Grand National Party lawmaker Park Jin was apparently unnerved by Daniel Kennelly’s recent piece in American Enterprise in which he called for an “amicable divorce” between the U.S. and South Korea:
A lawmaker of the opposition Grand National Party expressed his concerns over the future of the U.S.-Korean relationship during its party meeting yesterday. Responding to a report from the most influential think tank on current U.S. policy, the American Enterprise Institute, which asserts that it is time for the United States to have an “amicable divorce” with South Korea, Park Jin commented “A shocking situation is arising in the United States.”
Shocking? Park — a favorite of mine — obviously doesn’t read this blog. Not only did Kennelly point out that U.S. and South Korea were at odds concerning the use of “sticks” on North Korea, but he also pointed out that the obvious, namely, that South Korea is a big boy now:
“South Koreans are now grown-ups fully capable of taking care of themselves,” he stated. “Immediately after the Korean War, the South was a dirt-poor country facing a northern neighbor that was not only much more powerful militarily, but also richer, thanks to massive subsidies from the Soviet Union.”
But he stated today the situation is completely different now that the Soviet Union is no longer around to “hand out subsidies” and China increasingly tends to view the North as “a distraction from its economic goals.”
“Our current alliance with South Korea is a diplomatic straitjacket that prevents us from acting decisively against the North,” Kenelly also wrote. “Repositioning and trimming our troops in South Korea is a signal that we are preparing seriously to deal with the danger posed by North Korea.”
About this, Park said:
“Although President Roh reconfirmed in the meeting with President Bush last month that the two countries do not hold different views on the U.S.-South Korea relationship, recently some Washington’s think tanks and research centers are saying that it’s the time for both countries to say goodbye to each other as they smile,” Park said.
Glad someone is noticing that it’s not only in Korea that ideas about the Korea-U.S. alliance are changing. Personally, I’m pro-alliance, but not as it is currently structured, which is a relic of a bygone era when both the U.S. and South Korea (and everyone else in the region, including North Korea) were very different places. It may not be time for a divorce, but some massive reconceptualizing is definitely in order.
42 Comments
It may not be time for a divorce, but some massive reconceptualizing is definitely in order.
I dont see the point of an alliance when Korea will land in the Chinese camp, anyway. It seems to me that Korea has the very narrow interest of using the US for protection while it needs it, then abandoning the alliance when the US has permanently secured their safety. Doesnt seem like a good deal to me.
Marmot, why dont you write a post about how you think the alliance should be.
Indeed, I’d like to see some concrete proposals from the Marmot.
If you go back a long ways, you’ll find some extensive posting by him on this subject. Not sure how far back you can go though ,seeing how he’s changed formats several times and had the site “go down” once and lost some material.
I think he’ll say (to simplify greatly) that he’s in favor of continuing the alliance, but with eventual US troop withdrawal and the acquisition by ROK of nuclear weapons sufficient to guarantee its ability to retaliate if attacked. (Sounds good to me).
BTW, M, did you notice that on the 6th (US time) your URL was coming up as “805 Communications
(Meant to start this as a new post…)
BTW, M, did you notice that on July 6th (US time) your URL suddenly and repeatedly came up during the day (at least here in Northern California) as the ?805 Communications Company website”?
That is to say (http://blog.marmot.cc) came up as (http://805communications.com), which is
“…the home page of 805 Communications, Inc, a leading provider of telecommunications and cellular services in Southern California.”
I wondered briefly if you had decided to drop Korea and take up blogging on California, especially the fascinating complexity of the relationship between the Northern and Southern parts of the state. Indeed, I suspect there are a lot of liberal “NoCals” who would be secretly pleased to see 25,000 rounds a minute rain down on the capitalist lackeys of SoCal.
So, any idea why this happened? Or is it just another unfathomable mystery of the vast internet universe?
Divorce may be too harsh a term, but it does seem that some timely restructuring would benefit both parties. As the U.S. needs troops elsewhere, they should withdraw the majority of their forces from Korea and leave a small U.N./CFC backed up with just enough staffers (split between Seoul and the U.N. bases in Japan) to stage a combined exercise every five years or so. To gild that lilly, they should name a USMC commander to the CFC position, thereby reminding both the North and South that U.S. reinforcement might have to be in the form of a amphibious invasion from the sea if the ROK has not upheld its task of holding the NorKs forward of the FEBA.
Every five years or so is too long. I agree with the rest of your statement(s), but the joint exercises held throughout the year need to continue to accustom ground troops and pilots to the terrain/climate - just in case.
It doesn’t matter if U.S. troops are physically stationed in South Korea or not - as long as the commitment is there by the U.S. to defend South Korea in case of a conflict, North Korea will behave.
Given all the protests, one would think that it’s what the SK populace wants.
Given all the protests, one would think that it?s what the SK populace wants.Don’t believe the hype. The leftists running the protests want you to believe that, but other evidence doesn’t bear that out.
In other words, in public Park Jin only talked about how the US is unhappy with Korea and not about how Korea doesn’t need the help anymore, right? Is this another case of a GNP Assemblyman quoting only the bad from Washington in order to take a swipe at Roh? Pls tell me it isn’t….
Park Jin is one of the last of a dying breed: a cosmopolitan, Western-educated, pro-U.S. Korean political heavyweight who understands his country’s geopolitical situation very well. I hope he is at the heart of South Korean executive decision-making process very soon.
I think even Oranckay likes Park?
And what’s up with your Blog these days anyways?
Given all the protests, one would think that it?s what the SK populace wants.
Here’s a question: Why should what the South Korean populace wants determine United States interests?
I wrote:Don?t believe the hype. The leftists running the protests want you to believe that, but other evidence doesn?t bear that out.I posted this in response to another story, but I think it is appropriate here, too, since the USFK site sums it up very nicely:Small but aggressive radical elements gain widespread media coverage of their demonstrations against the United States. These radical groups capitalize on any negative actions which can be used to depict the U.S. and Americans as the culprits. Most of the protests are against what is perceived to be unjust U.S. policies and laws which are interpreted as having a detrimental affect on Korea.
Crimes such as murder and rape allegedly committed by U.S. personnel trigger immediate and repeated protests at USFK installations. Even disorderly conduct with or without injuries or property damage can become distorted out of proportion and become a major problem for those U.S. personnel involved.
Although the ROK government and USFK take steps to minimize risk to USFK personnel and property, all personnel and their family members must obey Korean laws and regulations.
Showing respect for the host nation?s culture and customs will enhance the chances of a tour of duty in Korea being interesting and enjoyable.
Those who are boisterous, arrogant, rude and/or disrespectful can expect to become enbroiled in physical altercations resulting in bodily injury and legal complications.
The dividends of being friendly are significant and pleasant. The consequences of being an ugly American can be painful, costly and long lasting.
I should have addd that I find it odd that so many on the right (and in the middle and even some on the left), take the “left-wing media” in the United States with a grain of salt, but when it comes to anti-Americanism in Korea (and in other countries, I guess), simply accept that the same Western media and the Korean media are both suddenly telling it like it is.
The same left-wing reporters who want to see even the democracy element of the Iraqi invasion fail are the same ilk as those who want to see anti-Americanism push out US interests in Korea, Okinawa, etc.
The reality on the ground, anti-US demonstrations notwithstanding, is very different. What kind of fool would call for a divorce after hearing rumors of rumors without seriously addressing the issue with the spouse?
Given all the protests, one would think that it?s what the SK populace wants.
Why should “what the Republic of Korea wants” dictate United States policy?
[...] forefront this week, as there were murmurings that the United States is looking for Divorce, American (Geopolitical) Style [...]
“It doesn?t matter if U.S. troops are physically stationed in South Korea or not - as long as the commitment is there by the U.S. to defend South Korea in case of a conflict, North Korea will behave.”
I fear this more than most things.
Don’t take out the punch what we have on the ground in Korea brings to a fight in the initial stages of a NK invasion
Don?t believe the hype. The leftists running the protests want you to believe that, but other evidence doesn?t bear that out.
You keep saying this but you never disclose this “other evidence” that you insists exists. Surely you arent expecting people to just take your word for it?
Well, as I gave in that quote from USFK, even the US military believes it. The other evidence is all around and has been mentioned here and there.
gbnhj wrote:No, Kushibo. Rather, the US military administration would like to promote this view, in contrast to the sometimes dangerous and somewhat depressing experiences of protests around town and outside their gates. Please don?t ask us to accept that this is a commonly-held view among all USFK personnel.You are right. I did not mean to suggest that was the majority view among rank-and-file USFK personnel. But in my own discussions with people in USFK (with which I am involved directly on a professional and personal basis), I believe this is promoted by the leadership because the leadership believes this to be true.
The rest I will answer later (tonight or tomorrow) when I am not facing a deadline.
Mantra #1 — The vast majority of Koreans below the age of 65 view USFK and to a slightly lesser extent the whole of the US-SK relationship as a cancer on their society, a cancer they just can’t afford to cut out — yet.
I would agree with Kushibo that perhaps with the exception of those in their 20s and maybe even early 30s today, the majority of Koreans do not want to see even significant downsizing of the US military. They feel uncomfortable even at the idea of US bases moving below the Han and even with Yongsan moving out of Seoul - though they see benefits of that outrigh too.
South Koreans want to use US troops and dislike them and the United States as a nation at the same time.
They want windup soldiers they can pull out of the box to act as a deterent or fight if war comes, but they want them in the box as frequently as possible.
I’ve heard a good many expats sympathize with the idea that — gee wiz - these are foreign troops on their soil. Of course they will not like them very much. I’ve even heard US congressmen use this line - saying how would Americans feel if they had thousands of troops stationed in DC.
Well, if we had those troops in DC, and Canada was 60 miles above Washington, and Canada possessed a military might we could not handle by ourselves, and they had spent 50 years generating a desire to capture our land, and the foreign troops were part of a key reason American society could concentrate on export products rather than military spending — in short, if we owed our survival and well-being in large part to those foreign soldiers, I would hope Americans wouldn’t be selfish enough to perpetuate a culture of dislike for that same military and that same bilateral relationship. And if we did, I would expect others to criticize it greatly….
Kushibo wrote:
Well, as I gave in that quote from USFK, even the US military believes it. The other evidence is all around and has been mentioned here and there.
No, Kushibo. Rather, the US military administration would like to promote this view, in contrast to the sometimes dangerous and somewhat depressing experiences of protests around town and outside their gates. Please don?t ask us to accept that this is a commonly-held view among all USFK personnel.
In the past, you’ve said that the anti-USFK demonstrations are not an expression of the general sentiment of the Korean populace, but rather represent the opinion of a vocal minority. Based on my almost decade-long experience in Korean work environments, I?d say that the prevalent view toward the US military presence is one of grudging tolerance.
In my experience, Koreans do not have a general dislike toward US soldiers as individuals. However, most Koreans do not feel very comfortable having a large foreign military presence in their country. I believe that the demonstrations of 2002 were a reflection of this, in which more of the population took to the streets to vent that frustration, which had been channeled into the protest regarding SOFA.
It is not that Koreans do not highly value an alliance with the US, but rather that it is difficult to see another country?s soldiers on one?s own streets. I have been told, on numerous occasions, that this is the source of difficulty. In view of that, a reduction in US ground forces has been welcomed by Koreans generally. Their concern is one of maintaining the integrity of Korea’s defense without huge direct costs to its taxpayers, not one of maintaining friendly relations with another country?s soldiers.
It is not that Koreans do not highly value an alliance with the US, but rather that it is difficult to see another country?s soldiers on one?s own streets.
It is if you are a racist. But I wonder if this is a big problem for the poor bastards at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. This town of 35,000 hosts 2000 rampaging Huns from the Luftwaffe, against whom their forefathers fought a costly war (you might recall). Yet for 40 years there have been German aircrews training right there in the United States without major friction. The Germans are covered by the NATO SOFA while in the United States, so the same criminal-jurisdiction issues are encountered by the Alamogordo Police Department.
In fact, some New Mexico legislators want to extend to them some of the privileges the state reserves for its own residents but denies to other Americans.
Their concern is one of maintaining the integrity of Korea?s defense without huge direct costs to its taxpayers, not one of maintaining friendly relations with another country?s soldiers.
Ah, right. You mean, their concern is the free ride may be over.
It is if you are a racist. But I wonder if this is a big problem for the poor bastards at Holloman Air Force Base in Alamogordo, New Mexico. This town of 35,000 hosts 2000 rampaging Huns from the Luftwaffe, against whom their forefathers fought a costly war (you might recall). Yet for 40 years there have been German aircrews training right there in the United States without major friction.
LOL. I’m not taking any sides on USFK issues here, but this is a pretty ridiculous comparison, isn’t it? 2,000 Germans (among which 700 are actual military personnel while the rest are dependents and such) in a laid-back town in the middle of New Mexico where people probably need to drive two miles to get to the nearest supermarket vs. 38,000 U.S. troops in one of the busiest and most stressful and densely populated countries in the world, which also happens to have a completely different culture (than compared to, say, German?). And I’m sure very few of these Deutschen need bars and prostitutes on Hooker Hill to keep themselves entertained and relieved from the oh so stressful training in New Mexico as they constantly feel the threat of an invasion by a neighboring country (uh, Cuba?), nor do unfortunate accidents such as Humvees running over school girls occur too often, eh? Rather, I’d say they be taking out their kids in their Ford SUV’s in the weekends and chillin’ in outdoor picnics and barbeques, fitting in nicely with their other neighbors.
And how does this German “military presence” become relevant to the issue of “racism”? Last time I checked, German blood seemed to run through quite a bit of the “American race.”
Brendon, I wouldn’t conclude that the motivation is based on race. For example, I don’t think that Koreans would be joyed with the prospect of an all-gyopo force of foreign troops. They might perhaps prefer that over the current situation, but it wouldn’t provide an end to the tension that exists.
While others in other countries might not mind hosting a deployment of foreign troops (or perhaps even actively support it), I think that Koreans view existence of foreign troops on their soil in terms of an injury to pride. In this case, I don’t think that racism alone provides an adequate explanation.
However, I don’t disagree with your points in general; they are mine as well. I wasn’t trying to defend those beliefs, but merely to describe them.
And I?m sure very few of these Deutschen need bars and prostitutes on Hooker Hill to keep themselves entertained and relieved from the oh so stressful training in New Mexico…
By analogy, you mean the Germans shouldn’t have right to patronize the same entertainment facilities patronized by the locals? Of course they should. Or are you saying that hookers only exist outside US military bases?
Anyway, the Krauts do have their own German hofs in Alamogordo.
…as they constantly feel the threat of an invasion by a neighboring country (uh, Cuba?)…
Mexico. The neighboring country is Mexico.
I know they are hardcore activists. The point is that a lot of Koreans agree with them. I cant count the number of Koreans that went out of their way to tell me that US soldiers are never punished for their crimes.
Two points, Shak. First, the ones who agree with those groups simply don’t believe they need protecting by the US. These true believers think that the US (in cahoots with Japan and a few other Western powers) are keeping the peninsula divided. They don’t, as you said, “want the American soldiers to fight and die for Korea” because they don’t think there is a real threat by North Korea. It is all engineered by the corporate-run military-toadying government in Korea and their US puppets.
Second, it is true that many Koreans believe US soldiers are often not punished for their crimes (anybody who tells you they are “never” punished for their crimes is an idiot or is using a bit too much hyperbole, since people like the convicted killer of Yun K?mi is in jail, as are a few dozen (?) other people who are in jail for the crimes usacrime.org keep bringing up). Rightly or wrongly, many Koreans have felt that an unfair SOFA basically amounted to extraterritoriality. But there is a huge jump from “We wish they would behave themselves,” which many or most Koreans believe, to “We want them out!” which most do not.
A strong majority either enthusiastically welcomes or grudgingly accepts a US military presence as necessary for helping preserve South Korean freedom, but even many of those who want the US military here want the GIs to behave themselves and for their bases to have a small footprint (few loud planes flying overhead, few if any large vehicles causing a danger to cars and civilians on local roads, little or no crime, and bases that don’t occupy prime land in the middle of the capital).
These things are hardly unique to Korea. In NYC, a perennial concern is that diplomatic vehicles don’t pay their parking tickets. In my hometown of Orange County, there were frequent complaints that our five local military bases were sources of loud noise, crime, and were juicy targets for Soviet missiles. Plus they impeded development. Yet few would have advocated the military leaving.
Brendon Carr-
By analogy, you mean the Germans shouldn’t have right to patronize the same entertainment facilities patronized by the locals? Of course they should. Or are you saying that hookers only exist outside US military bases?
Now, why would I say something like that? I’m saying Germans _can_ find enough entertainment and relief using facilities used by locals, without having to rely much on facilities that are too exclusive or exotic. The point is that they could probably fit in and mingle with the locals there a lot better than GI’s would with Koreans, considering cultural and environmental circumstances, and therefore it is not a fair comparison. As for hookers outside U.S. bases, I already implied that one of the reasons could be that GI’s in Korea are under a lot more pressure (and are probably more lonely and stressed, being in a distant country with a different culture, etc.)
Anyway, the Krauts do have their own German hofs in Alamogordo.
Right, hof’s that are probably way closer to “American bars” than a GI bar on Hooker Hill is to stuff you’d normally see in Korea. And correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t “Kraut” a disparaging term for “German”? What happened to being sensitive toward race/nationality issues?
Mexico. The neighboring country is Mexico.
Er… so a dude living two or three houses away from yours is not a “neighbor”?
Kushibo from Korea (South) said:
Don?t believe the hype. The leftists running the protests want you to believe that, but other evidence doesn?t bear that out.
shakuhachi from Australia said:
You keep saying this but you never disclose this ?other evidence?? that you insists exists. Surely you arent expecting people to just take your word for it?
I think some of the best evidence that the Korean populace does NOT want US troops to leave can be found in the fact that the Hankyoreh has never called for a withdraw. I’m quite sure, partially from personal interaction, that most of the editorial staff very much would like to see US troops leave. Certainly the Hankyoreh gives a lot of coverage to people who call for US troops to leave, but it has never done so itself in an editorial. Why? Because it doesn’t have the courage to do so, because demanding a US withdraw is still too radical. Calling for US troops to leave is just not socially acceptable in the Korean mainstream.
Someone can try to argue that with me if he want’s to, but he’ll have to find a logical explanation as to why Hankyoreh has never just come out and said it. (It has come close on a few occasions, but always falls short of saying it out right.)
Please note I’m trying to say that the vocal anti-Americanism is insignificant, or that it could never end up contributing to a “divorce.”
Doch doch, the German soldiers have proven themselves adept at functioning well as soldiers based overseas. That may be in part, due to Germany’s proximity to other very different European countries and the cultural assimilation skills many of them have learned. Germany does not, contrary to what some have posted here, have the same culture as the US, particularly the American South West. The notion that they have no stress while they are in the US or that they do not have to try as hard to adapt to American culture is nonesense. It is their proven ability to function well in New Mexico that has prompted the local government to at least discuss offering them some of the benefits other New Mexicans recieve.
As far as racism goes, I think it is not the reason that Koreans would like USFK out but I think the fact that they look different, are percieved to be given preferential treatment on top of the fact that they do not know the culture, language and they eat food very different from what Koreans eat is like a giant slap in the face for some people (not the majority). The main issue that I think most Koreans have with it is that they feel that they somehow are still unable to controll 100% of their own country, as if they were just as poor and ignorant as the population was at in 1953 at the time the armistice was signed. I get the distinct impression that Koreans are somewhat ashamed and embarrassed that there was a time when Korea was poor, the standard of living was very low and there just wasnt much to be proud of.
I never thought of it that way, but that could be one more piece of evidence. If Hankyoreh thought they could get away with that, they would. Obviously, they don’t think they can.
But I do think that the focus that they have on certain stories and the angle they use on others in a way to turn their readership against the USFK presence is insidious.
James, one other thing is having a foreign garrison in the capital, especially in light of past foreign domination that Koreans learn about in school.
If such a large military base were farther south or on the periphery, there would be less of a sense of loss of face. UN Command or something in Seoul might be acceptable, but a large foreign garrison located on prime real estate just grates on some people.
…having a foreign garrison in the capital…
DOD Sec. Rumsfeld once said that is “intrusive” in the lives of SKoreans. Smart man that he is, he didn’t ask some comments section for proof that it is, either.
Germany does not, contrary to what some have posted here, have the same culture as the US, particularly the American South West. The notion that they have no stress while they are in the US or that they do not have to try as hard to adapt to American culture is nonesense.
Way to “re-interpret” things, James. I’m still trying to find the comment where someone said they have the “same” culture, or have “no” stress. Indeed, what nonsense.
I think some of the best evidence that the Korean populace does NOT want US troops to leave can be found in the fact that the Hankyoreh has never called for a withdraw.
Actually, I agree with you. They want the American soldiers to fight and die for Korea, all the while spreading anti American propaganda and misinformation about the crime rates of US soldiers in Korea. Rather than assist the US by clarifying to Koreans the real meaning of SOFA, the Korean government seems to encourage activity of this kind.
Maybe they are setting the stage for the alliance to be jettisoned when the Korean government feels the US has been used for all it can offer.
Actually, Shakuhachi, the people you are talking about are the true believers: They don’t want USFK to fight and die for Korea because they don’t really think North Korea would be capable of ever attacking their brothers and sisters in the south. They believe that the Korean War was started by Rhee at the behest of the U.S., or by the U.S. at the behest of Rhee. They believe in what pseudo-historians like Bruce Cumings writes. They believe that the world would be safe if the US left alone places like Korea, the Philippines, Okinawa, etc.
Side note: I am still trying to figure out who the American citizen was who was working for the usacrime.org folks back in 2000, who was so quick to throw out stats about violent crimes allegedly commited by USFK personnel but was incredulous that GIs had actually been killed by Korean citizens.
I dont see what you are getting at, since we both agree that most Koreans dont want the USFK to leave.
Still, Koreans try to make things as difficult as possible for soldiers unfortunate enough to be in Korea (and the greatest conceit is that Koreans say that the soldiers want to be in Korea - have you heard that one?).
What I am getting at is that the true believers in groups like usacrime.org are not hypocritical in “want American soldiers to fight and die for Korea” while at the same time creating and spreading anti-American propaganda and misinformation about USFK crime rates. This is because these true believers don’t want the American soldiers to fight and die for Korea at all.
I cannot get the angelfire.com link to open up, so I can’t comment. But I will say this: Few if any of the Koreans I know personally or professionally “try to make things as difficult as possible” for USFK in Korea. In fact, many of them are engaged in things just the opposite. I know there are people who are doing as you describe, but, depending on the action at hand, they are often a tiny minority that doesn’t enjoy wide support; certainly they don’t represent everyone. It really is rather grating that you so often take the worst actions or attitudes or beliefs about Koreans you know or have heard or read about it and suggest it applies to pretty much everyone.
“Koreans try to…”
“Koreans say that…”
I know you’re capable of thought beyond the one-dimensional.
?Koreans try to????
?Koreans say that????
I know you?re capable of thought beyond the one-dimensional.
I see. I think I will put it to the test. As far as it is legal to do so, I will put on an American Army uniform next time I go to Seoul. I will have a friend follow me at a distance with a digital camera. It should make for an interesting experiment.
I want to add that “It should make for an interesting experiment, whatever way it turns out”.
Having come back to this thread a day later, and seeing the direction it’s taking, I’d like to clarify what I wrote in #19.
I do not believe that most Koreans favor a complete withdrawal of USFK forces from the penninsula. The reason for that is the one I touched upon: Koreans want security at an affordable price, and believe that this arrangement provides that. I do believe that they find having the soldiers based on the penninsula to be a difficult prospect but, as I wrote, they grudgingly tolerate their presence.
I misspoke, however, when I said that ‘a reduction in US ground forces has been welcomed by Koreans generally’, for ‘welcomed’ is too strong an expression. Instead, I would say that ‘a reduction in US ground forces has not been particularly difficult for most Koreans to accept’. My apologies.