Comments on: Korea NOT sending troops to Kirkuk

By: Sugar Shin

Sugar Shin — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 03:32:23 +0000

UHMMMM, the dwoenjanggook-recipe sounds delicious, Mr. Shin Jong-Il. But what about another mouthwatering ingredient like mushrooms?
Ah, I?쨈m getting hungry…

PING:
TITLE: ‘??쨈?????? ?째쨍?????쩌 ?????짚’
BLOG NAME: Budaechigae ?쨋??흸??째흸?째흹
The menu over here at the Chigae house now seems to include crow…and I’m eating it. My puny attempt at punditry regarding the ROK deployment to Iraq fell pretty flat last week as both sides pretty much woked out that

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-04-13
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
Does NK’s latest offer mean anything? Aid subsidizing NK regime’s depravity?; ROK forces to Iraq; RAND study of ROK-US relations; Major US military realignment; SK elections and key info sources; More on SK & Iraq; NK Freedom Day April 28; NK budget & …

By: shin jong il

shin jong il — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:46:59 +0000

btw, i hope mr marmot will allow me to go a bit off subject here. i want to tell you that twoenjang stew can be made many differnt ways. try flavoring it with bits of american bacon. put spam in it. start with a chicken or beef broth. pine nuts are good too. lots of onions, please. clam is a must for the that indescribable flavor of the ocean. put two kinds of tofu, hard and silken. man, that is some good shit! you’re going to feel full for a long time if you eat that with some rice and kimchi.

enjoy the positive of korea. eating is a pleasure.

By: shin jong il

shin jong il — Mon, 22 Mar 2004 02:31:09 +0000

dear mrs johnson:

you don’t know me but i wanted to write to you about your son’s recent death in iraq. may i briefly introduce myself? my name is mrs. sook hwangbo and i live in the republic of korea. my son died in the vietnam war; his helicopter was shot down just minutes after takeoff. my son was 20. i read in the paper of your son’s passing. i read that he died when his chopter was shot down just moments after takeoff. that is why i am writing you today.

i want to to tell you that you need not feel sorrow at your son’s death. you should rejoice in the fact that his death will bring jobs to a good many americans. you should feel happy that your son falling to the ground means the american economy will benefit. and besides, mrs johnson, your son was paid, now, wasn’t he?

i imagine you’re a bit emotional right now with my apparent insensitivity but you’ll come to see the truth like i did long ago. you see, mrs johnson, an american guy told me about the same thing i am telling you now. my son’s death brought a good many jobs to korea, he told me. i should feel happy my son falling to the ground meant the korean economy benefited. he pointed out that my son was paid.

i hope my letter helps you in your grief, mrs johnson. remember, your son’s death means dollars for america. be strong. and do not expect thanks. remember, your son was paid.

sincerely,

sook hwangbo

your friend

sook hwangbo

By: hanin

hanin — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 18:35:19 +0000

Paul, you should know that the deterrant issue and the non-nuclear proliferation agreement signing was a very difficult and complex process for the South Koreans; dating back to the 60’s. Whether you want to term it as being a sign of the South Koreans being muscled into the act or being subconsciously obligated to their allies, the South Koreans made a decision to forego the nuclear deterrant consideration precisely because the United States placed so much political pressure on them—and of course tied to the US argument were the many reminders of the many admirable Korean War veterans (of the US).

I don’t want to merely term the agreement as some letter of parchment that has no bearing in the real world. But like any state in the world, South Korea faces a specific enemy across their northern border. For a country to be denied its autonomy to protect their well being and fight against a realizable threat to their posterity is an rationale no person of any right mind can in any way support. For all the controversy, what was the reverberated argument that Americans stated prior to the invasion on Iraq? ‘United States will not place the security of its nation and citizens to a vote by the UN security council.’ Of course many will argue that this is many steps back in “international law;” however, assuming that the WMD’s and the al Queda connection was valid and that Hussein had absolutely taken part in the 9/11 bombings, it made a lot of sense to us(Americans) why we could not rely on the letters of parchment of an organization who did not feel the global threat of terror as we did—and this was regardless of how “united” and “nations” they were.

By the way I should mention that in the American argument to persuade South Koreans to sign the agreement, we(US) assured the South Koreans that our commitment to the Korean peninsula was for the long run. No South Korean statesmen, however imperfect, would have placed their own country in such a place of risk in face of a North Korea problem. It was in our(US) global interest to have as many nations sign the agreement, because we wanted to keep the nuclear club to a minimum as possible. However, I do believe, as circumstances direct the means to our political ends and fate, the correct approach for the South Koreans to quell North Korean communism is to present an equal(if not better) and respectful measure of deterrance against their Northern enemy. Remember the “cold war” is nowhere over in the Far East. We should realize that our(US) “destiny” was realized by taking a certain faith in deterrance; we should learn from our own very good expereinces and encourage and support our allies to do the same.

By the way, academic reasearch into this nuclear proliferation issue will also point to the unbelievable amounts of revenue Americans gain by having such nations sign non-nuclear proliferation agreements. Anti-missile defense technology, primarily dominated by America’s military industry and its contracted companies, is a very much an area the US govt and the pertinent parties of interests are unwilling to let go of. Without their deterrant, the South Koreans are stuck in their hole of buying these anti-missile systems, which actually are not as effective as the Dept of Defense might have you believe; often times they are more defective than not. I also think it should be pointed out again that North Korea’s highest military hope—if they can even afford to venture into one—in this regional quagmire remains limited to South Korea; NK neither have the political will nor economic resources to come after us(US). One would be jumping to conclusions if he thought that the Nork’s were planning an attack on the Santa Monica shores. Their despicable ranting and rhetoric of hatred is merely the result of being tagged as one of the trinity evil in our campaign against terror concerning the Middle East. The lesson really is, let sleeping dogs lie. This whole business of securing US interests in the global sphere must be approached from a regional perspective than the current practice of tying one rogue to the other and its rest.

As a side note, I’m absolutely against anti-missile defense systems as serving as a nation’s sole form of military defense. One, its actual effectiveness remains a joke. Two, more importantly, it tends to appease the the nation’s citizens, leading them to the stupid cloud nine of utopianesque jibberish and the “possibility” of peace and mutual understanding only if one engaged in some hoaky “dialogue” with the North. Once again, if I hear one more time from these South Korean officials about how we need to have more “dialogue” with the North Koreans, I swear to the gods that I’m going to buy a plane ticket to Seoul so I can go and stranggle whoever’s neck til the elderman comes to better senses.

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 17:23:52 +0000

I think you (ROK) are constrained from developing your own nuclear deterrent by your signature on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty — the same treaty that North Korea signed and then renounced, if I’m not mistaken.

When the ROK agreed to nuclear nonproliferation, it undertook an obligation to the whole world — not just to its U.S. ally.

If South Korea is no longer a “client state” of the U.S., then it’s not just a matter of whether the

“…US govt agree[s] to a South Korean government with its own nuclear deterrent against the North…”.

It’s a matter of whether the other signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty agree! (ie most of the rest of the world).

I strongly believe that we (U.S.) will certainly not condone ROK development of its own nuclear weapons, because of the destablizing effects to NE Asia and the world that Mr Shin so eloquently details in his post above.

But as said before, South Korea is no longer a “client state” of the U.S. If ROK wants to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and develop its own nuclear weapons, I don’t think the U.S. can stop ROK from doing so.

But if you (ROK) do decide to develop your own nuclear deterrent, then we (U.S.) should feel free to withdraw from our mutual self-defense treaty, in the “divorce” Mr. Shin decries above.

By: hanin

hanin — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:43:13 +0000

I guess this topic came up before; at least since I joined this worthwhile blogoshere. Why can’t US govt agree to a South Korean government with its own nuclear deterrant against the North?

By: Sugar Shin

Sugar Shin — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 16:16:16 +0000

Paul H.

“Either help the Americans or pursue a divorce from the USA.” - SundubuMan
I was referring to this sentence of SundubuMan. My sentence of a new “drift or (re)form” of the US-ROK alliance implicated in my mind also your option of an withdrawal of USFK from Korean soil and further “offshore” protection and a US nuclear shield. The description of the second option with the “NE Asian nuclear arms race” was done by an eventual/ hypothetical break-up of any military cooperation or any form of an alliance with the US.
The most important and profitable open market for the full range of South Korean export products is IMO still the USA and not China, which functions today as a cheap labor manufacturing base for Korean products. Maybe this will change with the rapid sophistication of the Chinese market and economy in the short future.

By: Paul H.

Paul H. — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 14:04:12 +0000

Mr. Shin: You argue immediately above from a false premise. Who said anything about altering the alliance?

I don’t say “all or nothing” with regards to the US/ROK alliance — I just say pull out all of the conventional ground troops in USFK. We (US) can continue to support you from offshore with our air and sea power (the best in the world), if you (ROK) still want it.

You won’t have to worry about a nuclear arms race in NE Asia, which you portray as an inevitable consequence. That’s a straw man.

You’re absolutely right that South Korea is “all grown up now”, which means you don’t need conventional US forces to defend yourselves against a June-1950 style invasion from the North anymore.

Your society is ambivalent about the presence of the US ground troops for a very good reason — you don’t want to have to make this choice. Well, we should “renegotiate” the US/ROK treaty by requiring you to carry the burden of your own ground defense.

By the way, your trade with mainland China now exceeds that with the U.S., and I’m sure they don’t want anything to happen between the two Koreas to disrupt that.

Why don’t you invite the PRC to take up the UN mantle, and station an observer force in the DMZ, to “ensure good manners” between your two Korean societies? Meanwhile you can both decide on whatever strategy you think will work as regards eventual reunification. With the US now only an offshore presence, maybe the North Koreans will begin to “lighten up”. After all, they say they only want nukes because of the U.S. threat.

Many ROK citizens will be happy to see us gone, and we can use these withdrawn forces in “Kirkuk” or anywhere else they are needed.

I see this as a “win-win” for both of our societies (I’m not being sarcastic but totally serious).

By: Sugar Shin

Sugar Shin — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:58:02 +0000

SundubuMan,

you?쨈re right. The South Koreans must make a unanimous decision about the alliance with the US and th presence of the USFK. As you have seen in your everyday life, the society is ideologically splitted about this urgent question. I don’t fear a retreat of the USFK nor do I condemn their presence on the peninsula, but the 50 years old worn-out security agreement must get a new drift or (re)form or be mutually abandoned once and for all. The first option of a reform must consider the changed economical, political and international standing of the now ROK. It is not a piss-poor, wrecked third world “client” country of the mighty USA anymore. The second option of a broken alliance would also possibly result in a absence of the US nuclear security shield provided for the ROK. Thus means, that the ROK in this case would seek for its own nuclear capability and shake off the shackles of their missile range restriction. Furthermore the South Koreans would seek a economical and military reconciliation/ partnership with rising Mainland China (which I would not favour anyway!The times of “sadae” were not that harmonious and beautiful..). This scenario could also end up in a nuclear arms race in North East Asia and a deterriorating relationship (maybe conflict)of China/ DPRK/ ROK/ ROC/ Japan against each other or with the US further Asian presence in Okinawa/ Japan. Japan as an economcial and technical powerhouse would also seek a full-fledged openly operated military build-up without any constitutional or ethical boundaries or fig leafs, that would include nuclear weapons(even against US will), aircraft carriers, SSNs and ICBM. All options forementioned options sound not desireable, which makes the decision process of the ROK society even more difficult.

Hanin,

I really like your comment. It was always 1:0 for Japan in the eyes of the USA. The Koreans are the big-mouthed bitch and the Japanese are their real Mr. Butterfly, to simplyfy it heavily.

Blue Eyed Devil,

Black Eyed Peas, man, Black Eyed Peas!

Marmot,

You and Yangban are the few expat Korea-blogger (hm, I don?쨈t read any further than Mr. oranckay besides you two) or commentor, who have shown leniency and appreciation for the ROK “Zaytun”-dispatch. This is more than any other has expressed so far and I?쨈m thankful for that.

By: SundubuMan

SundubuMan — Sun, 21 Mar 2004 12:30:48 +0000

First, let me say that I love this silly peninsula….. been here for over 5 years of my life.

And when I see Korea consistently burying its collective head in the ground…..it disturbs me….no it angers me… no…actually….it FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!!!!

America needs to be much stronger with S. Korea. Force them to take a stand..

Simple…. either you support the United States or you want them to LEAVE……

Either help the Americans or pursue a divorce from the USA.

You simply can NO LONGER have it both ways. Make a choice. Soon.