Women strive to be
included in Korean society
Korea : Battling Discrimination
-Iris Moon, Korea
With a growing tome of achievements being
added to the annals of Korean history, the nation’s women wait for more opportunities
to show that they can make the grade, and improve the nation’s marks in the process.
Among their achievements was this year’s
elementary school teacher’s exams, while the rate of women succeeding on the
government’s civil service examinations steadily rose to reach 70 percent, on the
education and general administration tests take this year.
Yet at a time when Korean women have shown
advancements and proven their abilities, many opportunities in the political, economic and
social spheres remain cordoned off, with some attributing women’s limitations in
these areas to gender discrimination and prejudice, elements that remain in a society that
once lived in the Camelot of the "Asian miracle."
Korean development, but not women’s
development
Although many institutional changes have been
placed into effect to improve women’s rights, Korean’s international standings
represent grave shortcomings regarding its gender equality records.
Many are aware that Korean remains at the
bottom of the United Nation’s 2002 Gender Empowerment Measure (GEM), an index
measuring the level of women’s economic and political empowerment, ranking at 61 out
of a total 66 countries. Moreover, although the governments enacted several
anti-discrimination measures, like the creation of gender quotas, women only represent 4.9
percent of civil servants, ranking Korean at 74 out of 76 countries, according to United
Nations Development Program (UNDP) records on gender distribution in government
administrations from last year.
These discomforting records paradoxically
persist, despite the fact that many economists have stated that the female workforce is an
invaluable aspect of maintaining a competitive edge over other nations and despite
Korea’s social and economic resiliency in overcoming the Asian financial crisis.
Korea is ranked 27th on the United
Nation’s Human Development Report, making it a country with high human development.
Women on average earn 63 percent of what males earn, according to the Korean Women’s
Development Institute (KWDI), and although an improvement from 1980, when female workers
earned 42.9 percent of male cohorts, is still a considerably lover pay than men. Adding to
the significant wage gap, 57 percent of wage disparity was accounted for by gender
discrimination, while education, duration of work and lack of experience accounted for
only 43 percent of the difference. On average, female employment rates have been
increasing, although the number of women working permanent jobs has steadily decreased,
while more women have gained temporary employment.
"In Korea, the percentage of women in
the National assembly is 6 percent, no matter how much these female politicians try to
advocate policies in favor of women’s interests, a severe imbalance in politics
remains," said Kim Dun-kyung, a researcher at KWDI.
Korea’s lack of female policy-makers
make achievements by women from other countries, like Phi9lippines president, Gloria
Macapagal Arroyo, seem light years away. Even in regional neighbors like North Korea,
China, and Mongolia, women enjoy larger political participation than their South Korean
counterparts, with North Korean women making up 20 percent of parliamentary seats and
China’s 650 female members constituting 22 percent of its legislature.
Transformations and transitions of
women’s participation
Amidst these frustrating figures, Korean
women have made increasingly significant contributions to all aspects of society. Female
volunteers comprised 70 percent of the 218 Korean volunteers working abroad, reported the
Korean International Cooperation Agency (KOICA), a local NGO that provides humanitarian
assistance to developing countries..
Historically, women have played a large part
in economic development and industrialization of the country. "Since we had such a
rapid economic growth, women have always been engaged in economic activities," said
anthropology professor, Cho Han Haejoang of Yonsei University.
Following the post-Korean war period, a
massive migration of rural populations into urban areas took place, including scores of
women going in search of jobs. By 1963, 37 percent of the female population aged 15 and
older was actively participating in the economy.
Although women initially received voting
rights in 1948, along with ensuring government reforms in areas such as family planning, a
significant shift in institutional measures to ensure equal rights for both sexes did not
take place until the 1970s and 1980s, when the women’s movement gathered strength
alongside other anti-authoritarian activists such as labor and student protestors.
"There was a gradual change in the
social structure," Lee said. "Our political participation turned into a
movement. There were pressure groups from women’s organizations. We met with
political heads to demand our rights."
Rapid industrialization and modernization was
in part responsible for the burgeoning women’s movement.
Last year, 72 percent of the nation’s
female high school students went on to pursue a higher degree. By 2000, females were
getting an average of 9.8 years of schooling, compared to only 6.6 years in 1980.
Educational institutions that were formerly closed to women began opening their doors,
with the Military and Naval Academies accepting female applicants beginning respectively
in 1998 and 1999.
Ironically, although more female students are
penetrating the nation’s higher educational system, women instructors remain a rarity
in educational institutions, with figures from the Ministry of Education revealing that as
of last year, women account for only 12.9 percent of full professors.
Continuing changes for the future
Korean women are far from succumbing to the
acceptance of a second-class status. Many Korean women still believe that despite vast
developments in women’s roles in society, changes need to be continually implemented
to improve female participation on all levels of society. "Korean society still
perceives women as lower than men. But we shouldn’t accept that as a given
condition," Park said.
Efforts also continue to be made by
women’s groups through mainstream venues to improve female empowerment and political
participation. Proof of women’s continuing efforts was last year’s televised
presidential debate with candidates, held by the Women’s Alliance for the
Presidential Elections, an umbrella women’s group that raised the importance of
discussing women’s issues in national politics, such as institutionalizing childcare,
and establishing female quotas for political offices.
Lee of the KLWV continues to believe that
political awareness is a top priority for increasing women’s political participation.
"Women have to realize and say, ‘I am a citizen of the nation as well,’ and
that we are not only members of our families, but members of the nation," she said.
In recent years, the formations of women-oriented governmental organizations such as the
Ministry of Gender Equality, and the creation this year of a cabinet ministry solely
devoted to women’s affairs have shown the government’s growing awareness of the
need to address women’s issues in a concrete and policy-oriented manner.
Many await the effects of president Roh
Moo-hyun’s major campaign pledge to eradicate discrimination of all kinds, chief
among them gender discrimination, through his administration’s legislative efforts.
Text courtesy: Korea Now March 8,
2003. Embassy of Korea in Kathmandu.
G8 in Evian: a summit
for action and dialogue
G8: a key element of global governance
By Jean Jacques, journalist
Men in high places have an
appointment at Evian. The next summit of heads of state and government of the world’s
eight most industrialised countries (Germany, Canada, United States, France, Italy, Japan,
United Kingdom and Russia) will be held in France on 2 and 3 June 2003, in this famous
little town in the Alps, to discuss questions as fundamental for the future of the planet
as the new partnership with Africa, economic growth, sustainable development, fighting
AIDS, famine and terrorism...
"The town was chosen because it enables
all the delegations to meet in one place, so that participants can meet in an informal and
relaxed way," points out Catherine Colonna, spokesperson of the French presidency.
The choice of Evian, a small Haute-Savoie* town tucked between the mountains and Lake
Geneva, also reflects the desire of the members of the G8 to return to more modest
meetings, with smaller delegations and a more limited agenda. Many heads of state were
pleased about the choice of Kananaskis, a small Canadian Rocky Mountain resort, in 2002,
which enabled them to restore a level of intimacy conducive to reflection and dialogue.
It is also hoped that the Evian summit will
be an extension of the Kananaskis meeting. Already at the heart of the meeting presided
over by Canada, Africa, which has clearly shown its will to take charge of its own destiny
in the last two years, is the priority of the French presidency of the G8.
At the 2002 summit, four African heads of
state (South Africa, Algeria, Nigeria and Senegal) were for the first time invited to an
enlarged G8 meeting, to present their proposal for a New Partnership for Africa’s
Development – Nepad . Rather than depending on the generosity of rich countries, this
new initiative aims to attract private investors to the African continent by improving the
legal framework and ensuring good governance in political and economic matters. A plan of
action on this was adopted at Kananaskis. The Evian summit will be concerned with its
implementation and even intends to go beyond this.
A "discussion and consultation
club"
The G8 will continue to tackle the debt
problem, first of all that of heavily indebted poor countries. Finally, since one of
France’s priorities is to strengthen the G8’s relationship with the rest of the
world, a meeting with several emerging or poor countries will be held for the first time
on the eve of the G8. Enlargement of the summit to include new States such as Brazil,
India or South Korea is not, however, on the agenda.
Set up in 1975 on the initiative of French
President Valéry Giscard d’Estaing and German Chancellor Helmut Schmidt, the G8,
which then had only 6 members, was designed to be an "informal fireside chat".
At the first summit, which took place at Rambouillet, in France, the six heads of state
and governments of the United Kingdom, France, the United States, the Federal Republic of
Germany, Japan and Italy met together in a congenial atmosphere. The same pattern of
meeting was repeated the following year in Puerto Rico, under the presidency of the United
States. A Canadian delegation was then co-opted. In 1977, at the London summit, the
European Commission became a permanent member of the G7, but without host country status.
The USSR, then Russia, began discussions with the group in 1991, before full inclusion at
the Denver summit in 1997.
The creation of this group occurred in a
particular international context – the break-up of the international monetary system
in 1973, followed by the first oil crisis of 1973/1974. These two major events seriously
weakened the international economy. The G8 was founded as the result of the major
powers’ desire to control the development of the world economy in the face of
monetary instability and the rising power of the Organization of Petroleum Producing and
Exporting Countries (OPEC). Finally, its differences of opinion with the USSR gave it a
common ideological foundation: the G7 was regarded as a liberal, democratic and western
bloc.
Year on year, from an informal gathering, the
G8 has become an essential forum for the management of international issues. Unlike the
International Monetary Fund (IMF) or the World Trade Organisation (WTO), the G8 is neither
an institution nor an international organisation, it has no legal status and no
administration of its own – not even headed notepaper. Its decisions do not have the
force of law. It makes no claim to compete with international institutions or sovereign
states, or to stand in their stead. What it can do is provide impetus and consultation,
and it aims to avert political and economic disagreements between its members, which would
be prejudicial not only to the G8 but also to the rest of the world.
The summits are held successively in the
member countries every spring or summer, in an established order: France, the United
States, the United Kingdom, Germany, Japan, Italy and Canada. In 2006, Russia will host
its first G8 and will therefore take its place between the United Kingdom and Germany. The
state holding the presidency proposes the agenda, the venue for the summit and preparatory
meetings, which are staggered throughout the year.
Obviously the main industrialised countries
of the planet cannot reach agreement on everything in a few days. Each question,
especially those related to economic matters, is studied at length and in detail prior to
the summit. This is the role of the "sherpas". Like the Nepalese guides, they
prepare the summits and stay in the background behind their heads of state or government.
Who are they? Usually diplomats or
financiers. But they may have a less conventional background. In France, the sherpa is
always someone close to the president. This year, the preparation of the summit fell to
the French President’s diplomatic adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne. He is
supported by two deputy sherpas, one for financial matters, the head of International
Affairs at the Ministry of Finance, Mme Stéphane Pallez, the other for diplomatic
matters, the director of economic and financial affairs at the Ministry of Foreign
Affairs, Alain Le Roy.
What is their role? The sherpas perform a
highly important function. But they have no legal status. They are empowered to coordinate
the work of the different governments in relation to the summit. They meet approximately
five times during the year. The rules of debate are minimal: each of them asks the chair
for the right to speak, but a contribution may be interrupted without risk of diplomatic
consequences. The objective is to end up with an accord expressing the compromise
positions on which the Eight and the European Union are attempting to agree. If they do
not manage to do this before the summit, it is then up to the heads of state or government
to achieve consensus on contentious points. They take decisions during the day and the
sherpas rework them at night.
Increasingly varied areas of involvement
The G8 was originally supposed to concern
itself only with coordinating economic and monetary policies. From purely economic
affairs, the summits have become increasingly political. In 1980, at the Venice summit,
the seven heads of state took a stand against the invasion of Afghanistan by the Soviet
Union. In 1986, they reacted to the nuclear disaster of Chernobyl. In 1989, they denounced
the events in Tiananmen Square in Beijing, China. As the summits continue, the subjects
tackled are increasingly wide-ranging. The communiqués are increasingly long.
Is the G8 nothing more than a jamboree or
does it still serve a purpose? According to John Kirton, director of the research group on
the G8 of the University of Toronto (Canada), these meetings are genuinely useful. He sees
the G8 as "one of the key elements of global governance (...). The decisions that are
taken at it are crucial. Sometimes changes in the conduct of the affairs of the planet
hinge on decisions taken there". The centre, which works exclusively on this subject,
estimates that 45% of the commitments made since the 1999 Cologne summit have been adhered
to.
These meetings of heads of state can indeed
take pride in some notable successes. The programme for the Heavily Indebted Poor
Countries – HIPC initiative –, launched in 1996 during the previous French
presidency (Lyon summit), reduces the debt burden of around forty African and Latin
American countries. At the Genoa summit (Italy), in 2001, the Eight launched the creation
of a Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, with a budget of 1.3 billion
dollars .At Kananaskis, they agreed to devote no less than 20 billion dollars over the
next ten years to reducing the risk of proliferation of weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists. All actions that contribute to setting right the imbalances that threaten our
planet. |
