If you haven’t gotten you’re victimization fix for the day, I suggest you go over to OhMy International and read Cheong Wook Sik’s “Two Koreas Ensnared in U.S.-Inspired Nuclear Trap.” Where else can you read stuff like this:
As is well known, the United States is hoping to first refer Iran and later North Korea to the U.N. Security Council. In Iran’s case in particular, the U.S. is putting all its diplomatic energy in bringing the Iranian nuclear issue before the Security Council.
One can see how in order to do this, the U.S. intends to make South Korea a “sacrificial lamb” so as to show the world that there are no exceptions in the non-proliferation regime and the United States has no double standards through presenting its “ally,” South Korea. It could also use it as grounds to later refer North Korea to the U.N. Security Council.
I”ll let you read the rest of that on your own. Oddly enough, though, Cheong didn’t think the South Korean nuke scandal was such a bad thing when the story first broke.
Meanwhile, for fans of National Security Council Deputy Adviser Lee Jong-seok — Mr. “Independent Diplomacy” — we have this absolutely heart wrenching display of, heck, I don’t know what you call this:
Seoul officials have made unusually strong appeals to Washington in an effort to prevent South Korea from being referred to the UN Security Council for two unauthorized nuclear tests conducted at a state-run research center years ago, officials said yesterday.
The strongest requests have been lodged by Lee Jong-seok, deputy head of Seoul’s National Security Council, with John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, during Mr. Lee’s visit to Washington last week.
“If South Korea’s nuclear material tests were taken to the UN Security Council, it would likely bring about serious difficulties in the South Korea-U.S. alliance,” Mr. Lee was quoted by senior Roh administration officials as saying in his meeting with Mr. Bolton.
“If the matter goes to the Security Council, South Korea will be seen as similar to a rogue state,” Mr. Lee was quoted as saying. “It is a matter of national dignity, and we urge the United States to actively help us to prevent this.”
It’s a matter of national dignity, for crying out loud!
Because the United States appears to want to send the South Korean cases to the Security Council to prove to Iran that it is even-handed, the Blue House decided to upgrade its lobbying, a ranking Roh administration official said.
“Mr. Lee told U.S. officials that leaving the matter to be referred to the Security Council is inappropriate as an ally,” the government source said. “Because the IAEA board’s decision can defer to the U.S. position, we asked Washington to refrain from making harsh remarks against South Korea that may influence other board members.”
Oh, so now U.S. influence peddling doesn’t look so bad, does it? One has to wonder, though, if part of the lobbying campaign was to have Roh publicly show up the White House in LA on Monday. If it was, I don’t think it worked too well:
The U.S. side did not answer Mr. Lee, another official said. “The matter can be addressed again at the Roh-Bush summit on Saturday,” he added.
For what it’s worth, and I think I’ve mentioned this before on this blog, I think South Korea should eventually arm itself with nuclear weapons, and I’m not so hot on bringing South Korea before the U.N. Security Council. Yes, I understand the rationale behind the move, and Seoul did get its hand caught in the nuclear cookie jar. Still, I’m more than slightly troubled by the prospect of bringing a country that has 3,000 troops in Iraq before the UNSC, especially when it appears that Seoul has cooperated for the most part with the IAEA, just to impress nations that would probably fail to appreciate U.S. consistency on the issue.
That being said, it’s still fun to see Lee Jong-seok squirm. Little wiggly worm he is, to borrow the Flying Yangban’s term.
29 Comments
how many troops does israel have in iraq?
“….I think I?€™ve mentioned this before on this blog, I think South Korea should eventually arm itself with nuclear weapons…”
I hadn’t noticed this before. Interesting, as after months of reading this blog I’m coming around rapidly to that view myself.
I enjoy contemplating the spectacle of an announcement by the US that it would support an ROK plan to rapidly develop its own nukes (& break its commitment to the NPT — but why should we be bound by a treaty that our enemies are openly scorning?)
This would coincide with the phased withdrawl of US forces from the peninsula. The first 6 or so ROK nukes would ideally become operational just as the last US forces board aircraft to depart the peninsula.
Ah, the consternation that such an announcement would create at the UN — like a fox suddenly thrown into a chicken coop. And the six party talks! Their current glacial slow-motion would suddenly speed up, like an old time silent movie shown on a modern projector.
Sure is fun to think about. Alas, it’ll never happen — the President of ROK would have an instant heart attack, and we Americans would have to add that to our already massive burden of guilt.
The strongest requests have been lodged by Lee Jong-seok, deputy head of Seoul?€™s National Security Council, with John Bolton, the U.S. undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, during Mr. Lee?€™s visit to Washington last week.
?€œIf South Korea?€™s nuclear material tests were taken to the UN Security Council, it would likely bring about serious difficulties in the South Korea-U.S. alliance,?€? Mr. Lee was quoted by senior Roh administration officials as saying in his meeting with Mr. Bolton.
In other words, Mr. Lee is threatening the United States, “Give us a pass on our nuclear proliferation attempt, or we’ll throw up a stink which might jeopardize your precious ‘alliance’.”
The problem with the Uri Party muttonheads is they actually believe that the United States has some self-serving plot in being here. Rather than the actual fact, which is the U.S. forces are here in 2004 — at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer — as a consequence of bad choices made in 1945.
In reality, most Americans could give two shits about Korea on its own merits, if they could find it on a map. And in fact there are a lot of reasons why Korea should be pretty far down America’s list of “friends”: racism, human trafficking, persistent visa law violations, illegal immigration, protectionist trade policies, hyperbolic anti-Americanism, and so forth. Take away the “alliance” and suddenly all these other Korean behaviors will be viewed in the cold light of day.
President Roh and the Uri Party are either incredibly stupid (i.e. they don’t know what they’re doing) or highly calculating (i.e. they know *exactly* what they’re doing, and are doing it for the benefit of Pyongyang).
‘forget korea because…their racism.’ carr
should we do the same to japan? does your concern for racism extend
beyond your own skin color?
does japan have three thousand troops in iraq? japanese ever die on
behalf of us war? most american don’t know how many koreans have.
speaking about what americans on the right do not know, according
to u of md, 75% of those who voted for bush believe that there was a
connection between saddam and al queda. another 72% believe that iraq
had a wmd program.
folks to the right well controlled by fox news network. keep em ignant
Mr. Lee’s comments seem to me to be on a par with Roh’s recent comments in S America to the effect that the US can’t keep its hands off Korea. These guys need a serious wake-up call, and I think that Bush II is going to serve one up with some spicy CONDIments, because I think Condi is going to implement a very cold-eyed view of what the US real core interests in Korea are.
When Dean Acheson excluded Korea from the scope of core US post-War interests in the late ’40s, he was correct. What changed between the time he made his comments and the outbreak of the Korean War and the US decision not to abandon Korea was the emergence of the (not so) Cold War (e.g., Berlin blockade) and the perception throughout the then bipartisan foreign policy establishment that what was at stake in Korea was not Korea - then a truly pathetic backwater - but America’s credibility as the defender of Western and Southeastern Europe and long-established Western interests in the Middle East against Soviet territorial expansionism and extraterritorial adventurism. Domestic political considerations, particularly the need to try to check the growing infection of the Republican right-wing by McCarthy and his minions, also played a role.
The situation today obviously is very different. To put it very baldly, except for a general interest in having Korea continue and continue to grow in responsibility as a member of the international free trade economic order, the US has almost nothing at stake in Korea per se. Its goodwill and credibility apparently would be better served by exiting the peninsula, and doing so would have no real impact in my judgment on US “prestige” and credibility, given both the Korean opinion polls and ROKGOV’s “independence” drive. Even on the economic front, the US would be better served by distancing itself from Korea, so that it is in a position to finish the long-postponed job of weaning Korea from its continuing addiction to the sort of mercantilist policies that might be justified in the case of a third-world basket case but are unbecoming the 11th largest economy in the world, especially one with Korean’s pretensions, and holding Korea to its obligations as a truly independent trading power.
The only pressing issue from the point of view of core US interests is the NORKS’ nukes (and other WMD), and if anything is clear by now, the US would have more freedom of maneveur on this issue if it were to jettison whatever is left of the special alliance - which is little more than empty sentiment. By freedom of manevuer, I do NOT mean that the US would necessarily feel free simply to engage in preventive war or even preemptive strikes vis-a-vis NK. On the other hand, the ROK would have to face up to the fact that if the provocation were great enough, the US can’t be precluded from coercive measures or military action. In other words, if ROK really wants an equal alliance, they are going to have to start taking account of how to satisfy the US’ legitimate security concerns vis-a-vis the NORKS, instead of simply prattling on about how there’s really nothing to worry about - all the while continuing to insist that the US not only bear a significant portion of the cost of ROK defenses but in effect bear the lion’s share of both the economic and political cost of some sort of settlement with the NORKS through some bilateral arrangement, over which RKOK neverthless will want (along with China, Japan and Russia) some kind of veto, within the context of a mulitlateral deal. They are also going to have to get past the idea that this is simply horse-trading and that mere gestures, like posting a Korean contingent well out of harm’s way, where BTW they can act as goodwill ambassadors for Korean construction and energy companies - while the US and Britain do all the heavy lifting - entitle them to anythin g more than mere gestures in return. There more to be an ally, unless you’re content to be the Ferengi of international politics.
At first I didn’t think that I was even going to get involved in one of these threads - they are really outside of my specialty and it is best just to sit back and read the thoughts of others who are probably more familiar with the material than I am. However, there seems to be an exception - nulji maripkan. That must have been the stupidest comment/question you have made yet - “how many troops does israel have in iraq?” Is that a joke?
Off this subject but still pertaining to you, Mr. nulji maripkan, I would appreciate it in the future that if you have a comment directed towards me involving one of my post to have the common courtesy to at least post it instead of sending it to my personal email. Your comments about my friends were, shall we say, tasteless and stupid - and the comment about having me teach you English, I don’t think it even requires an answer.
Naturally wishing you the best
Robert Neff
That must have been the stupidest comment/question you have made yet - ?€œhow many troops does israel have in iraq??€? Is that a joke?
Key word search “Shin Jong Il” and you’ll find months, if not years, of “tasteless and stupid”. I don’t know why he changed his name but not his unfortunate style.
Zdunk: ?€œI also don?€™t understand why anyone would predict that an administration which has shown itself to be very aggressive internationally would suddenly get all shy and demure in East Asia, withdrawing from Korea with it?€™s tail between it?€™s legs and looking for all the world like a rinky-dink dictator had faced them down.
Zdunk thinks like a child (or a Korean). Wars aren’t fought over honor - they are fought over national interests. Iraq was right next to the Persian Gulf oil fields and was obtaining substantial income for all kinds of mischief from its oil revenues. North Korea was America’s enemy only by virtue of its threats against South Korea, America’s erstwhile ally. Now that South Korea has proven itself to be an enemy, it makes no sense for the US to continue defending South Korea. When one enemy (North Korea) is raring to take care of another one (South Korea), the best thing to do is to let them duke it out.
The thought of withdrawing and letting Korea protect itself with it’s own nuclear weapons is a brilliantly thought-out non-starter.
Hello, guys? There exists a reason the United States couldn’t shrug off Korea in 1950, and it still exists today. Any geostrategists out there? It’s called “Japan”, and America DOES have vital and pressing interests - economic, military, strategic, you name it - in it. After the alliance with Britain it is the most important ally America has, and when I look at the economics of it I am not sure if Britain should be first.
An American withdrawal and green light to South Korean nuclear weapons would signal strongly to Japan that America was pulling out of the neighborhood and letting Japan fend for itself. The abandonment of a 55 year old ally would also be keenly noted by Japan, never mind all other US allies.
I also don’t understand why anyone would predict that an administration which has shown itself to be very aggressive internationally would suddenly get all shy and demure in East Asia, withdrawing from Korea with it’s tail between it’s legs and looking for all the world like a rinky-dink dictator had faced them down.
Gentlemen, I submit you are really mis-reading Condi, Cheney and Bush’s track record. It’s a nasty joke, but here goes: They will defend Japan to the last Korean.
Jesus, I should start my own strategy consulting firm, like that beaming smiler Cristopher Lingle who writes columns for the Herald with the job heading ‘Global Strategist’
Zdunk your arguments are powerful and are the reason our suggestions will probably not be heeded — at least not right away.
But- cataclysmic events on the scale of 9/11 will override them. I think we “caucasians” on this board get various Asians infuriated by the seemingly casual way we toss around the fate of nations, but under my occasional flippant shell I don’t consider this a trivial subject at all. The reason why I visit here is that I consider the peninsula the most dangerous place in the world (though once Iran goes nuclear the Persian Gulf area will rival it).
The spread of nuclear weapons continues apace. I personally believe the NorK’s will continue to build as many nukes as their resources permit, and they’re about to be joined by the Iranians who will do the same (and the Iranians have a lot more resources). The spread of nuclear knowledge and fissile materials continues steadily and one of these days someone is going to set one off. It’s just a logical extension of current terror — a super “car bomb”.
The events of 9/11 had to be a revelation to those for whom America is the absolute enemy in the world. Had Osama been the real genius he thinks he is, all 4 airliners should have been targeted on DC (White House & Capitol, when the President was in residence and the Congress was in session) in order to completely paralyze the government. I’m sure others have watched and learned from his error.
Critics of the US’s attempt to aggressively confront proliferation seem to implicitly assume that “rogue states” would never dare to employ these devices because of the inevitable “massive retaliation”. I’m not so sure the US would massively retaliate, especially if we don’t know whom to retaliate against. In the event of a surreptitious detonation in the 50 states, worldwide political pressure would be enormously against the US doing so, no matter how great the casualty figure. Of course the US military would survive intact but if key government functions were taken out how would we know where to start looking? Unless you think we should just target all the “possibles” in retaliation. Once Iran goes nuclear, then they and NorK will be in a position to have each other as “cover” for such an attempt.
Let’s even assume a clear origin for a nuke. Say a liftoff suddenly occurs of a NorK nuclear missile headed for the US. Immediately the Dear Leader comes up “on the net”, explaining that a rogue general & some confederates have made an unauthorized launch and have been apprehended and executed. Perhaps he even broadcasts video of their execution. Should we retaliate? How are we to know the real truth?
Or say the missile lands in a remote part of Alaska or Eastern Oregon, and only a few hundred people are killed. Are we really going to retaliate and kill hundreds of thousands of Koreans? We’d have to simultaneously hit every possible NorK target we suspect of being a nuclear threat with nukes of our own, as well as all the forward NorK forces above the DMZ. Even without retaliating against population centers we’d kill hundreds of thousands of people, plus fallout would blow all over the place (ROK, China, Japan, Russia).
A limited response? (ie one selected target for nuclear retaliation, or the use of conventional air/sea power). After apologizing, I’m sure NorK would threaten to launch everything they have left if this occurred.
I have no taste for such a prospect and neither, I believe, do 99% of my fellow Americans. Of course we’d retaliate if this nightmare scenario happens — but why should we continue to risk it for the ROK, if they consider us a greater threat to them than NorK? And in the apocalyptic scenario I’ve just outlined, they’d be correct to do just that!
Nukes change everything. NorK saw this when they made their all-out drive to go nuclear — a brilliant achievement, demonstrating they can be just as capable as their ROK cousins, who instead used their energies to become an Asian economic “tiger”.
And this isn’t 1950 anymore, when the internal threat from Japanese Communism to a still war-devastated Japan was a significant factor in Truman’s decision to intervene in Korea. The Cold War is over and the NorK brand of Communism isn’t “going anywhere”. I don’t advocate reducing our forward presence elsewhere on the rim of Asia or withdrawing our nuclear shield over Japan — in fact, I reckon you will see within the next several years an extensive anti-missile system deployed by the Japanese.
Nothing in world politics remains static. ROK is a nation founded on shared ethnicity (as would be a “greater Korea”), whereas the United States is a multi-ethnic society founded on an idea. The natural strains from such a difference are showing and I think any US administration has to get out in front of events (as opposed to the ROK, whose government and citizens seem to think that things can go on like they are indefinitely). But rogue dictatorial states have to have enemies to sustain themselves — once we’re gone from the peninsula we won’t serve that purpose anymore.
It’s too late to put the nuclear toothpaste back in the tube by pre-emptive military action — and I am completely convinced that the ROK won’t support any pre-emptive use of force under any circumstances. I don’t think the ROK government would even support a retaliation by the US, if a NorK missile is fired against Japan or a US military target in the Pacific.
We should get out. That would probably force China to be the referee between the two Koreas. It’s not the 1950s for China either anymore — South Korea has now become one of their most important trading partners, and I doubt if the Chinese would allow the North to successfully attack the south anymore than we would.
neff, i’ve never sent you an e mail in my life. so you know what?
f*** off. got it? think i’d bother to chat with any of you on a personel basis?
get real. and if you don’t understand my israel question, then, maybe you need to
do some research on dimona.
slim, just so you can understand: have we sent israel to the security council?
do you undersatnd now?
‘gestures like posting a contingent (three thousand making it the 3d largest)
weel out of harms way…btw where they can be goodwill ambassadors
for business contracts while nobody in my family does the real work..’ paulh
now, you see? you think i don’t know you punks but i do. i told you it would
be just a matter of time bfore korea’s very large contribution to iraq would be
widdled down to business contracts. you don’t disappoint. and don’t think
i don’t know that most of you low class, humble, ‘english’ teachers feel the way
you do because you need to find those few inches lopped off ya there in korea.
and you call koreans emotional? many of you are just fricking overweight babies.
‘english teacher’? what a joke. mobile home park. drunk daddy. uncle who insists on
calling you ’son’
Got all the stereotypes right, at any rate.
In what sorry-ass parallel universe would it be considered a privilege to receive “correspondence on a personal basis” from Shin Jong-il, whose entire Rain Manesque ouvre adds up to nothing more than a strong argument for not having a comments section?
Any of you computer experts out there able to help in retrieving email that you delete? I would like to present the two emails that I received from Kimjongil also known as nulji maripkan. I naturally deleted them but wish I hadn’t. Again, I wouldn’t even bother under normal circumstances but……
Zdunk:
There exists a reason the United States couldn?€™t shrug off Korea in 1950, and it still exists today. Any geostrategists out there? It?€™s called ?€œJapan”.
In fact, Japan had nothing to do with the US decision to defend S Korea in 1950, and there’s no good reason today that the US should stay in Korea for the sake of Japan. That’s not to say that the US shouldn’t continue its close alliance with the Japanese - just an observation that a US presence in Korea isn’t necessary to do so.
Zdunk:
An American withdrawal and green light to South Korean nuclear weapons would signal strongly to Japan that America was pulling out of the neighborhood and letting Japan fend for itself.
I disagree that an American withdrawal from Korea necessarily entails any kind of abandonment of Japan; we can maintain and strengthen the alliance with Japan., including giving Japan more leeway to be a “normal” (i.e., militarily potent) power. Korea is useless to the defense of Japan, since it provides no buffer, given that Japan is an island and misslies are not impeded by water. To borrow a phrase from the 50s, we can help Japan to become an unsinkable aircraft carrier by maintaining an expanding the defensive umbrella we now provide.
Since Korea wants to be “independent”, moreover, our leaving Korea to its own devices does not have any connotations of cutting and running on an ally, as long as we do provide the substantive additional defensive support Japan may need or feel it needs.
Naturally, I don’t favor our “buddies” here in The Land of the Morning ABout Face having nukes any more than I do the NORKS. But we shouldn;t let ourselves be blackmailed into having a relationship with the ROK based on the threat of their pursuing nukes, any more than we should bend over for the NORKS because they’ve got ‘em.
Zdunk:
“I also don?€™t understand why anyone would predict that an administration which has shown itself to be very aggressive internationally would suddenly get all shy and demure in East Asia, withdrawing from Korea with it?€™s tail between it?€™s legs and looking for all the world like a rinky-dink dictator had faced them down.”
Say what? Withdrawing from the ROK is not a defeat for the US if its done on the basis of our own principled policy regarding our strategic interests. It’s precisly because BUSH II and COndi are likley to promulgate and pursue those interests and that policy in an assertive, even aggressive, manner that the idea of any dishonor in an American withdrawal from Korea is a non-starter. Of course the NORKS will make whatever bombastic claims they will; everyone knows they themselves are the only ones who are susceptible to the BIG LIE rhetoric that in their hands has become a really pathetic source of amusement (instead of the somtimes effective propoganda tool that it was decaded ago in the hands of more skilfull practitioners).
While illustrating precisly the sort of national megalomania that imagines that the slightest gesture entitles them to a star on the forehead, nulji maripkan feebly attempted to undercut my criticism of the Korean “commitment” to the Iraq conflict by casting aspersions on my own family’s involvement. FYI, stonehead, 5 members of the previous generation of my family fought in Korea - as frontline infantrymen ; two are still somewhere in the mud of the Punchbowl. And three of my nephews are in Falluja. BTW, while I don’t think that Koprea Inc deserves a whole lot of credit for being in Iraq, I beleive the Korean soldiers who are there do; they include some members of my wife’s family.
And Zhang Fei is thinking like the armchair “Strategerist” that he is. International politics is even more complicated than simple cost/risk analyses and involves more than Manichaen calculations despite what he would wish to think. South Korea is most certainly not an enemy of the U.S. and it would be in long term U.S. and global interests to see some sort of stability on the Korean Peninsula. Zhang Fei also unfortunately dismisses the domestic politics involved and thinks that the Bush administration would be able to weather the fiery criticism that is almost guaranteed to ensue if he abandons the Korean peninsula to the North considering the present situation. All things considered, the chances of a U.S. withdraw from South Korea are slim. While Zhangfei is thinking like a wannabe straussian playing at realpolitik, I doubt even the present administration with all its short comings will reach the same conclusion.
yeah, i’ll write this again:
i have never written to this neff neither as nulji, shin,
or my real name. period.
as for my english, i think it’s obvious i speak english naturally.
if you want to tell me i make grammar errors, fine. so do many other english
speakers. so, sue me. and paul, i’ve already discussed the fact i’m american.
sorry you don’t like that.
Asia by Blog
Asia by Blog is a twice weekly feature, posted on Monday and Thursday, providing links to Asian blogs and their views on the news in this fascinating region. Previous editions can be found here. This edition contains Chinese corporate lawyers, the deat…
sperwer, the sk government sent those soldiers to iraq
at the request of the us. folks like you amaze me. sk
korea has sent a much larger contingent to iraq than japan and has
had five thousand of it’s soldiers killed in an american war.
and somehow, japan is the much better friend. only because japan
does not protest her man’s decision do you see japan as the better
ally. and let’s not forget that you all like to tell koreans about
how unimportant they are to the us and the world. and yet you expect them
to give more than than the second richest country in the world. and you know what?
THEY HAVE, YOU FRIKKEN MORONS!
somebody on this board wrote japan needed to be made into a warship.
really? for whose benefit? who would attack japan? china?
why would china attack japan? north korea? end of their regime. south korea?
pooo-leeeez. russia? some 40% of russians can’t even afford to buy toothpaste.
japan needs to be a warship for american policies and interests. don’t be surprised
if the japanese wake up one day and realize this. then the japanese will become
enemies too.
asian folk on this board should take note on how these expats always
have you at war killing one another when they’re not around. monumental
arrogance.
“but why should we continue to risk it for the ROK, if they consider us a greater threat to them than NorK? ”
Says one.
“ROK is now an enemy of America”
says the other.
This after what? After some poll says that some 20% of South Koreans (in which people from Cholla province - long known to be anti-establishment took the lion’s share of that 20 percent) think they should ally with North Korea. Granted, I’m not proud that that many are talking foolishness, but that still leaves 80% out in the poll somehwere. And knowing wildly swinging Korean public moods that swing back and forths, depending on Korean media news reports of the days (and news reports that the US is contemplating early strikes against North Korea which may lead to millions of dead Koreans from both sides of the borders doesn’t help), I don’t buy that S.Koreans think of the US as an enemy so therefore S.Korea is an enemy.
What we have here is a fundalmental differences between South Korea and United States on how to deal with North Korea. South Korea is going after their own interests - namely slow, gradual peaceful reunification with North Korea and preventing another devestating war in Korean peninsula. The United States is also going after its own interests - namely eliminating the nuclear proliferation that may someday lead to a terrorist attack on the United States. These divergent national interests are what’s dividing the two nations. Of course we’ve all seen a lot of crap coming out of the mouths of the public in Korea. But now a days, I see that a lot of the crap is coming out of the mouths of the angry white men expats in Korea and few but growing Anti-Koreans in the United States. I guess it’s what’s called reactionary response.
OF course the biggest loss will be suffered by South Koreans if the US suddenly decides to treat South Korea as an enemy. But why does the US want to make its list of enemies grow even further? Because of some poll? Because of some anti-US rallies? Because of a foreign policy disagreement on North Korea? Maybe Bush should have said in his speech, “if you are not with us and if you don’t agree with everything with us then you are our enemy”. If this blog is a representative of the US administration, then god help us all in the world.
There are times I am truly hesitent to look at what’s in my comments section. Nevertheless, between the insults, there were some pretty good comments for which I’m grateful, and I’d like to expand on some of them if I may:
Zdunk posed some interesting food for thought as to U.S. grand strategy in East Asia. Much greater minds than I have suggested a U.S. withdrawal from S. Korea would virtually signify a U.S. abandonment of Japan. However, there is another school of thought here, and it argues that by keeping Japan and S. Korea virtual dependencies of the U.S., you run the risk of actually weekening alliance strength. It’s no secret that both Japan and S. Korea have based their security policy on depending on the U.S., and their defense expenditures per GNP reflect this. Of course, this gives the U.S. an unusual amount of bilateral leverage on countries of their size, but the strategic trade-off in terms of total alliance strength is too great, in my opinion. The other issue, and I think this is the most important one, is that East Asia is a region with some of the world’s largest economies and, accordingly, some of the world’s largest defense budgets. Zbigniew Brzezinski pointed out once that you really have to look at the U.S. position in East Asia and wonder how long 100,000 U.S. troops and the 7th Fleet are going to be able to maintain the balance of power in a region as dynamic as this one. For now, it should be able to do so, but not much longer unless it wants to commit an ever growing amount of resources to the region to keep up with the Jones’. U.S. policy in East Asia has always been based on the premise of not allowing any one power to dominate the region. The Pacific War was fought to defend this principle, and U.S. commitments during the Cold War were also based on this strategy. Now, with the possible exception of China, I don’t see any hegemonic threats in the region, and even with the potential China threat, Japan, Korea, Russia and India are large enough powers that they could balance China out IF Beijing got a little greedy. In that sense, there is little need to perpetuate a large, expensive and one could argue ultimately futile (considering the growth of regional economies and the drain such a commitment would entail on the U.S. economy, from which our power really originates) presence when there are a lot more subtle and cost effective ways to balance the power structure in the region. Anyway, I don’t think anyone would seriously consider “abandoning” S. Korea and Japan, but what does deserve consideration is a re-arrangement in burden sharing within those alliances that ultimately would result in stronger and healthier relationships.
Kimbob — Undoubtably, there are some real differences in how to handle North Korea, and you’re right, of course, in that both sides are simply following what they consider to be their best interests in the matter. Living in Seoul, I fully understand why South Korean leaders might be hesitent to back plans to hit North Korea over a nuclear program they see more as a threat to the United States than to them, although I also understand how many Americans might see this as something of a betrayal, given how South Korea has enjoyed protection under the U.S. nuclear umbrella for the last half century, an umbrella that was premised on the assumption that the U.S. would be willing to make its own cities targets of Soviet nuclear warheads to defend South Korea. Betrayal, loyalty, and other emotions ultimately get tossed aside when nations make hard choices, however, so I’m not going to make too much of this point. What is a concern, however, are not simply disagreements over NK, but over general strategy, or perhaps it would be best to say, the lack of a general strategy on both sides. Alliances last only as long as they are useful, and one has to wonder if both sides see their long-term interests as necessarily coinciding. Over North Korea, there is general agreement, and it is the issue of North Korea that has kept both sides together for such a long time. Even when the two sides have participated jointly in out-of-theater activity, such as Vietnam and Iraq, the issue of North Korea was always a prime factor in the decision-making process. Once the North Korean threat is gone, what then do you base the alliance on? Obviously, this was something NATO faced once the Soviet threat vanished, and people are just now asking the same questions here. Those questions have not been fully answered, but to be fair, the debate has only just begun. Anyway, I wrote an essay on this back in April that I wish to link here, as I think it does a fairly decent job of some of the issues involved in Korea’s future strategic planning, especially involving the U.S.
http://blog.marmot.cc/archives.....-alliance/
Marmot, what irked me was the “South Korea is our enemy now” comment. Talks of ending the alliance is one thing, but talks of treating each other as enemy is another. This kind of talk only inflames and does not contribute seriously to the dialogue.
Jing: And Zhang Fei is thinking like the armchair ?€œStrategerist?€? that he is.
Unlike Jing, of course. You gotta love the wise Chinese strategist coming down from his perch to lecture the unschooled American novice.
Jing: International politics is even more complicated than simple cost/risk analyses and involves more than Manichaen calculations despite what he would wish to think.
The Manichaean approach is the one taken by the Chinese and the Koreans - America bad, the rest of the world good. (Simplistic? Sounds like a playground putdown of people with whom Jing doesn’t agree - seems a lot more sophisticated than merely saying stupid without actually adding to the debate). They have their own national myths to justify, and they are driven by these national myths to do things that are at variance with America’s interests.
I think Korea as a Chinese Autonomous Region makes a great of sense. It knocks out a leg from China’s plausibly deniable nuclear and ballistic missile proliferation via North Korea, and restores the status quo ante before the Japanese colonized Korea. This was when Korea was a Chinese protectorate edging towards provincial status, much like Mongolia, Tibet and Indochina (Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Cambodia). The restive Koreans will create a lot of problems for the Chinese, tying up their troops and resources for decades to come.
kimbob — quite understandable. I try to let comments like that pass and focus on the constructive ones.
diet pills containing ephedra
You are invited to take a look at some information in the field of consumer report on diet pill