An Update to the Cheonan Saga

It seems everything that I was advocating has happened and I'm delighted.

South Korean President Lee Myung Bak internationalized the issue to the point, where North Korea is now talking to the UN -- rather than South Korea -- about the Cheonan incident, a token UN resolution has been passed (more token it could not be), and it appears U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton is again headed over to Seoul -- this time before heading to the ASEAN gathering.

This was almost exactly what I had been advocating since the beginning of the Cheonan incident. With a token slap of sanctions against North Korea, an opportunistic United States can take advantage of this situation -- I personally see a strong US-ROK alliance to be in the long term best interests of South Korea -- to strengthen US-ROK ties (again, here, there is the recent announcement by U.S. President Barak Obama in Toronto to look into the stalled KORUS FTA -- the only substantive policy change I had hoped this Cheonan incident would help foster -- and to agree to extend the deadline of wartime leadership of South Korean forces to South Korea to until 2015), use this incident by South Korean President Lee Myung Bak to marginalize Chinese regional leadership in front of at least the eyes of South Koreans, and, of course, to not really take any real punitive measures against North Korea -- which, hopefully, will crumble on her own accord shortly.

Pretty much, thanks to a foolish North Korean excursion and Chinese indecisiveness, the United States position has strengthened considerably in the region with no cost to the United States whatsoever. There is even continued talk of a U.S. aircraft carrier heading to the Yellow Sea, which while I have stated to be quite amusing, I find to be an amazing event in and of itself and shows exactly to what extent South Korea's internationalizing of the issue has brought about. China wants six party talks again...

This should put China on notice: it seems incredibly ironic that rather than China unleashing North Korea on South Korea/U.S., this incident has been more of the United States unleashing South Korea against North Korea. (Consider the rare nervous press release given by the North Korean military).

So, what now?

The narrative of the Cheonan is not quite yet over. Now, I think we wait until the U.S.S. George Washington arrives in the Yellow Sea/East Sea (of China) and read Chinese state run editorials stammering away helplessly -- while understanding that they must be privately fuming at North Korea. We watch to see what will come of the KORUS FTA and, of course, the joint press release that will be given when the U.S. Secretary of State pays a visit to one of the United States allies in the region.

And, of course, we should give credit where credit is due -- to South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and U.S. President Barak Obama for capitalizing perfectly on very poor decisions on the part of North Korea and the lack of any decision on the part of China. It seems China is quick to ask the rest of the world to recognize the changing economic balance of power in Asia, but China is even slower to to recognize the tectonic shift in not only the military and economic, but political balance of power on the Korean Peninsula.

Note: On a side note, is anybody else following how amazing the South Korean economy seems to performing? It appears the highly export dependent economy has grown over 7% in the first half of this year -- which makes it look as if South Korean President has fulfilled his election campaign promises (kind of).

Disclaimer: I write this posting comfortably thousands of miles away from the DMZ or the Korean Peninsula in California.

[A Rising South Korea] The Cheonan Saga Continues...

I've been following this Cheonan story for quite some time now and I wrote about how funny I thought it would be that a U.S. aircraft carrier would be going to the Yellow Sea. Well, the story seems to be quite true and just keeps getting more and more interesting.

Christopher Bodeen of the AP:

"The U.S. is directly threatening China by sailing an aircraft carrier into the Yellow Sea," wrote defense blogger Brother Guangdong on the Western Military Affairs site. "China must respond firmly and show the American imperialists we won't be pushed around."

I think this Chinese Blogger is a bit confused. China should respond firmly and show the Americans by taming North Korea rather than attempting to slug it out with a giant nuclear powered U.S. aircraft carrier, a nuclear submarine, and destroyer off the Chinese coast. But, there's more...

China's Foreign Ministry this week registered its concerns that the drills could prompt further rash behavior from North Korea's isolated and erratic communist regime.

North Korea will -- as a direct result -- of the U.S. naval deployment be essentially tamed by Communist China for the forseeable future. This is not because North Korea is scared of a U.S. military attack, but because North Koreans do not want to further upset the -- already furious -- Chinese by attracting another aircraft carrier to the coast of China. Beijing is a lot closer from North Korean than Taiwan -- just consider the Korean War. So, this essentially negates the arguments of blind Chinese nationalists as well as the South Korean left.

By the way, why is it that those on the South Korean left label themselves as "progressive." It is a ridiculously Korean English term, not unlike, say, "Netizens" which really hasn't caught on in the rest of the world. It would be best to label South Korean liberals as well liberals -- though the term Socialists is a good fit for those on the left in the South Korean political spectrum. Progressive in a way implies that, well, those that are not progressive thinkers haven't learned something yet.  It seems so condescending to those that might disagree with these "progressive" thinkers. To me though, the word, progressive reminds me of an insurance company or Teddy Roosevelt a century ago.  

Anyways, back to how the Chinese are directy anger at U.S. "imperialists..."

People's Daily Online (yes, this is the newspaper -- 人民日報社 that reported that a non-existant South Korean professor was going to register Chinese script as a Korean cultural treasure):

No one would allow its competitor with guns in hand to wander in front of their home or keep a close watch staring through their windows, and the American would not too.

[...]

The United States should make people feel that the U.S. military presence in this region is peaceful and necessary, not vice versa.

I'm pretty sure that it was Chinese inaction that led to this military exercise and I'm quite sure the South Korean and Japanese governments feel a lot more comfortable that there is a friend that can stand up to China.

Furthermore, the United States needs to take into account these countries' moods if it wants to become a peacemaker, not a troublemaker. Otherwise, the United States will have difficulties in staying in the region for a long time and its interests here will be difficult to effectively protect.

China never considers the United States an enemy, but the United States should show necessary respect to China. The provocative military drill will only lead to the accumulation of resentment against the United States in the hearts of Chinese people and the United States will inevitably be regarded as a threat.

Again, China seems to only respect force or strength. If South Korea had nuclear weapons and a dozen aircraft carriers, then I'm sure the Chinese would've respected the lives of the South Korean sailors.

Anyways, not too long ago, the rest of the world believed China had some leverage over North Korea and could control the "isolated" and "erratic" regime. Specially appointed diplomats from the United States, South Korea, and Japan among other nations would even go to Beijing and play along in this facade by paying tribute -- attending the Six Party Talks. In exchange, it was believed that China would and could control North Korea -- or if the United States was upsetting the Chinese -- unleash North Korea on South Korea. But, this is no longer the case...

The Cheonan incident -- along with a very nicely played hand by both South Korean President Lee Myung Bak and U.S. President Barak Obama, has single-handledly demonstrated how incapable the Chinese were of controlling North Korea. The incident as mentioned in earlier postings has strengthened the U.S-South Korea alliance, US-Japan alliance, and encouraged better bilateral ties between Japan and South Korea. Furthermore and perhaps most importantly, it has shown the world how little leverage Communist China has over a country that she is basically keeping on life support -- not to mention how much resentment this must breed amongst North Koreans.

Moreover, the United States has also -- finally -- agreed to extend the handover of wartime control to South Korea from 2012 to 2015. (This was first negotiated out of a misguided belief on the part of the late South Korean President Roh Moo Hyun, who believed South Korea might be able to become a regional power or -- the more nonsensical idea of a playing a "balancing" role in Northeast Asia --  before unification had even taken place.) Of course, what Roh Moo Hyun did not understand is that the "balancing" role is precisely what the United States is doing right now by sending none other than a U.S.S. George Washington to waters off the coast of China. The United States is sending China a crystal clear message to China that this is what exactly could occur if the Chinese are incapable of controlling North Korea. And, thanks to North Korea, there seems there will once again be fireworks on July 4th -- no longer North Korean missiles as twice before -- but a nice exercise by the Chinese navy.

(Plus, of course, it's also a nice way to send back a reply to the Chinese military snubbing Secretary of Defense Robert Gates when about a two hundred strong U.S. delegation visited China.)

Nonetheless, I find the ongoing Cheonan saga quite comical as it's gone from an incident that wasn't first highly publicized to one that has led to a U.S. aircraft carrier that will soon kiss the coasts of China in an exercise that is -- of course -- aimed at North Korea, and, which if you really think about, it really is.

[North Korea] Perhaps Financial Sanctions on North Korea Might Not Be Such A Good Idea Right Now...

Apparently, the United States, according to Josh Stanton, is once again considering imposing financial sanctions on North Korea, which is arguably the most potent weapon that the United States has against North Korea. But, while I thought these sanctions to be a good idea under the Bush administration, I think the situation in North Korea has changed sufficiently enough that it might as well be a good time to consider holding off on such sanctions and instead just deflect the issue (North Korea) to China -- by sending a 97,000 ton U.S. aircraft carrier to the Yellow Sea. I had earlier commented this would probably be one funny development and which The Washington Post reports might actually turn out to be a reality shortly. 

Anyways, North Korea is once again experiencing widespread food shortages again and Kim Jong Il is preoccupied with concerns of succession and domestic stability. Moreover, consider that the country has ditched any pretense of being a Communist country, by making changes in the regime's constitution, and, much more recently, has fully and formally absolved any rules that make market activity illegal in an effort to stave off starvation. So, clearly the country is bankrupt both ideologically and materially. Why press for further substantive sanctions now?

And, while it might seem at times that I am all for unification at all costs, I think the U.S. has more pressing issues at the moment, which unfortunately look far more important than Korean unification -- which itself the South Korean people are not yet ready for. For example, Iran's nuclear weapons program, finding a global consensus on ways to amend the world's financial system, and the on-going war in Afghanistan -- which the South Korean government refuses to aid on a substantive basis not unlike South Korea's "heroic" troop deployment to the peaceful Kurdish regions in Iraq -- seem far more important. I would also add a flexible Chinese currency regime in here as well, which China seems to have budged on even with the crisis in Europe. Probably the best course of action that's in the best interests of the United States would be to once again overlook the transgressions of the worst regime in the history of the world. Of course, it looks like this is actually in the best interests of the five remaining parties not inclusive of North Koreans, of course.

I mean is it not China's duty at the moment to ensure that North Korea does not torpedo another South Korean boat? So, along with token sanctions that have been extended for another year very recently by the U.S., a 97,000 ton aircraft carrier in the Yellow Sea will send a crystal clear message to China about what is exactly at stake when China is unable to actually rein in North Korea. Simply, North Korea doesn't want war and I don't think the country will be stupid enough to incite another incident out of fear for China's wrath when China is fuming at the country that there is a giant aircraft carrier parked near China's capital and less so out of a North Korean belief  that the U.S. will actually bomb or invade North Korea. So, for the time being, as it is increasingly clear that North Korea is both a financially and ideologically bankrupt regime, it would be best to deflect the matter to China -- which means maintaining the status quo for the time being and, yes, millions of Koreans suffering and starving -- while the rest of the world waits to see how the succession issue plays out.

Of course, if people were willing to die for starving North Koreans -- as well as a united Korean peninsula, then it would be an entirely different situation as it would present additional options. However, this is just not the case and unlike the past two decades it looks like the DPRK might soon implode on its own accord.

[World Cup & North Korea] Schizophrenic South Korea & ESPN

I'm upset and it's not because it looks as if I'm set to lose $5 and it's also not because Brazil beat North Korea or even how offensive ESPN commentators were towards North Koreans or Koreans in general. I was waiting for some mainstream U.S. publications to pick up on this rather than it coming from me. Here's Michael Boyajian at Huffington Post:

ESPN made fun of North Korea's leader, the team's coach, their fans, the names of their players and their overall performance in a very unsporting manner. Such a diatribe would not be tolerated in American sports whether it was baseball, football, hockey or yes soccer. In fact in my entire lifetime I have never seen such reactionary conduct while watching a sporting event even during the Olympics at the height of the Cold War.

I'm very upset at the response of South Koreans.

Now, with that said, it's hard not to laugh along with some of the cheap shots aimed at the North Koreans'. For example, EPSN was mocking the "invisible telephone line" that North Korea's coach claimed he had with Kim Jong Il or the alleged Chinese fans, who were being paid to root for North Korea, were pretty funny. Or, the references to North Korean players being showed a mobile phone or a refrigerator for the first time.

But, some of the other comments, such as making fun of the North Korean players' names were, well, decidedly not so funny. Also, I couldn't help but look at how old all the North Korean players all looked. It seemed as if the North Korean government interreputed some Korean ajeoshi's (middle-aged men) game of Baduk ("Go") and dropped them off next to arguably the most stylish, popular, and talented soccer team (Brazil) in the world. The contrast could not be more striking. Nonetheless, the North Koreans even qualifying and coming to the World Cup in and of itself is a solid achievement. Consider that neither of the two Chinas (China or Taiwan) or ethnic Chinese states (such as Singapore) were able to qualify for the World Cup.

As an American with no emotional attachment to the Korea, it'd be easy to overlook all this, but for South Koreans, who were in a similar situation not too long ago, their profound silence on the matter is deeply disturbing and baffling. In particular, it reminds me of the sham Sunshine Policy with its direct policy of engaging North Korea by providing them with the least amount of material aid necessary to keep the North Korean regime intact as South Korea can grow ever richer while some how trying to block out that they have an enormous amount of baggage attached to them -- the 23 or 24 million Koreans that live between the DMZ and China.

All the while, while this game was being broadcast, it was hard not to overlook the halftime report sponsored by Hyundai, the Kia signs -- a Hyundai subsidiary -- all over the soccer stadium, and commercials of new phones and flat screen televisions by Samsung. Now, what amazes me is that I can understand how ESPN commentators would mock North Koreans, but what I can't understand is how South Koreans are able to sit by and abide all this.

It was not too long ago that ESPN commentators would probably have been doing the exact same thing with respect to a South Korean team, such as mocking the names of Korean players or the ESPN commentator even making the comment "there are just too many Koreans [for the Brazilians to score]..." Not even with a decade ago, David Letterman was still making references to cheap South Korean cars -- I believe this was in 2002 and Hyundai even offered him a Tiburon to test drive -- for his comments on the Late Show.

On a side note: I thought it to be a mighty statement of how far South Korea has come in their struggle for legitimacy against North Korea when South Korea has monopolized the three letters, "KOR" as an abbreviation for South Korea or "Korea Republic."

Also, what I found to be amazing was the comment by ESPN commentators about thanking those of watching the Armed Forces Network for American soldiers stationed overseas in "175 countries and territories..."

[Correction] Rebuking Barbara Demick's Deliberately Dishonest Los Angeles Times Editorial *edit1*

edit: 06/15/2010, 8:32am
I earlier offered a scathing rebuke of Barbara Demick's piece in the Los Angeles Times, "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" as both an exercise to show first how often articles -- particularly editorials -- on North Korea are usually just gibberish and, then, to show how useful blogs can be in picking apart these editorials. I picked that editorial in particular as, well, the author is an award winning author of two books and as she is the Beijing Bureau Chief of the Los Angeles Times.

When I first read that article, it appeared as it was just gibberish. But, upon re-reading the article, it appears she's just slamming the policies of the South Korean right very deliberately. So, whereas I earlier wrote:

While I have nothing against the book -- which I have yet to read and of which I have heard nothing but praise, the author here makes a sweeping and rather incorrect generalization that either borders on naivete or very lazy and perhaps even dishonest journalism. I'd like to believe it's out of naivete.


Upon re-reading the editorial, the article definitely has not only a dangerously dishonest, but a very deliberate twist to it. Anyways, it's these lines made me feel this way:

In an assessment released last week based on intelligence reports, the Washington-based International Strategic Studies Assn. concluded, "Kim Jong Il was so far winning the Cheonan incident he had instigated."

The big loser has been South Korea's conservative ruling party, which was trounced in local elections Thursday. The Grand National Party had hoped that outrage over the Cheonan would boost its popularity; instead the electorate appeared to be more concerned that President Lee Myung-bak was exploiting the incident with his hard-line stand toward North Korea. Results of an investigation of the sinking were not released until May 20, two weeks before the election.

Kang Won-taek, a professor of political science at Soongsil University, said people "thought the government was going back to the old days of using fear for authoritarianism and not democracy."

That's just the standard platform of the South Korean left. I was at first a bit misled by the title. Anyways, it's an even more dangerous editorial after re-reading it and with her credentials:

The editorial suggests that average North Koreans are hurting --  the title of the editorial is "Sinking of ship provides welcome distraction for North Korea" and that Kim Jong Il is winning. What makes this article more dangerous after re-reading it is that she won an award for writing a book as an investigative reporter on the human rights situation in North Korea -- after writing a book about the human rights situation in the Balkans. So, in effect, she is in effect implying that the current right of center ruling party in South Korea is responsible for the suffering of average North Koreans, allowing the North Korean leadership to take advantage of the situation, and sacrificing South Korea's best interests (as Kim Jong Il is "winning"). And, moreover, the South Korean government is doing all this to further their own political interests, which is pretty much an outright lie if you consider what is going on in South Korea...

Anyways, here's the link to the updated post.

Also, South Korea's ruling GNP right of center political party suffered losses in many parts of the country in largely mayoral races -- not inclusive of Seoul I believe, but why on earth is there an article like this in the Los Angeles Times? I mean, if it were it in Hankyoreh-rubbish I would understand, but it's pretty clear that South Korea -- by internationalizing the issue -- singlehandley strengthened the US-South Korea Alliance, US-Japan Alliance, and Japan-South Korea ties. Furthermore, China has become enraged at North Korea and Kim Jong Il "winning" would mean a successful succession which I doubt that this incident has furthered. I'm not sure if the author is deliberately doing this, but it looks pretty damn deliberate and while she may be an investigative reportor of human rights situations in the more exotic places in the world, I wonder why she would deliberately dive into South Korean politics and what the regular Los Angeles Times reader would pick up froom this article...

[Japan] A Japanese Model with a PhD in History Offers Sex as Compensation for Japanese Wartime Atrocities

This has got to be one of the strangest stories I've ever heard -- even of those that relate to Japan. Apparently, a female Japanese model with a doctorate in history is offering sex as compensation to Chinese students at her school for historical atrocities committed by Japan against China:

ROK Drop:

Talk about a way to recruit foreign students to your school. I wonder if anyone has inquired on whether the bombing of Pearl Harbor counts for Americans to get this benefit?

Actually, I think if this were the case, then we would probably lose a substantial portion of the U.S. female population. I think Japan got the raw end of World War II. I mean they were basically beaten down in every possible way -- oh yeah and nuked as well. But, I do believe in the post-war period the U.S. has done more than enough -- such as sacrifice entire industries to the Japanese -- to make up for what happened in World War II.

[World Cup & South Korea] Commentary on Korean Surnames & Jerseys & Phonetically sounding out Chinese names in Korean *update1*

Edit: For clarity and readability, 9:54 am, 06/13

Aside from the usage of Korea Republic instead of South Korea [and that of Korea being double represented], what I find to be the next funniest thing about the World Cup are the names listed on Korean soccer jerseys -- the conspicuous absence of surnames on jerseys.  This is the 23-man South Korean soccer team in 2010 World Cup in South Africa :

1 LEE Woon Jae 26/04/1973 GK Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 182

2 OH Beom Seok 29/07/1984 DF Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 181

3 KIM Hyung Il 27/04/1984 DF Pohang Steelers (KOR) 187

4 CHO Yong Hyung 03/11/1983 DF Jeju Utd. (KOR) 182

5 KIM Nam Il 14/03/1977 MF Tom Tomsk (RUS) 180

6 KIM Bo Kyung 06/10/1989 MF Oita Trinita (JPN) 178

7 PARK Ji Sung 25/02/1981 MF Manchester Utd. (ENG) 178

8 KIM Jung Woo 09/05/1982 MF Gwangju Sangmu (KOR) 183

9 AHN Jung Hwan 27/01/1976 FW Dalian Shide (CHN) 177

10 PARK Chu Young 10/07/1985 FW Monaco (FRA) 183

11 LEE Seung Yeoul 06/03/1989 FW FC Seoul (KOR) 183

12 LEE Young Pyo 23/04/1977 DF Al Hilal (KSA) 177

13 KIM Jae Sung 03/10/1983 MF Pohang Steelers (KOR) 180

14 LEE Jung Soo 08/01/1980 DF Kashima Antlers (JPN) 185

15 KIM Dong Jin 29/01/1982 DF Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 184

16 KI Sung Yueng 24/01/1989 MF Celtic (SCO) 187

17 LEE Chung Yong 02/07/1988 MF Bolton Wanderers (ENG) 180

18 JUNG Sung Ryong 04/01/1985 GK Seongnam Ilhwa Chunma (KOR) 190

19 YEOM Ki Hun 30/03/1983 MF Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 182

20 LEE Dong Gook 29/04/1979 FW Jeonbuk Motors (KOR) 187

21 KIM Young Kwang 28/06/1983 GK Ulsan Hyundai (KOR) 184

22 CHA Du Ri 25/07/1980 DF SC Freiburg (GER) 181

23 KANG Min Soo 14/02/1986 DF Suwon Bluewings (KOR) 186

Nine of the 23 players have the surname Kim and two of arguably the three most popular South Korean soccer players have the same surname -- Park. Almost as if to avoid the occurance of "Kim passes to Kim" or "Lee to Park to Park to Lee, now, again, to Park ...", South Korea has only listed given names on the jerseys. It's particularly funny when you think about the fact that in Korean, names are read surname first. Also, just for added emphasis to show how important surnames are in Korea, Korean surnames are traditionally for life as when a Korean woman gets married she keeps her surname.

I wonder how hard it must be for non-Korean speaking sports announcers to memorize South Korean players' names. Anyways, Wikipedia has a nice table (and listed below) on the most common surnames in South Korea. Apparently, Chang (Or, Jang as it is now apparently romanized) was the tenth most common surname in South Korea back in 2000 (2.05%). Of course, it gets a little more complicated than that as what may appear to be the same surname may just be a homonym with the same spelling in Korean and English. The surname I carry -- Chang/Jang, 장 (張) is a homonym -- in both Korean and English -- with a different Chang/Jang 장 (長). Of course, even among surnames with the same spelling (same Chinese character) it can also mean that they are actually two different names(for example, Kim/김/金). 

Funny thing is this should just reinforce the notion of how important it should be to teach Sino-Korean characters in primary school and, also, goes to show, how South Koreans are keen about the way the rest of the world perceives the country.

On a side note, I find it absolutely ridiculous that South Koreans pronounce Chinese names and cities phonetically rather than spelling out the Korean character that corresponds with these characters. It's like having a loanword for centuries and while the loanword is still in use, such as say, Caesar, and then to suddenly change the spelling to "Kaiser" as, well, in Latin it was supposedly pronounced as "Kaiser." Or, going out of your way many hundreds of years after "Veni, Vidi, Vici" was taken as loan word(s) and deciding, well, we should now spell it "Wheni, Widi, Wiki." I know these are not the best examples as, well, English uses the Roman script; hopefully, however, this conveys the gist of it.

Of course, as Chinese is a tonal language, whereas Korean is not, I'm not sure how many of these homonyms with the same spelling in Korean are also homonyms in Chinese languages, but, of course, the Chinese script is not alphabetic. Anyways, it seems to be a rather transparent attempt for South Koreans to minimize the historical influence that China has had.

But, here's the list of the most common surnames in South Korea out of a population of about 45 million in 2000.

Source: Wikipedia

Hangul Hanja Revised McCune-Reischauer Popular spellings 2000 South Korean population *

김 金 Gim Kim Kim, Kym 18,925,949

이 (S)/리 (N) 5 李, 伊, 異 I (S) Ri (N) 5 Yi (S) Ri (N) 5 Lee, Yi, Rhee, Ree, Rey, Rhie 6,796,227

박 朴 Bak Pak Park, Pak, Bark, Pack 3,895,121 
정 丁, 程, 鄭 Jeong Chŏng Chung, Jung, Joung, Chong, Cheong, Choung 2,230,611

최 崔 Choe Ch'oe Choi, Che, Choy, Chey 2,169,704

조 趙, 曺 Jo Cho Cho, Joe, Joh, Jou 1,347,730

강 姜, 剛, 康, 强, 彊 Gang Kang Kang, Kahng, Kwang, Khang 1,169,805

유 (S) 류 (N) 4 柳, 劉, 兪, 庾 Yu (S) Ryu (N) 4 Yu (S) Ryu (N) 4 Yoo, You, Ryu 1,040,984

윤 尹 Yun Yun Yoon, Youn, Yune, Yeun 948,600

장 莊, 章, 張, 蔣 Jang Chang Chang, Jahng, Jhang, Gang, Zhang 943,257

신 申, 辛, 愼 Sin Sin Shin, Shinn, Sheen, Chin, Seen 911,556

임 (S) 림 (N) 6 林, 任 Im (S) Rim (N) 6 Im (S) Rim (N) 6 Lim, Yim, Rim, Leem, Rhim 735,493

한 韓, 漢 Han Han Hahn, Hann 715,556 오 伍, 吳 O O Oh, Oe, Au 706,908

서 西, 徐 Seo Sŏ Suh, Su, Sur, So, Seu 695,249

전 全, 田, 錢 Jeon Chŏn Jun, Chun, Chon, Jeun, Cheon 687,867

권 權 Gwon Kwŏn Kwon, Kweon, Kwun, Gwon, Kwan 652,495

황 黃 Hwang Hwang Whang, Hoang 644,294

송 宋, 松 Song Song Soung, Shong, Sung 639,082

안 安 An An Ahn, Ann, Aan 637,786

홍 洪 Hong Hong Houng, Hyong 518,635

양 (S) 량 (N) 1 梁, 楊, 樑, 襄 Yang (S) Ryang (N) 1 Yang (S) Ryang (N) 1 Ryang, Yaung, Lyang 486,645

고 高 Go Ko Ko, Koh, Goh, Kho, Gho, Kor 435,839

문 門, 文 Mun Mun Moon 426,927

손 孫 Son Son Sohn, Shon, Soon, Soun, Sun 415,182

배 裵 Bae Pae Bai, Bea, Pae, Pai 372,064

백 白 Baek Paek Baik, Back, Paik, Paek, Beak 351,275

허 許 Heo Hŏ Hur, Huh, Her, Hu, Ho 300,448

노 (S) 로 (N) 盧, 魯, 路 No (S) Ro (N) No (S) Ro (N) Noh, Roh, Ro, Rho, Nho 290,434

남 南 Nam Nam Nahm, Nham, Narm 257,178

심 沈 Sim Sim Shim, Seem, Sheem, Shimn, Sihm 252,255

주 周, 朱 Ju Chu Joo, Chu, Choo, Jou, Zoo 215,010

하 河, 夏 Ha Ha Hah, Har 213,758

성 成, 星 Seong Sŏng Sung, Soung, Seung, Song 185,363

차 車 Cha Ch'a Char, Chah, Tchah, Tcha 180,589

우 于, 禹 U U Woo, Wu, Ou, Wo, Uh 180,141

나 (S) 라 (N) 羅 Na (S) Ra (N) Na (S) Ra (N) Ra, Nah, La, Rha, Rah 172,022

진 晉, 眞, 陳, 秦 Jin Chin Chin, Jean, Gin, Zhin, Chen 170,980

민 閔 Min Min Minn, Mihn 159,054

지 智, 池 Ji Chi Jee, Ch, Gi, Chee, Gee 147,572

엄 嚴 Eom Ŏm Um, Eum, Uhm, Aum, Oum, Ohm 132,990

변 卞, 邊 Byeon Pyŏn Byun, Byon, Pyun, Byoun, Pyon 131,554

원 元, 袁, 苑 Won Wŏn Weon, Woon, Wone, Wun, One 120,465

방 方, 房, 邦, 龐 Bang Pang Pang, Bhang, Bahng, Pahng, Phang 119,703

채 采, 菜, 蔡 Chae Ch'ae Chai, Che, Chea 119,251

천 天, 千 Cheon Ch'ŏn Chun, Chon, Chen, Choun 112,227