Apparently, Rep. Henry Hyde, speaker of the U.S. House of Representatives, wants to know who the “main enemy” is:
Hyde said the South Korean Defense Ministry omitted from its 2004 white paper a reference to North Korea as the “main enemy”, while continued North Korean hostility was a major basis for the South Korea-U.S. alliance. But the same white paper said 690,000 U.S. troops would be deployed to the Korean Peninsula if a military conflict were to erupt — four times the number of U.S. troops currently serving in Iraq — reflecting excessive expectations on Seoul’s part. He said it was only appropriate to ask for a clear definition of who South Korea’s enemy is if it wants U.S. help.
OK, now, I understand where Rep. Hyde is coming from — judging from some of rhetoric that has been coming out of Seoul, one might believe that South Korea considers North Korea a poor, harmless misunderstood brother that doesn’t represent much of a threat. Accordingly, one might wonder why it is that that security planners in Seoul are banking on 690,000 U.S. troops coming to the rescue if the shit were to hit the fan. These are questions that need to be addressed, for sure. But this whole “main enemy” business has no business being a point of contention. The addition of the “main enemy clause” to the Defense Ministry’s white paper is a relatively new addition, having been added in 1995 in response to a North Korean official threatening to turn the Seoul into a “sea of fire.” The ROK-U.S. Mutual Defense Pact was signed in 1953, meaning that 42 years, the two nations enjoyed an alliance without the Korean Defense Ministry having to spell out in bright red letters that North Korea was Seoul’s “main enemy.”
The rest of the Chosun Ilbo piece is worth reading, BTW.
7 Comments
Argh, good work Justin, I should have noticed that.
Henry Hyde became well known to TV viewers as the former chairman of the House Judiciary Committe during their impeachment hearings on Clinton (1998?).
Left that job a few years ago and became Chairman of the House International Relations Committee which is why he’s pronouncing on this issue. http://www.house.gov/hyde/Biography.htm
So are you seriously saying that “From 1953 to 2005 the only change in the ROK - US alliance has been this addition of the “main enemy” clause in 1995, so if it’s dropped now what’s the big deal?”
You selectively omit an essential corollary fact, which is that ROK is now a legitimate democracy which has elected two successive administrations that find it politically useful to “triangulate” between the US and the “main enemy” (defined or not). And that a substantial portion of the ROK populace must agree with this, or they wouldn’t have voted in these administrations…
Somebody made a snarky comment in an earlier thread about how the ROK “learned” to be a cynical manipulator of totalitarian regimes, when it suited their own interests, from the US example. I don’t agree, naturally, but I do agree that the ROK’s pols and populace learned their triangulation strategy from emulating that master of triangulation, our beloved former Prez Bill Clinton.
Oh well, maybe if everybody can just hang on till 2009, “the Big He” will be back (indirectly). Then perhaps we’ll all be able to forget this unpleasant interlude period, and return to the halcyon days of drinking toasts with the tyrants up north, while slipping them cash and goods “under the table” to keep them from rattling their nukes too loudly and disturbingly.
RE: “The addition of the ?橫main enemy clause?? to the Defense Ministry??s white paper is a relatively new addition….”
Well said. And I’m wondering. Has the military in Hyde’s country ever had an officially defined “main enemy”? As in “such and such a country is the US’s main enemy”? Don’t think it has, even in times of war. Meanwhile, SK’s miltiary is focused only, to my knowledge, on NK, so not actually saying that other enemies could be just as much a problem is the only problem here.
“so not actually saying that other enemies could be just as much a problem is the only problem here.”
Don’t even know what I meant to say up there.
Anyway, SK’s forces, in edu sessions and the like, continue to focus almost exclusively on NK.
BTW, thanks for the link to the actual text of the Mutual Defense Pact, been meaning to look it up for some time.
As I expected, there’s nothing in there about any requirement for the US to physically station any of its armed forces on the territory of the ROK.
“ARTICLE IV
The Republic of Korea grants, and the United States of America accepts, the right to dispose United States land, air and sea forces in and about the territory of the Republic of Korea as determined by mutual agreement. ”
Meaning the US can fulfill its obligations under the treaty from air and naval forces stationed elsewhere in the Far East (ones which will be there anyway regardless of the existence of this treaty).
And thereby end our indirect subsidies to North Korea, the ones that we provide by the presence of our ground and air forces physically on the soil of ROK –that, in turn, free the ROK to send considerable direct subsidies north to “stabilize” the regime there.
Just a quick note. Henry Hyde is not speaker of the House of Representatives. Dennis Hastert is.
I want to be the main enemy. It would really look cool on my vita . . .