PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-06-11
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
South Korea-U.S. alliance in turmoil, China thows down the gauntlet, Pyongyang peddling uranium, John Kerry on North Korea, intra-Korean military talks, tiger traps, dumplings you wouldn’t want to eat and much, much more!

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-06-11
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
South Korea-U.S. alliance in turmoil, China thows down the gauntlet, Pyongyang peddling uranium, John Kerry on North Korea, intra-Korean military talks, tiger traps, dumplings you wouldn’t want to eat and much, much more!

PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-06-11
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
South Korea-U.S. alliance in turmoil, China thows down the gauntlet, Pyongyang peddling uranium, John Kerry on North Korea, intra-Korean military talks, tiger traps, dumplings you wouldn’t want to eat and much, much more!

I also put on my blog a post on how the same thing happened with the land partnership plan which was in the news off and on for a couple of years before 2002 —- when the press and even the head of the Korean military expressed “shock” at hearing about it (again) during the tail end of the anti-US orgy —- as if the plan suddenly somehow became only linked to anti-Americanism in Korea and was NOT really a long negociated plan Korea knew all about.

Such talk was unthinkable only a short time ago. I am glad that it is happening now because there is no way any American taxpayer should ever for one second tolerate the way American soldiers are treated in Korea.

I personally am over joyed the “alliance” is rapidly ending because it will mean Korea has to stand on its own two feet and take responsibility for its actions and the consequences for them, too.

I also see some benefit in keeping those forces there after NK implodes–China. China is a far greater threat in the long term than Korea, and keeping plenty of air power in the region is a great way to prevent China from concentrating all of its intimidating force against Japan or Taiwan–or even the ROK. Long-term, if the number of troops we keep there is small and our options remain visibly open, the South Koreans will be eager to keep some U.S. military presence and would therefore be a much more cooperative ally.

Anyway, I haven’t read the stuff on the USFK guy’s comments. Whenever I hear them saying “NE Asia” I translate it to “the Middle East, I mean East or Asia, you know India and whatnot are considered Asia, right….”

I have always thought USFK and SK officials were full of bull when they said USFK would retain a role in Korea after unification.

Unless the North implodes and USFK is needed as a peacekeeping force up their to hold it together or to take the place of SK troops moved up there to keep the piece….

or unless SK convinces the US to use USFK to attack Japan…..

there is no way in this world SK is going to view a need to keep USFK and once that need factor is gone - they will fully exercise this strong base of anti-USFK feeling they have cultivated for some time now.

Waiting for that day will be one of the most stupid foreign policy decisions in US history….

There are three controversial statements. I think each deserves a separate analysis:

-”being able to insert USFK anywhere in the world”

USFK is an entirely American force, except for a handful of KATUSAs, who presumably stay in Korea if USFK goes. Campbell is really reminding Korea that they’re still our troops. What’s wrong with that? Yes, Korea can complain about the lack of advance consultation, but it looks like a clear shot across their bow given their recent behavior. I suspect this is a hint, not a gaffe.

-”having Korea-U.S. allied forces engage in international humanitarian operations” and “conducting peacekeeping missions in Northeast Asia”

Since neither of these contingencies has yet even taken place, it’s reasonable to assume that the U.S. and South Korea would have to agree on any specific joint deployment before it happens. Indeed, the “hypothetical” explanation makes sense to me. Campbell’s suggesting new ways the alliance can evolve to remain useful, but he isn’t claiming the unilateral right to deploy Korean troops.

Maybe I just don’t get it. I understand that Korea is panicky, but I see that as strictly a function of the fact that Korea likes having a unilaterally beneficial alliance. It considers all those AMERICAN soldiers in the USFK its own, no matter how much it hates each and every one of them. Who’s arrogant here?

I also suggest a reading of Kim Dae-Joong’s op-ed today, a real piece of work:

http://english.chosun.com/w21d.....50048.html

Kim is pretty forthright about his complete distaste for the American people, yet he can’t believe that the current government isn’t doing a good enough job in “taking advantage” of America. Translation–we hate you, but we like your money. That article pretty much sums up the way Korea sees us, and why Korea needs to move out of dad’s basement and pay its own rent.