The attitudes shown by the presidential candidates and their parties in dealing with the expanding anti-American protests are confusing, as the former and latter differ in their responses, and action taken by one candidate was expected from another. Grand national Party leader Suh Chung-won said in comments concerning the demonstrations that he smelled something fishy, and suspected an unseen hand orchestrating events. If this is the GNP policy, how could its candidate Lee Hoi-chang attend a memorial mass the day before? Maybe it can claim the memorial and anti-American sentiment are separate issues, but from the street this looks difficult to tell.

The Millennium Democratic Party is no difference in this regard. On December 6, party staff and the presidential campaign manager visited Prime Minister Kim Seok-soo and urged the revision of the Status of Forces Agreement. They even called the minister of justice, "a spokesman for the US." However, its presidential candidate Roh Moo-hyun refused to sign a petition organized by the 'People's Committee for the Death of Teenage Girls' and avoided demonstrations and rallies.

These things can be taken as campaign strategies, but such two-faced behavior from major parties cannot be called responsible, as the issue is so important. In our society, the concept of Korean-US relations can be used to determine a party's ideological trend and identity, so the issue is a valid one to be taken up for the presidential election. To do this, candidates and parties should reveal a consistent attitude to it and behave accordingly. Only then will the anti-American issue be resolved at a higher level through national consensus. December 11, 2002