In March, two animal rights activist groups, Humane Society International (HSI) and Change for Animals Foundation (CFAF), rescued 57 dogs from a dog meat farm in Korea and sent them to the United States (U.S.). HSI and CFAF claim that it is just part of their actions to ban dog meat consumption around the world. Although the intentions.securing the rights of animals and providing them with adequate welfare.are indeed worth pursuing, it is questionable whether such actions can be justified. Could the action be considered as an intrusion to Korean culture?
Dog eating culture, which can be best represented by dog meat soup in Korea, has constantly been controversial since it gained global attention, when Korea hosted the 1988 Seoul Olympics. Dogs are generally regarded as more than simple livestock, and are even considered as a part of the family or friends in the western countries. It is for this reason that western society views the dog eating culture of Korea as brutal and uncivilized, and there are criticisms regarding the custom and actions to remedy it. However, although such actions are oriented to improve the welfare of animals and protect animal rights, it cannot be denied that the ideas about cultural relativism and the superiority of western culture lie underneath.
A recent dog rescuing action by HSI and CFAF can be interpreted in the same context. The action could be seen as an agreed, democratic one. As a matter of fact, HSI even offered the owner of the dog meat farm compensation for shutting it down, which he has used to start a different business. Yet underneath the simple action of rescuing dogs from farms and closing them down lies the assumption that the western way of thinking is right and ideas that do not fit into their categories are wrong.
It is hard to agree with claims by HSI and CFAF that view the rescue action as momentous and divine. Every time the issue of dog eating is brought up, those criticizing the action have mostly relied on illogical, emotional grounds to back their arguments. A closer look at their works reveals that they mostly focus on the rights of dogs, while the actions for securing the rights of livestock like cows are lacking. Thus, it can be said that they are not trying to secure the rights of all animals, but a few selected animals that they prefer.
The same is true concerning the recent rescue action. Objectively speaking, HSI and CFAF have only shut down two farms in Korea, and by continuing their actions without tackling the fundamental reasons behind the dog meat farm in Korea, it is unlikely that they will succeed in bringing a significant difference to the dog meat farms. According to Congressman Kim Chun Jin, “The reason behind the inhumane conditions of dog meat farms is that there are no regulations regarding the sale of dog meat in Korea,” and many specialists agree.
If HSI and CFAF and other animal activists groups want to discontinue the custom of dog eating in Korea, they should first understand the conditions in Korea and seek solutions based on a more thorough and rational understanding. Simply rescuing a few dogs from dog meat farms and returning them to other nations is only a shallow stop gap measure.
Yoon Se Young
nacynh@korea.ac.kr