? What might I do differently and what might Quakers do differently to bear witness to the ongoing conditions of First Nations Peoples’ health, education, land rights and other areas related to self-determination? Access full paper here [Adopted by Australian Quakers at Yearly Meeting 2015] 'Coming Right Way' Coming Right Way: 'doing justly, loving mercy and walking humbly' in Australia by the late Susannah Brindle was published in 2002 as part of the Emu Feathers Series by the Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) in Australia. Susannah writes: 'Anyone, anywhere can "Come Right Way". If "Reconciliation" is about coming into right relationship with Aboriginal Peoples, "Coming Right Way" is an important pre-condition of this process.' Access the full paper here. Friends and Indigenous Peoples A testimony to social justice and racial equality has been part of the Quaker witness to the world since the inception of our Religious Society of Friends in Britain in the 17th century ... In 1691 William Penn signed a treaty of friendship with the Delaware tribes of American Indians, arranging for fair payments for lands taken…John Woolman, in 1756 persuaded Quakers in Philadelphia to pay for land stolen from the Indians by others. In the 19th century, two British Friends, James Backhouse and George Washington Walker (pictured right) travelled through the Australian colonies and were forthright in their statements to influential figures in Australia and Britain concerning the cruelty and injustice meted to the Australian Aborigines, especially urging payment for land taken from them. (From paragraph 5.22 of this we can say; Australian Quaker life, faith and thought, 2003.) contact us