I was going to fisk this IHT offering, but it’s 5:00 a.m. and I’m having difficulty simply stringing words into sentences, let alone making coherent arguments. Anyway, former Korean Peninsula Energy Organization policy adviser Jason T. Shaplen and former U.S. ambassador to Korea James Laney contributed an op-ed to the IHT (or to the Boston Globe, reprinted in the IHT) claiming the only way forward with the North Korean nuke issue is to attempt to bring North Korea into the fold of the international community. Here’s a sample:
So where do we Americans go from here? Attacking North Korea militarily isn’t an option. We don’t know where all of its nuclear installations and material are located. A military strike would also likely start a war in a region that is home to 80,000 to 90,000 U.S. troops. It would further rupture vital alliances, particularly with China and South Korea, our third and seventh largest trading partners.
A hard-line policy short of a military strike isn’t the answer either. To date, the administration’s muddled approach to North Korea has only elicited the very reaction it sought to avoid. In 2001, the North had zero to two nuclear weapons. Today, it may have six to eight. In 2001, the North’s plutonium program was frozen and monitored by international inspectors. Today, the North has unfrozen the program, reprocessed the plutonium and is on the verge of reprocessing more.
All this means that the only option is meaningful engagement, a policy we have avoided by demanding that the North dismantle its entire nuclear program before it receives anything concrete in return other than heavy fuel oil. But there are few leaders foolish enough to give up the one card that guarantees their nation’s survival based only on promises of future concessions by an adversary they don’t trust.
Read it on your own. Personally, I think it’s highly flawed, but then again, I’m highly flawed, and some of you may find its logic appealing.
84 Comments
People do not want to fight a war. When the 9/11 happened, 99% of Americans wanted Sadam brought down for harboring anti-American terrorists (having the weapons of mass destruction was an additional justification, not the main one). Now, over 60% of Americans are sold on the French propaganda and judge Bush to have erred.
I am a democrat, but I like Bush’s policy on Iraq and NK.
It is d***ed if you, and d***ed if you don’t. Bush should not do anything but just sit tight, even when these crybabies yap.
If NK shoots a missile to the U.S., then and only then the U.S. will have the justification to beat the c*** out of NK and EVERY OTHER COUNTRY that helped NK, including China, SK, and even Russia.
I hope the SK realize the possiblity of this scenario and stop playing both sides. SK must align itself to the U.S.
“Those who aid a criminal are criminals as well”.
Noljin…..
We currently have sanctions on the North and have had for decades. North Koreas have also starved to death. So, are we starving them to death or is it just that MORE sanctions will cross some imaginary line to justify the piss poor claim that the US can be blamed for the starvation?
And yet the authors expect us to be foolish enough to make an agreement based only on promises of future concessions by an adversary we don’t trust.
noolji’s in good company, ain’t he?
flawed option? why don’t you tell us what the us should do? you never seem to get around that. you got a lot of bitching but no answers. why? at least noolji got a policy recommendation that my fellow diplomats agree with. what’s your solution? starve more north koreans?
uebermeister bush must sit down and talk to the north koreans. that’s the only option here.
“My fellow diplomats,” Noolji? Didn’t know you worked for the State Department.
“But there are few leaders foolish enough to give up the one card that guarantees their nation?€™s survival based only on promises of future concessions by an adversary they don?€™t trust.”
Funny, isn’t that the same card that is going to further isolate them and increase the chances of the country turning into a smoking pile of rubble?
noolji - the US isn’t starving the North Koreans.
I’m going to be blunt, because foolishness can be deadly, and with important people being foolish, sometimes you have to cut through the bullshit.
North Korea starves the North Korean people. Anyone who says differently is an ass.
And back to the intelligent but misguided people, they correctly say the military option is not a good one. But, in order to push their material aid argument they know won’t work — won’t solve the problem — they say the current approach is a “non-policy.” It is simplistic and wrong.
Containment is the best option.
Material aid will strengthen Pyongyang’s ability to avoid collapse. It will strengthen a regime determined to maintain control by keeping its people as isolated as possible.
Anyone who doesn’t know that refuses to acknowledge the obvious for BS reasons.
It will strengthen a regime also determined to keep a nuclear deterent.
Strengthening Kim Jong Il’s government while waiting and hoping the NK regime will decide to open up is by far much, much more foolish than waiting while practicing containment.
If North Korea considers the US hostile now, the idea that they would become less so as any information and internationals come in with any even minor first steps of a new agreement is what fools like to believe.
If the regime causes humanitarian NGOs that don’t care for the US government much to pack up and leave out of frustration, absolutely no new plan that hopes to rot the regime out from the inside by giving it material aid in order to begin to open it up — will ever work.
Again…..all the engagement plans these people talk about will do is make Kim Jong Il stronger for as long as the US and others are foolish enough to pay him off, and eventually the outsiders will get fed up with the regimes bullshit, and we’ll be back where we are now —- but with a stronger regime that can hold out longer.
How about an offer of diplomatic recognition and trade, but no money?
The article’s fuzzy logic bears a rambling resemblance to a Marmot’s Hole comment thread, but without the racism.
Noolji’s right, 52 years of “armistice” is enough. Let’s walk into Panmunjon, shake hands, declare our unilateral recognition of NorK’s existence and announce a plan of phased withdrawl of our forces now that “peace is at hand”. An embassy is fine too, let’s ask NorK to designate a piece of ground in Pyongyang for it. We need to build it with our own materials and labor force of course, remember what happened when we tried to build a new embassy in Moscow 20 or so years ago. Extra extra budgeting for incentive pay for the Foreign service staff, volunteers for duty there are going to be extremely hard to come by I’m thinking.
That way our policy will be exactly consistent with current ROK one (except I draw the line at bribe money, oops I mean “direct financial aid”. I suppose we can continue the direct food aid, wouldn’t want the NorK Army to get hungry and even more grumpy than usual).
Sunshine forever! (But also “full speed ahead” with anti-missile defense for Japan/Hawaii/Alaska…)
‘america does not starve north koreans.’
didn’t say we did but uebermeister busch has talked about sanctions quite a bit. sanctions would mean more starvation. i know you all are against that since you care more for the north koreans than the people of the south do. right?
‘containment is best policy..’
how would this work? korea and china are not going to go along.
‘material aid will prolong north korea and prevent it’s collapse.’
well, you’re right. but you know what? i don’t think a guy like you ever stops to realize that you want to bring about the collapse of north korea and leave the mess for the south koreans to clean up without ever asking the south koreans if it’s ok with them. that’s what i refer to as 50’s mentality; the us can do whatever it wants on the korean peninsula without regard to the sentiment of the korean people.
‘authors are foolish…’
no, it’s you who’s foolish. the men know what they’re talking about. the only avenue here is direct dialogue. while you disparage two learned and respected souls, you should realize that you need to grow up and see the world for what it is. somtimes, innocent people must suffer and often die for a larger cause. that’s the way it is and all people in the world are guilty of this including americans. folk like you want to solve the situation by aggresion and/or war which results in large numbers of innocents dying. do you ever realize that in the situation of waging war or trying to addict a country with money, people have to die? do you realize this? who says your way is better?
I’m no fan of the Bush regime, but in general, agree with the position of not negotiating with a dictator. There’s another option the IHT did not take up: treat N.K. exactly like Cuba. Engage the people and snub the ruler. Yes, Castro’s still around, but he’s not immortal, and neither is that ass in Pyongyang. Show the people the US is not their enemy and shares the interests of the smarter ones who know they are living in a hell on earth. http://www.state.gov/p/wha/rls/fs/2001/2558.htm
“Starve more North Koreans”? Is not the United States by far the single largest donor of food aid to North Korea?
How sharper than a serpent’s tooth…
You ask the Marmot for a solution and yet the one you offer (direct dialogue) is a complete waste of time.
The 6-party talks went nowhere, as anyone with half an ounce of sense predicted, and direct dialogue will go nowhere, as anyone not as dimwitted as noolji will tell you as well.
Direct talks will do nothing but give KJI a stage for spewing more nationalistic bullshit in an effort to convince his drones to continue starving so he can collect more porn and whiskey. Obviously that’s what you’d like to see noolji, but let’s not pretend that it will bring either side closer to a resolution of the issue. You want to see America on its knees, and you’d like to see your brothers up north gain any type of victory they can, which direct talks would be for them.
Bush’s policy for 4 years has been to wait for KJI to die. His administration is so bent on being the ABC (Anything But Clinton), that they’d rather do nothing than something that may resemble the ways of slick willy.
Clinton adopted an imperfect policy to slow the bleeding (otherwise known as rod processing), and it was partly successful according to those parameters. No one mistook it for a perfect or even a good policy, but it was the best they could do at the time given the circumstances and the alternatives. It was short-sighted and buck-passing to say the least, but it was in fact a policy.
Bush on the other hand, has done absolutely nothing while NK continued to process and build its arsenal. He pulled the tourniquet and allowed the blood to flow out of principle of being the anti-Clinton, and because he thought that SK and China would buckle to his Texasly pressure and in turn put pressure on NK to stop the flow of blood permanently.
He was wrong, and continues to be wrong. He has little to no influence over either SK or China, and he doesn’t have international support for further pressure because of the manipulation and deception fiasco we now refer to as the run-up to the Iraq war.
As someone who supported the Iraq war and was disgusted by how the case was made for it, it’s now easy to say I told you so. Bush spent all the political capital he had on Iraq, and now when he desperately needs it for a much larger and more imminent threat, he’s hamstrung. There’s no way he’ll get a blockade or quarantine or further sanctions on NK through the UN, because he has no credibility there thanks to Iraq.
There’s also no possibility of tightening sanctions on NK without the UN, because none of our other allies wants to get on board another ship with George, particularly after seeing how rocky the last one sailed.
Way off topic here, but good editorial in the Hong Kong Standard that steps back and says that Hu Jintao is not the reformer people were hoping for. Read it. Has implications for China’s role in Korea.
“Hard-liner Hu tightens grip”
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/.....8Dh01.html
Thank you for the posting Shenzhen. It is one reason why I do believe that the next war in this region will have “Made in China” stamped upon it and the article is more interesting than the ruminations from the IHT.
Thanks,
Also another good op-ed in the same paper directly regarding North Korea. Talks about US and China’s differing priorities. I increasingly think China is using NK as a bargaining chip with the US and so does not want it to collapse. The author sees that too, but he thinks China eventually may come around and get hard on NK.
When minds don’t meet
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/.....8Dh02.html
Bush, Bush, Bush, your problem is that attacking Bush won’t make the problem go away even though it makes you feel better. US - NorK antagonism is 55 years old, W was only 8 or so when the Korean war started.
The fundamental issue now is the Nork bomb. They clearly started their secret uranium bomb program prior to the arrival of Bush on the scene, in violation of the spirit of the plutonium reactor rod freeze agreement the Clinton administration made with them.
Amazing as it might seem, I agree with you the newly-elected Bush in 2001 should have stuck for a while with the substance of the previous Clinton administration policy, since it was already in place, to try to make it work and avoid giving the prior and current ROK administrations a case of whiplash
(As much as I despised the policy personally; also we should have avoided having a female Secy of State make fawning visits to drink toasts with KJI, I doubt if that was very impressive to those grim-looking NorK generals).
However, the Bush failure to stick with the Clinton admin policy led directly to the NorK admission of their uranium bomb program which we didn’t know about. A big mistake on their part, and I hope you agree that however bad you think Bush is, NorK is far worse (you probably think I should take this for granted but one wouldn’t know it from reading your posts above).
I think it’s a good thing we found out about this early instead of coasting along for a few more years, patting ourselves on the back for “freezing” the plutonium bomb program (and that’s if you really and truly believe it would have stayed frozen anyway under potential 2000 and 2004 Democratic administrations; I doubt this, but of course now we’ll never know for sure).
I think we would have been better off with McCain as President in 2001 (though I’ve got a lot of problems with many of McCain’s domestic policies). However I preferred him strictly on foreign policy grounds, for issues like this one. And under a McCain administration I think we (US) would probably have ended up in the same position vs. a vs. Iraq and NorK that we are in now.
With a Gore administration in 2001 (thank God we were spared that) IMO US would still have ended up in about the same position that we are in now vs NorK, once we found out about their uranium bomb program (probably wouldn’t have found out so soon). Those light water reactors up north would never have been finished regardless.
I agree that Gore probably wouldn’t have ordered the 2003 attack on Iraq. So with him as Prez, we would about now still be trying to enforce “sanctions” on Iraq (liberal opponents of Bush endorse these now in retrospect, not at all what they were saying about sanctions before, what incredible hypocrisy).
And of course we’d still be flying over a sovereign country (Iraq) and dropping bombs on it periodically, since Gore wouldn’t have had the political intestinal fortitude to live up to his current rhetoric and actually sign a peace treaty with Saddam. And meanwhile, Saddam would about now be continuing with his training program for his successors Qusay and Uday, and you guys would be here braying about how we don’t have a “policy” for Iraq.
It’s remarkable how you Bush haters spend so little time focusing on what would have actually happened had he lost in 2000 or 2004.
Bush should have lost in 2000 of course, it took a Gore to lose that one, Gore should have won by a lot bigger margin so there wouldn’t have been any electoral disputes.
If you guys are Dems, why the hell didn’t you nominate Lieberman in 2004, he might have actually won the 04 election for you. I doubt if such a win would have changed things any in regards to current situation vs NorK, but it would have spared me from having to listen to the crows constantly cawing “Bush, Bush,…” as though everyone everywhere in the world would love us if only we didn’t have Bush. What rubbish.
Hey Tangent, interesting article on Hu. This one part made me laugh, though: “He is the ultimate product of the system,” said one party academic with access to the leadership who spoke on condition of anonymity. “He never studied overseas or had much contact with the outside world. He was educated by the system, spent his entire career in the system, and his values are the same as the system’s.” Sounds like he has some things in common with the presidents of S. Korea and the U.S.
Noli….
I’m not going to respond with coherent thought to the rest of your reply, because it doesn’t merit it. You are as loose with everything as you are with the claim of the US being the cause of North Korean starving to death….
“‘containment is best policy..?€™ How would this work? korea and china are not going to go along.”
“you want to bring about the collapse of north korea and leave the mess for the south koreans to clean up”
“that?€™s what i refer to as 50?€™s mentality; the us can do whatever it wants on the korean peninsula without regard to the sentiment of the korean people.”
“somtimes, innocent people must suffer and often die for a larger cause.”
“folk like you want to solve the situation by aggresion and/or war which results in large numbers of innocents dying.”
“waging war or trying to addict a country with money”
There is no point trying to have a reasoned debate with someone this loose with words and thoughts.
It’s like trying to grab a fish out of water….
“Let?€™s walk into Panmunjon, shake hands, declare our unilateral recognition of NorK?€™s existence and announce a plan of phased withdrawl of our forces now that ?€œpeace is at hand?€?. ”
A well-known USFK General Officer, who shall remain nameless, said just what Paul said almost word for word a couple weeks ago in a “private” gathering here in Seoul.
Were you there too, Paul? Your ‘quote’ is uncannily accurate.
E-Rod,
“Bush on the other hand, has done absolutely nothing while NK continued to process and build its arsenal.”
I’m starting to get frustrated with this line. I think I’m going to have to stop reading the news and blogs on this topic.
Bush and crew have done “something.” The current policy seeks to keep North Korea on a hook and limit the amount of regime saving aid China and South Korea are willing to pump into it. It also seeks to tighten containment of North Korea activities — especially potential nuclear material sales.
Above all, it is a policy of not strengthening the Kim Jong Il position in favor of an agreement that will for a time provide material support for the regime until any new agreement falls through and we find outselves back at square one but with a stronger NK regime.
It is a policy that accepts there is no adequate solution to the Nuke problem.
As you said, perhaps Clinton and crew didn’t believe the 1994 agreement would work either. Maybe they did accept there was no solution to the problem. So, like Bush, the refocused on the question.
They chose to, as you say, slow the North’s nuke program down - and they waited for regime collapse.
But, the paradoxically helped prevent regime collapse during the worst period in North Korean history (after the war) by continuing major material aid measures (beyond food aid) — like the KEDO nuke plants. Things that were actually spelled out in the 1994 agreement. And, history showed, important parts of the global community actually preferred blaming the US for the failures in the 1994 agreement than they did North Korea. They pointed at not finishing the nuclear reactors as bad faith by the US and preferred to excuse or ignore North Korea’s bad faith. The Clinton approach too also stood back in the late 1990s when the 1994 agreement was all but dead and preferred to watch as not only South Korea but Japan and the EU and others moved significantly toward a policy of concluding North Korea was “on the verge” of becoming another Switzerland — just another normal state in the world everyone could/should accept.
I don’t really mind the Clinton approach as I remember it as it worked itself out.
But, it clearly isn’t the path to take now.
And it is clear the current approach is not just “doing nothing.”
Contain North Korea. Keep the world focused on the reality of North Korea — not on “hopes” from “signs” that North Korea will “one day” open up and become Switzerland. Pressure nations to limit the amount of regime supporting aid they give (China and South Korea). And above all, don’t strengthen the regime by making another hopeless agreement.
I’d like to see the US do more to bring to attention things like North Korea’s drug exports and counterfiet money laundering. Or, as Oranckay argued, do more to pump information into the North Korean people.
But, I sure as hell don’t want to see the US “do something” that will put Kim Jong Il and crew in a better position to maintain power, strengthen NK’s military, and leave it with a nuclear deterent at the same time….
usinkorea said:
Again?€?..all the engagement plans these people talk about will do is make Kim Jong Il stronger for as long as the US and others are foolish enough to pay him off, and eventually the outsiders will get fed up with the regime’s bullshit, and we?€™ll be back where we are now ?€”- but with a stronger regime that can hold out longer.
Exactly. That’s the crux of all the disagreement here. People blithely assume direct engagement will work, when it will in all likelihood make things worse.
It would give the dictator cover to make nukes clandestinely, while bolstering his rule economically. It would dash North Korean’s hopes for basic freedoms.
usinkorea also said:
Keep the world focused on the reality of North Korea ?€” not on ?€œhopes?€? from ?€œsigns?€? that North Korea will ?€œone day?€? open up and become Switzerland. Pressure nations to limit the amount of regime supporting aid they give (China and South Korea). And above all, don?€™t strengthen the regime by making another hopeless agreement.
Ditto. Keep North Korea in the light. An agreement would let them retreat into the darkness, where secret nuclear programs and human-rights abuses thrive.
Some thin-skinned observers want the issue to retreat into the darkness, because tehy can’t stand having bad news on the front pages every day. But removing threats from the news (Geneva Accord) doesn’t necessarily mean they go away.
And again, engagement, for the North, doesn’t mean cooperation, not by any stretch of the imagination. It only means gaining advantage. Like we see in their dealings with South Korea, if they don’t gain ridiculously one-sided advantages by engaging, they don’t bother with it, and revert to treating the South like a garden pest.
rather than re-tool what i wrote to conform to what you cannot argue against, why not admit you don’t know what you’re talking about?
‘i’m not going to respond cohenrently…’
have you ever? you’re just like slim; telling me how ridiculous i am and then spending the time to actually retool what i wrote. when i think someone a baffoon, i usually ignore them. i mean, you don’t see me responding to a guy like bevers do you?
E- Rod
“There?€™s no way he?€™ll get a blockade or quarantine or further sanctions on NK through the UN, because he has no credibility there thanks to Iraq.”
He probably won’t get the sanctions through but lets not kid ourselves, it has nothing to do with credibility. The North Korean nuclear threat is credible on its own. There are multiple sources for this nuclear program being credible including North Korea itself declaring it. Countries will base their policy on their own interests and look at the evidence. They will not just blindly think Bush (and every other intelligence agency in the world) was wrong about Iraq so the North Korean nuclear threat must not be credible. SK and China don’t want the sanctions because they are afraid of NK collapsing. They do think the threat is credible. They don’t think it is any less credible because Bush said it was a credible threat.
Ooooops “sanctions” was meant to be “quarantine”.
Sanctions and disengagement haven’t worked in Burma, Cuba, Iran, and they didn’t work in Iraq. Not speaking to somebody that you want to do something is not a logical policy. It just makes people feel morally superior. The fact that they (American government - god, it hurts to say that) ARE morally superior to the North Korean government is not an excuse.
I don’t have a lot of hope that the North Korean government will reform itself into some sort of democracy, but engagement worked with the Soviet Union and China, both more odious regimes than the one up north. People will object to the Chinese example, but it would be difficult to argue that there is less freedom there than in 1972. Thomas Jefferson and J-Lo - now there’s an attractive combination that the whole world wants to emulate - whether they like to admit it or not. And we can hope that, as North Koreans become more exposed to the West, and particularly the South, they might just take matters into their hands.
Don’t back down on human rights, or drugs, or counterfeiting, or nuclear bombs. Don’t give them money. But send an ambassador, and if they have something you want to buy, buy it.
“i don?€™t think a guy like you ever stops to realize that you want to bring about the collapse of north korea and leave the mess for the south koreans to clean up without ever asking the south koreans if it?€™s ok with them.”
Noojli hits the nail on the head with that statement. This is one of the reasons why most South Koreans seem ok with a nuclear armed North.
Right now most everyone in the south benefits by keeping Dear Leader in power. The collapse of the Kim regime would require some financial sacrifice on behalf of the South Koreans. Talk of “brotherhood” is cheap; acting like a caring brother requires a sum of money that the South Koreans don’t want to give up.
In fact many South Koreans stand to gain from exploiting North Korea. South Korean companies see a huge pool of cheap reliable labor in Dear Leader?€™s “workers paradise”.
How does South Korea gain from Dear Leader’s regime opening up? Since his whole regime is built on lies, opening up equals collapse. When it comes to North Korean leadership South Korea seems quite comfortable with the status quo.
Status Quo works for me.
I ask every Korean who dabbles with idea of unification, “are you willing to share one half of your possession with your brother in the North”?
The answer is always resounding negative.
SKs think the North Koreans are poor and hungry workers, but the truth is that they are seasoned soldiers who will turn into a mob, like the one in Russia, if wealth is not shared with them.
helliwasthere:
No, hell, I wasn’t there, never been to Korea.
Suggest you not repeat that anecdote any more if true, if Cdr USFK finds out one of his subordinate generals is making such remarks even privately it probably won’t be “a good thing” as Martha Stewart would say.
I’m not surprised if it’s true, any general officer can sense far better than me just how exposed US forces are in this current political climate. A logical next move as per the Machiavelli political manual is for DPRK to attack an isolated US unit, in order to awaken even more fear in ROK and hopefully make ROK domestic political opinion blame the evil Bush administration for “provocations”.
Like the Pueblo in 68 and the EC-121 reconnaissance plane in 69; DPRK has a demonstrated record of accomplishment in this area. US committed to major war in Vietnam then, didn’t want to risk starting another war in Korea by retaliating; US committed to not-quite-as-major a war in Iraq now, but maybe KJI will think it’s time for deja vu all over again. After all, he’s got a big set of boots to fill if he wants to measure up to Dad’s accomplishments.
Remember the dash out by the NorK fighters (a flight of their MiG 29s?) at the US surveillance flight offshore? When was that, late 2001 or 2002? The MiGs turned away at the last minute and didn’t fire, maybe they thought they could force the plane into landing on DPRK soil, in emulation of the April 2001 Hainan forcedown.
But unlike the EC-121 in 69 and the Navy P-3 near Hainan, this one was a jet acft, it saw the MiGs coming and turned away in time while putting out the word on the radio. I suppose the MiGs saw that, heard the radio call, and aborted the attack.
Or maybe it was just a feint anyway, to try to deter future similar flights. I’m sure many in ROK would prefer US stop making such flights, maybe the idea was to try and encourage such a view.
‘why should the us even give a shit what happens to korea?’
because what happens to korea happens to japan. asian financial crisis did not become a crisis until it hit korea. thailand and indonesia were on fire for a year and the world simply yawned. they woke up when korea’s house was on fire. a collapse of korea could have brought about the collapse of japan or so said the experts. now, you know the answer to your question. glad i was able to help.
‘do they koreans deserve us military protection?’
that’s a question better posed to herr busch. protecting koreans? no, sir, protecting american interests. got it?
good.
Thailand and Indonesia were not “on fire” for nearly a year before November 1997. Not only that, the world did not merely “yawn” when those countries were affected. Some help.
The stuff in Thailand was seriously going down from the beginning of 1997.
have you ever? you?€™re just like slim; telling me how ridiculous i am and then spending the time to actually retool what i wrote. when i think someone a baffoon, i usually ignore them. i mean, you don?€™t see me responding to a guy like bevers do you?
Don’t flatter yourself, Noolji. It never takes more than seconds to demolish your posts, which are all variations on one overarching theme: banal, illogical nativism.
Bluejeans,
North Korea is a worse hellhole than the Soviet Union — well, minus Stalin, and even there, the 1990s in North Korea was approaching Stalin. If Kim Jong Il and Kim Il Sung had the population density of the Soviet Union or China, it would have killed just as many or more of its own people.
Paul H,
Last year, it was reported, I think by Holloran (sp?) the former reporter who writes commentaries out of Hawaii, that the commander of the Pacific theatre said when asked about troops in Korea, “I’d have them out of there yesterday if I could” or something very close to that. I thought it was a huge statement, but I never read a follow up to it.
I’d love to be a fly on the wall in the Pentagon and in Hawaii in the military chat rooms.
One thing I’ve been thinking is this —- It seems clear the appointed end of the US defense department wants to move us out of Korea. But, the military leadership have long been core supporters of USFK staying (like with Cater in 1976)…..
…..so, when I hear USFK making big changes, and I don’t read direct quotes or anonomous quotes from high ranking generals complaining about the steps to weaken USFK…….I have to start concluding the top levels of the US military are in tune with the civil leadership….
The stuff in Thailand was seriously going down from the beginning of 1997.
No offense (why do I keep finding myself saying that to members of your family), but the New York Times, among other sources, disagrees.
“In early May [1997], Japanese officials, concerned about the decline of the yen, hinted that they might raise interest rates. The threat never materialized. But it proved to be the first sign of an Asian flu that six months later is still spreading and has already prompted around $100 billion in international pledges for a cure.
The Japanese threat shifted the decisions of global investors, who immediately began to sell Southeast Asian currencies, setting off a tumble not only in the currencies but in the local stock markets as well.”
http://www.nytimes.com/library.....rency.html
Ok noolji, [taking a cautious step back] I think I understand what you’re trying to say. “As goes Korea, so goes Japan.” or something along those lines.
Now I gotta ask you in all honesty,
Exactly what makes you think that?
Japan is so different from Korea that it boggles the mind to try and think of any real similarities, at least as far as regional stability.
For starters,
Japan has some 50,000 US servicemembers and DoD civilans stationed on its shores, yet Japan has willingly contributed in excess of 75% of the costs associated with stationing those troops. For many years.
Further, Japan pays 100% of the salaries of local Japanese workers employed by the US military. The ROK does not, which you will note is why LTG Campbell says he is forced to lay off upwards of 1,000 of these good people.
And this to me seems important. Japan has not suffered the invasion of the Nork Kim clan, nor does Kim have to ability to do any serious damage to Japan at present. Sure, we’ve all seen the 1998 missile tests, but that was a threat, and a pretty idle threat at that. Scud missiles could never threaten Japan’s foundations, and yet Japan is willing to pony up the money, and in fact is at present making space on Hokkaido to station even more US troops, not to mention its own military buildup.
Contrast that with Korea, who has been bitching since 1991 about contributing even a dollar towards US support, who still refuses to allocate more than 2.8% of its GDP to its own defense, and who has yet to spend the first dime on Yongsan relocation despite 15 years of negotiations.
To the Korean people, US protection is a birthright, an entitlement, that they shouldn’t have to pay for or even appreciate for that matter.
OK, sure they passed out eviction notices in the Pyongtaek area last fall, but you know how many of those locals have actually been bought out and moved out so far? Not many. You wanna take a guess as to how much infrastructure has actually been put in place for a move scheduled to take place in less than three years? Zip, zero, nada.
The Roh administration is all about public misrepresentation.
All talk, no walk.
So what is it that makes you think that if US troops decided tomorrow to pack their shit and leave, Japan would start worrying?
Is it that nationalistic streak you and your countrymen still share about how a reunified Korea [excuse me, Corea] would pose a military and economic threat to Japan?
Bwuhahaha. Disabuse yourself of that notion at once.
Nationalistic jingoism does not substitute for reality.
So, what is it, noolji?
And by the way, thanks for your reply. I appreciate the dialogue.
I heard about the Pacific command comment. I think it was here on this blog (maybe it was one of your comments in an earlier thread); didn’t read any independent news report on it. If you never heard any followup that could be because it was deemed a mistake at the time by Pacific Command and/or Pentagon/JCS, and public affairs officers were instructed to shut up tight in hopes the story would go away. Could be the 4 star concerned got a call from the JCS or even the SecDef about it.
I was thinking of this report:
http://times.hankooki.com/lpag.....468040.htm
(from GI Korea blog)
USFK generals under LaPorte need to be sure they are in close support of his public posture, regardless of their personal feelings.
Rumsfeld has made his long-term decision about USFK and that is to downsize and move south what’s left; I think his attention is now elsewhere (also Bush’s). ROK has in theory agreed with this but is now dragging its feet on actual implementation (which I gather is a long-standing pattern).
I think this leads frustrated American military to say privately “let’s just carry things to their logical conclusion and get all the way out, that will make many ROK citizens happy, save both sides a whole bunch of money, end the problem about building new bases, no more traffic accidents and arguments with angry ROK citizens, distance makes the heart grow fonder, etc etc.”
Generals are entitled to private opinions just like anyone else (ie blogs and their commenters) but they not only have to support official policy but have to be seen as supporting it (like Caesar’s wife). They aren’t supposed to “leak” their disagreement to the press (the classic Washington Congress/bureacracy game) in order to create “buzz” and “sabotage” an announced policy.
Somebody on an earlier thread looked for a change in ROK policy come next elections (Mingi?). Assume that nothing changes much between now and next ROK election (2007?) and that DPRK keeps scraping by “as is”, with no change except maybe they keep adding to their nuclear bomb stockpile (but no open test of a nuclear weapon).
I know little about ROK politics except what I read here, but my sense is that it is unlikely that the ROK will elect a conservative oriented government, one that will end the sunshine policy and all economic assistance to the North. The arguments for “engagement” are strong, look at the comments on this board. I might even agree with some of them if I thought ROK was unselfishly and truly concerned about the welfare of average North Koreans.
I agree with much of what’s been said earlier here, war is unthinkable but I think the entire burden (except emergency food aid) for supporting the north should be thrown on the backs of PRC. If new ROK government doesn’t agree after 2007 election, and wants continued active investment and assistance to the North in order to prolong the life of DPRK indefinitely, then I say fine, go ahead, meanwhile full speed ahead on the withdrawal of all US forces.
US should give cheerful best wishes to the ROK and PRC to work out a joint strategy between themselves for long-term policy vs. DPRK. After withdrawal, if DPRK attacks then US will support ROK defense with long-range fires from offshore (air force/navy) as requested by ROK; send troops back in too if they are available and assuming the ROK can stop the initial attack and hold the defense. If ROK youth can focus on that task in the same way they focus on anti-Americanism, it should be no problem.
Doubt if a future war after a US withdrawal would last long enough for US ground intervention to be needed, as I doubt if PRC would allow enough petroleum supplies into the north to sustain an offensive. If ROK wants to subsidize the north and the north uses the aid to build up for an attack after US is gone, then frankly that’s the ROK’s problem.
And probably it won’t happen anyway, certainly current ROK government thinks it won’t, so let’s just get out ASAP.
Generals should command the military and leave leaking to others, but we know that isn’t how it works. I think, normally, if top brass were not in line with major changes like we are seeing in Korea, we’d be hearing about it. The fact that we are not hearing complaints about announced USFK changes and complaints about discussed changes we haven’t heard about yet leads me to believe the military brass want those changes too. I also see no clear signs a significant portion of Congress will move to block all USFK leaving or less extensive but important changes. I haven’t seen a clear sign that they will support those changes in the end either, however.
As for South Korean politics, I don’t follow the people or the parties that closely, but my general impression is that even if a conservative government is elected next time, the people as a whole are too fairly split to change the current course fundamentally where it comes to USFK. The Sunshine policy might be rolled back, but issues like South Korea’s cost sharing, war time command, resistance to additions to bases during the consolidation, resistance to the consolidation, and many more will be pretty much the same even if the Roh type rhetoric goes away. These are old issues in Korea and often cut across party lines.
In fact, a conservative government would probably fight base closures and consolidations harder. One of the big differences between Roh and other admins is that he has been pretty much accepting major changes in USFK that will weaken its presence in Korea.
In short, the frustration factor for USFK doesn’t depend on which party is in power….
“send troops back in too if they are available and assuming the ROK can stop the initial attack and hold the defense” -Paul H.
1) Did Koreans hold the defense in 1950? (this is rhetorical question)
2) Are you in effect wishing for the collapse of South Korea (just like VietNam) by advocating the U.S. troop withdrawal? This is sad and very sad. The emotional effect of this on Koreans will be enormous. Some may feel betrayed by the U.S as, I presume, many boat people from the VietNam had felt.
3) Korea is about 50-50 about being anti-American. The same situation as in VietNam. Is the U.S. willing to have another VietNam happen in Asia along with the betrayal of Taiwan?
I understand that the U.S. is not a “brother’s keeper” and the U.S. does not owe anything to Koreans. With the NK nuke and the present pro-North government, the U.S. has every right to withdraw. However, another VietNam happening in Asia make me sad, very sad.
Do you have room for boat people?
It is possible for the US to move out and South Korea to present an effective deterent. However, it would take a much stronger and different reformation of the Korean military than what we heard about today as Korea moving to use the French model. There is no reason beyond tax payer and government unwillingness to prevent South Korea from defending itself.
baduk,
1) Contrary to popular opinion, the ROK citizenry has no “right” to have American soldiers die on their behalf,
2) the US can fulfill all its MDT responsibilities from offshore, i.e. they can keep the Norks at bay without ground troops. And in some respects they can do a better job from a distance.
Why SHOULDN’T the Army get out of Korea and let the USAF/USN come to the rescue if necessary?
Are you thinking that the US has some sort of moral obligation to continue providing a steady stream of income to the fake rolex sellers in Itaewon or something?
What can the US do to protect Korea in Korea that they couldn’t accomplish even better from Japan?
How would that be “abandoning” Korea? Do we have an obligation to protect Korea in the way Korea wants to be protected, or are we allowed enough sovereign immunity to make strategic decisions on our own?
And of course the greater question…why should the US even give a shit what happens to Korea?
I’m not saying they shouldn’t, I mean a deal is a deal, but what vested interest does the US have in putting its sons’ blood on the table to protect the Korean people?
This is not 1950.
Ziggy Freud,
You brought an interesting point, the fake rolex sellers in Itaewon. How will these guys survive cold Korean winters? Don’t you care about these people?
I am tearing up just thinking about how these guys are going to eat after the U.S. leaves. I am all choked up.
What about Yongsan women? Generations of them have served the U.S. soldiers. How are they going to live? I think the U.S. military should give citizenship to these women for serving the country. Some U.S. posts, I believe Yongsan as well, kept the list of these women; it wouldn’t be difficult to identify these women.
paul wrote:
I think this leads frustrated American military to say privately ?€œlet?€™s just carry things to their logical conclusion and get all the way out, that will make many ROK citizens happy, save both sides a whole bunch of money, end the problem about building new bases, no more traffic accidents and arguments with angry ROK citizens, distance makes the heart grow fonder, etc etc.?€?
do not let the loudest voices trick you into thinking they speak for everyone.
usfk is moving south. they really are acquiring the land and they’ve already begun building the bases, and the various entities are already making their plans. what i’ve been told by people whose job is directly affected by this, about 1000 desk jockeys of various kind will be left in seoul, but everything else is (as in now) being prepared to move. not like 1996, this is really a go.
with the yongsan base essentially out of the capital, without any major foreign military base (or major korean military base, for that matter) in the capital (which is a very big deal to many koreans, although infrequently mentioned by others as a source of negative viewpoints), without the u.s. being seen (unreasonably, imo) as selfishly taking up valuable real estate in the middle of the largest city in the country, go-home-style anti-usfk sentiment (which is still a minority) will stagnate or erode.
most koreans want the u.s. military here but, in line with the what the new ‘partnership’ agreement is, they want a ’smaller footprint.’ and that’s what they’re getting. usfk wants a smaller footprint because they, too, know it means they are less of a target for the agenda-driven press on the left.
usfk is a deterrent for aggression against the south, which is most likely to come from the north, but could also come from elsewhere, in less likely scenarios. the physical form of the deterrent is the weaponry, the skilled soldiers, the training, etc., but its overall effect is mental: with usfk on south korean soil, north korea knows it can’t win if it attacks. period.
however, take the same forces and put them nearby but off shore, the mental deterrent to the north has weakened. there’s the glimmer of hope that the right push under the right conditions will make usfk help come too little and too late. thus, moving them off-peninsula is a weakening of the deterrent.
if this were a discussion of whether to place troops here when they weren’t already here versus leaving them off-shore, then the status quo argument might be a bit stronger. but since we already have the troops on the ground, what is the point of taking them off?
the only arguments for taking them off would be (a) to remove them as a source of tension, but moving them outside of major urban centers will do pretty much the same, or (b) the koreans are showing too much ingratitude for us to risk our lives here so let’s just leave them to fend for themselves while we’re nearby to try to make sure things don’t get out of hand, which of course ignores the fact that, despite the noisemakers and the foolish ramblings of the disgraced, minority-elected citizen-president, most koreans feel that usfk is protecting them and want them to remain.
most koreans want the u.s. military here but, in line with the what the new ?€?partnership?€™ agreement is, they want a ?€™smaller footprint.?€™
Of course deep down they want the Yanks here, they just want them out of sight and out of mind, but the real question is SO WHAT?
Are they somehow automatically entitled to US military protection simply because they desire it?
That’s the question for debate…not where the troops will be located on the peninsula, but why they are needed there anymore at all when the ROK is all grown up and can defend itself, when it continues to insist on smaller burden sharing percentages, when it cancels CFC OPLANS and insists on going it alone in times of potential crisis, when it continually clamors for opcon of troops, and when it refuses to acknowedge or participate in “regional stability” missions.
Not saying that the ROK shouldn’t take this tack, of course it’s their own choice, but…I’m wondering…
What national interest of the US is furthered by a continued ground troop presence on the Korean peninsula?
Maybe there is something, but I sure can’t see it. The MDT obligations could be perfectly fulfilled from Japan or from a carrier deck.
stability in the region is in the u.s.’s interest, especially if it promotes our values (trade and capitalism) and our economic interests (free trade and open markets). that alone makes it worth every penny.
stability also prevents future wars, which the u.s. would likely get dragged into even if it tries not to be (world war i, world war ii, middle east fighting), so the stability provided by the troop presence prevents future american bloodshed.
Since Prez Roh is acting very blase about the Norks and discussing “French style” reorganization of the Korean military (which as usual for him when he speaks off the cuff, or out of his ass, is being spun to make it sound like he’s not really advocating exactly what the French did with their military–Doh!), then why should the US make a great effort to defend Korea? Apparently that’s what some people in Washington are thinking when they say Korean base workers will be let go–if Korea wants to decrease its committments, then why not the US as well?
1) “In short, the frustration factor for USFK doesn?€™t depend on which party is in power”– comment by usinkorea
Well said and I’m sure you’re right.
2) The arguments for sentiment and loyalty and “reduced footprint” by baduk and nora are cogent and well stated. But IMO they fade in comparison with the simple fact of NorK possession of nuclear weapons.
I think the average ROK citizen/voter (and some commenters here) don’t really believe it will ever come to a question of actually facing their possible use. I do, and I don’t want the US faced with the primary responsiblity for that decision.
The decision for war or peace on a possible nuclear battlefield inside (or on the waters around) Korea should be strictly an ROK one. ROK should command on the ground in Korea, ROK should have control of its own nuclear deterrent (if they want it), ROK should reap all the possible rewards (or bear all the possible consequences) for whatever policy is adopted towards those demons up north.
If the ROK thinks they can ease the North into a reasonable relationship, more power to them. Koreans know each other best. But right now there’s very little advantage (and a lot of possible downside) for the US remaining on the peninsula, and I’m not talking about “client states”, “slaves” and all that economic shinola — I’m talking about the consequences of war and peace, life and death.
ROK is reaping the heritage of the remorseless world political attack on American values and motives. 59 million of us voted for Bush the warmonger? That makes 59 million dumb American warmongers, fine by me, let’s get the Americans out so Koreans can breathe free of their warmongering.
ROK has had 55 years to become self-sufficient. US isn’t an “empire”, in spite of all the pretentious pundits and asinine academics who love that particular analogy. We’re not fated to keep legions in Korea for hundreds of years like the Roman legions on the Rhine.
If ROK was standing tall to bring democratic values and regime change to PPRK, by such things as running an active program of accepting refugees from the North and refusing to aid DPRK in order to bring it nearer to collapse, they’d find Americans like me willing to stick with them no matter what the cost. The only permanent solution to DPRK nukes is regime change and neutralization/reunification of DPRK with ROK. And the US doesn’t want to “keep” Korea as an “avenue” to “threaten” China, I don’t know whether to laugh or cry when I read comments like that here.
“No US troops should ever fight in a land war in Asia”. –Douglas MacArthur after the Korean War. Too bad we didn’t heed those words in Vietnam. But if Americans have to spend another 50 or 100 years on the peninsula under the nuclear shadow, while waiting for the DPRK to disappear — because ROK wants to keep DPRK going to avoid the burden of reunification (while pretending to really want it, what utter hypocrisy) — then that’s totally unacceptable, at least to this American.
And as time goes on in this decade I predict it will become unacceptable to many more (assuming we can stay out of a war there in the meantime).
stability in the region is in the u.s.?€™s interest,
Well, yeah, no doubt, but is that ’stability’ furthered by having a full-time US ground troop presence on the peninsula, or could it be equally [and more cheaply] acheived by removing the muddy boots but keeping the airplanes and ships nearby?
Would the region really be any less stable if 8th Army moved to Hawaii or Guam?
They could still be here on a momnent’s notice. As could the 7th Air Force, the Marines, and the Pacific Fleet, all of which are within striking distance and could be on the scene of an emergency pretty darn fast.
What added value is there to the stated goal of regional stability by having an American human tripwire sitting on the peninsula?
They aren’t guardians, but rather hostages.
Seems like a relic from a past age that is no longer relevant to the problems of today.
If you worked in a Winchell’s late at night, would you rather have the cops down the street or hanging out in your store?
I’d be giving them free donuts to hang out.
That may be a stupid analogy, but I’ve liked donuts ever since I looked like this —
Aye, but there’s the rub, Kushibo.
In our scenario the cops have to pay to protect the donut maker.
The ROK has never paid more than 40% of the expenses incurred in having US troops protect them.
And that 40% does not include US personnel costs, so in rerality it’s much lower than what the ROK likes to parade to the press.
Excluding troop and civilian personnel pay costs, the US still pays nearly 3 billion a year protecting the ROK. The Japanese don’t seem to have any issues with paying much high er percentages for the favors granted to them.
If the Korean Winchells proprietors really want the cops hanging out close by why aren’t they willing to offer up a couple of free donuts?
Giving the cops part of the leftovers at the end of the day [all while making lots of nasty cop jokes] is not the same thing.
It’s time for the cops to look out for other, more appreciative neighbors as well. No need to ignore other important obligations to hang out at Winchells, even if the donuts suddenly became free of charge.
Stop talking about Winchells, I’m missing them now
Right now the ROK is paying billions of donuts to move the base. Not to mention paying billions for its own military.
And it has been explained to me by military people in the know that the $3 billion it spends to be here is worth the money for the power it projects in the region.
But Michael, we have Krispy Kreme now (only ones in Asia!) and Dunkin’ Donuts everywhere!
I see your point, dogbert, but I do remember reading about the problems in Thailand from early in 1997. That’s all. That might not make the soundest of arguments. I’m a sociologist, not an economist.
I have also heard a theory that the loss of financial anchor Hong Kong by the hands-off British to the maybe-not-so-hands-off Chinese in 1997 was a major, but often unreported factor in undermining credibility in the region.
Koshibo, I miss Winchell’s Kona coffee too…but you’re right, Korea’s turning into the Donut Hub of Northeast Asia, and I’ve got no complaints.
Um, I think your pancreas begs to differ
Krispy Kreme!!!!
Yum!!!
yeah, i stand by what i said about thailand and indonesia. now on to ziggy: your post was a bore and big yawn. japan got a lot of money tied up in korea. nuff said cept for one thing…
‘want to pose military threat to japan..’
i don’t want korea to pose any threat to the japanese. i don’t want japan harmed, and i don’t want to see japanese people physically attacked (word to the chinese).
you’re just a clown, zig. i’m about to put you into the bever’s catogory. watch it!
Standing by what you say doesn’t make it any truer.
No Jyc, it’s too smothered by my fat stomach to complain.
Wow.
That was simply a brilliant exposition and retort, noolji.
I seriously overestimated your analytical skills.
My bad.
Won’t happen again.
Go back to scratching yourself. I won’t ask you any more questions.
“without the u.s. being seen (unreasonably, imo) as selfishly taking up valuable real estate in the middle of the largest city in the country, go-home-style anti-usfk sentiment (which is still a minority) will stagnate or erode.”
Error…
The dedicated street protesters and NGO members are in the minority. Anti-USFK/US sentiment is in the majority, especially below the age of 65. Yongsan is just one of a wide variety of tools to promote and exercise this sentiment.
Getting out of Korea would be good for America - Military cost cutting or use in other areas. North Korea is too big a risk. South Korea too much a problem. USFK too expensive and locked into place.
Given all the factors —- costs, risks, SK attitude, SK wealthy and population and industrial strength compared to NK, —- I really can’t see how anyone could come up with a convincing argument we should shut down bases inside the US while running the risk of a major war with North Korea while accepting South Korea as the ally it is.
“Right now the ROK is paying billions of donuts to move the base. Not to mention paying billions for its own military.
And it has been explained to me by military people in the know that the $3 billion it spends to be here is worth the money for the power it projects in the region.”
What power can USFK project in the region when USFK has always been locked into South Korea facing the North (until Iraq War II)? Even the current removal of troops for Iraq War II does not show “flexibility,” because, if I remember correctly, those troops are not slated to return to Korea or be replaced. The US wants to make the force flexibile (usable outside of Korea) and Korea is fighting it. And even if USFK changes policy toward flexibility, the chances we will see it work out effectively are small. In ever conflict or military operation the US has had since the Korean War, one of the first questions asked in Congress is “do we have enough reserves to handle Korea if the North decides to take advantage of our preoccupation elsewhere?”
Yes. Korea is spending billions to enlarge bases south of the Han. Bases its military will move into at the same time US soldiers are leaving whenever that time comes.
I forget the numbers, but South Korea spends less on its military per economic size than most OECD nations, and South Korea is the only one of those nations still facing a Cold War type enemy……..
On the idea of leaving Korea but keeping the option of going back in for Korean War II —- I am dead set against it. If we are going to use ground troops to defend Korea in the future, then leave them in.
Using air assests out of country is ok, but we’d have to consider whether using air power from Japan would not trigger North Korea striking at Japan. We should avoid that.
On regional stability, the region will not be stable as long as North Korea functions as it does.
I know a good many Koreans, especially college educated Koreans, believe that the Cold War setting in Korea has been “stable.” I was very suprised to see that, unlike generations raised in America under the USA-USSR threat, Koreans living in the face of North Korea grew to take it for granted “war will never happen.” Consequently, I even heard some Korean graduate students pining for “the good old days” of global Cold War - where “someone was able to stand up to America.” This was in the middle 1990s, not post-2000.
In short, Koreans really do believe North Korea will never attack as long as USFK is in Korea. But, I believe, as long as North Korea remains a short slide from collapse, the potential for war in Korea is too high.
For the US, the situation today is no a good definition of “stable.”
And I do not believe it is a given that if South Korea is destablized, Japan will fall significantly too.
Back in the IMF bailout, some commentator on TV in the US pointed out South Korea’s economy is roughly the size of California’s. It is not absolutely crucial for the economic health of Asia or the US. That doesn’t mean it can collapse without any pain. It does mean that destabilization in Korea is not by itself a convincing argument for why the US needs to accept the costs and risks of defending South Korea.
The 1990s collapse was regional in scope.
South Korea’s economic ties to other asian nations are not so extensive that a 2nd Korean war would cause a chain reaction across the region.
If war broke out in Korea, the South would eventually win, and the international community would eventually work to rebuild the South and North.
It would be highly preferable, however, if South Korea would put its economic and industrial might into creating its own strong enough deterent…
I just want everyone to assure me right now that if the American military leaves that it will continue to supply the 1,000 won Budweisers to my neighborhood black market.
I don’t know, ‘usinkorea’, you sure about S.Korea not being important economically? Just a mere mention and rumor of S.Korea diverting their US treasury bills to other invstments triggered a panick attack on the world financial centers - twice this year. I don’t know, the US is getting more and more dependent on S.Korea and other countries in the far east to fund their budget deficits. Any destabilization anywhere in this region is bound to effect the world negatively to cause a gigantic world financial crisis.
There is a big difference between “not being important” and “causing a gigantic world financial crisis.”
I am weak on economic issues, but my uneducated guess is that — if North Korea invaded/attacked and lost, the effect on South Korea’s economic power would not cause a chain reaction fall of other regional and then global economies.
It would hurt, and then we’d move on, including South Korea.
I do know that financial experts are mecurial when it comes to predictions. One day they are predicting DOW 20,000 and another day a month later they’re talking about the coming decade of recession.
But, when the future is in the making, they take the bumps and keep moving forward.
I can’t imagine South Korea being so important economically speaking that a war between it and the North would cripple the global economy.
Again, I’m sure it would hurt, and then the world would adjust.
And again, I believe even South Korea would have the strength along with favorable aid from other OECD member states to get back on its feet sooner rather than later.
Hmm, authors Shaplen and Laney forgot option # 4: Call in Jimmy Carter, negotiate a deal for food and energy, then continue with what you were doing, but with a tad more discretion.
Oh, that’s right, it’s been done before, which the Shaplen and Laney should damned well know.
usinkorea,
You are correct that South Korea’s military budget in terms of %GDP is quite low, especially compared to other countries bordering hostile states. However, GDP is usually not an appropriate indication of a country’s focus on defense. South Korea spends far more than all such countries, which are all in the developing world. In terms of actual military expenditure, South Korea ranks in the top 10 worldwide, making it one of the largest spenders in defense amongst OECD countries.
Economically, I wouldn’t underestimate South Korea. You mentioned that in 1997 the South Korean economy was smaller than California’s. California has a large enough economy to belong in the G8. People tend to forget this, but South Korea has the 10th largest economy in the world. For America, it’s the seventh largest trading partner. For China, South Korea is one of the top 3 investors and trading partners.
If the world’s tenth largest economy crashed, I’m sure it would have a notable impact regionally and globally.
With regards to potential post-war recovery, I agree with you South Korea or a unified Korea would recover. If there’s one thing South Koreans have proven over the past half-century, it is their resilience and ability to come back from downfalls. The world has taken ample notice of that. South Korea’s economic miracle is unparalleled, and South Korea is also the only country in history to pay back the IMF’s loans.
mingi wrote:
If the world?€™s tenth largest economy crashed, I?€™m sure it would have a notable impact regionally and globally.
some of the people out there just like to think that korea ain’t all that significant.
#10 economy? p’shaw! why, hackers must have broken into the economists’ database!
(of course, the converse is that korea ain’t always as important as some koreans would like to think it is).
as of ‘05 feb, followings are top 5 owners of the us treasury bills;
japan $709bil
china $197bil
u.k. $176bil
carribean tax heavens $104bil
rok $67bil
well, it is big enough to create some panic if rok diverts it to other investments. but guess not that big that a good friend of bush, koizumi, cant absorb. obviously, we cant underestimate magnitude of rok economy but the us is better watch china as far as the treasury bill is concerned.
what other such investments are there besides treasury bills?
Not to slight Korea, but rankings do not tell the