There are also other problems with Mr Kim’s posts if you read carefully.

“USFK promised to respect the law not to obey it.”
The definition of “respecting a law” is actually a higher standard that simply obeying it. I like Ivan Hoffmans B.A. J.D’s definition. “Respect for the law of course includes complying with the law but respect for the law goes beyond that threshold. Complying with the law does not of necessity include respecting the law but respecting the law does include complying with the law.”…” Respect for the law is behaving in such a way that you act affirmatively to manifest a respect the law. Respect means acting with deference and esteem, even awe for the law, and with a sense that the law has value over and above the immediacy of the application of the law in a given situation.”

He says Article IV was republished unchanged claiming “Nothing before or after the signing has abrogated, edited, diminished or in any way changed the language in Article IV.” However ARTICLE IV WAS AMENDED to include the environmental MOU..

Charles cites foreign SOFAs that don’t have the same environmental provisions. Japan’s SOFA’s Article IV is virtually the same as Korea’s BUT it does not have environmental amendments like the 2001 Korean SOFA.

“The MOU set out a series of new lengthy and detailed procedures for discovery, reporting, and mutual information sharing in instances of contamination.”
This is true, however Charles forgot to mention the MOU does more. The MOU is divided into three groups
A. Governing Standards.
B. Information Sharing and Access.
C. Environmental performance. This portion describes how USFK confirms it will promptly undertake to remedy contamination using the more protective standards of US standards AND Korean law.

Also he translates DODs definition of imminent and substantial danger by saying it means “people are getting sick right now” when DOD defines it as “danger of causing acute illness or death”

1. Each Party waives all its claims against the other Party for damage to any property owned by it and used by its armed forces, if such damage

(a) was caused by a member or an employee of the armed forces of the other Party, in performance of his official duties;

This article seems intresting once you start reading it, but if you read it closely it really contains no specific details. It gives an average for all the posts, and says Camp Page is the worse. Three of these locations are ranges, which I know the …

Take the time to read my post and the SOFA and judge for yourself.

If you carefully read the details of the 2001 revised SOFA you will see that the environmental issues are actually A PART OF Article IV. This is notably the section of the SOFA that deals with the return of facilities.

AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREED MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1966 TO THE
AGREEMENT UNDER ARTICLE IV OF THE MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY
BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND THE REPUBLIC OF
KOREA, REGARDING FACILITIES AND AREAS AND THE STATUS OF UNITED
STATES ARMED FORCES IN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, AS AMENDED

The United States of America and the Republic of Korea agree to amend the Agreed Minutes of July 9, 1966 to the Agreement Under Article IV of the Mutual Defense Treaty between the United States of America and the Republic of Korea, Regarding Facilities and Areas and the Status of United States Armed Forces in the Republic of Korea, with Agreed Minutes, as amended, as follows:

ARTICLE III
Add a new Agreed Minute re Paragraph 2: This is where the Memorandum of Special Understandings on Environmental Protection amendment is attached to the SOFA agreement.

http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/se......html#item (scroll to the bottom)

The United States Government and the Republic of Korea Government recognize and acknowledge the importance of environmental protection in the context of defense activities in the Republic of Korea under the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953. The United States Government commits itself to implementing this Agreement in a manner consistent with the protection of the natural environment and human health, and confirms its policy to respect relevant Republic of Korea Government environmental laws, regulations, and standards. The Republic of Korea Government confirms its policy to implement its environmental laws, regulations, and standards with due regard for the health and safety of United States personnel.

As you can see, as of 2001 the original 1966 SOFA has been amended in a manner that the Memorandum of Special Understandings on Environmental Protection are now an inseperable, integral part of SOFA’s Article IV. This is neither my legal analysis or personal view as he states.

Here are relevant links.
http://www.shaps.hawaii.edu/se.....-SOFA.html

http://www.korea.army.mil/sofa/2001sofa_english text.pdf#search=’AMENDMENTS TO THE AGREED MINUTES OF JULY 9, 1966 TO THE’

It is a very sensible and reasonable argument. A legal agreement was made with responsibilites for both sides. He is saying that the US and the ROK have an agreement that states the responsibilities of either side and that it basically comes down to the ROK to take care of pollution. He then also notes that the ROK does not want to renegotiate this provision, because they see some real benefits in other ways from leaving it as it is. So therefore, they are evading their responsibilities as were agreed on.

A legal agreement is a legal agreement no matter how you slice it. It may not be the moral thing to do, in your opinion, but the ROK is getting advantages from having things the way they are.

I see and agree with you up to a point — on most of your points across the board.

One of the most important first —- it does sound right that pointing to Korean pollution and how it is handled by the society and press and groups is childish finger pointing, but there is actually more to it than that.

It is hard to describe why clearly and concisely, but it has to do a lot with proportion.

If pollution on USFK bases or the US Embassy were highly abnormal in the Korean context and elsewhere, then Korea would be justified in how it typical thinks and deals with pollution by them. But, if the pollution is similar to what you find in industrial areas in Korea and elsewhere, the use of environmentalism in the anti-US arsenal is wrong.

The idea of proportion comes up in other ways too. What is the norm for clean up in Korea? What are the bases going to be used for? What percentage of costs should Korea or USFK pay (laying aside the legal agreement — which I think should be followed)? Korea wants to talk about the issue without these considerations (or much consideration at all). They talk about it as if every contamination should be cleaned to specifications of an uninhabited forest in Norway, but that is not what they (or anybody) holds Korean corporations up to.

One reason this is a difficult issue is it is talked about in general when it is dealt with in specifics. For example, when the US hands over Osan airbase, if the Korean military takes it over, or it is turned into a civilian airport, the amount and type of clean up done is going to be very different than what they are going to do to Yongsan if they turn it into a park.

Thinking about what Korea does with pollution, how it looks at pollutors, and what are the norms in Korea should be natural in this discussion.

On the Korean media, I recognize that as a weakness, but I also know the Korean press often translates from the Korean version to the US. Looking at just the English language press over a period of years has flaws, but it is not completely flawed.

You can find articles about specific cases of pollution not involving USFK in the English versions, and you can find academic studies, but even the academic studies often don’t focus on specific chaebol but talk about the environment in general with specific reference only to a particular river or forest or city area.

If somebody does a search of the Korean language versions of the major press and finds a fairly proportioned amount of stories related to Hyundai or Samsung or Pohang as compared to USFK, please post about it. I can plough through articles, but research is just too time consuming.

I think/guess one of the reasons you don’t see Korean society attacking the chaebol is how much influence they have over the media and society.

And that is where I disagree with you about holding off on plopping Hyundai or Pohang’s name down without specific reference to individual cases.

You have to be very generous to do that considering what we do know as fact — South Korea’s air and water and soil was highly contaminated due to its rapid industrial development which pushed environmental concerns to the side — even during the period when environmentalism was taking off in other parts of the industrialize world (which is still releatively recent in the history of industrialization). We also know Korea’s rapid economic rise was pushed by a small group of large conglomerates that recieved special favor from the government.

So, I believe this gives us more than enough room to ask why those chaebol are not attacked like USFK for the pollution.

I am not saying Hyundai should spend X millions of dollars for the pollution on the upper estuaries of the Han River. I am saying if Korean society is going to scream bloody murder about common pollution on US bases, it should be screaming at the chaebol that industrilized Korea and polluted its environment.

And if pollution on US bases (or a Pohang factory for that matter) is going to be cleaned to specifications matching the need for which the land is going to be used after it is handed over, why are people yelling “Woe is me”, throwing ash on their heads, and wearing sack cloth?

This issue really is much like GI Crimes. At the end of the day with a crime, the US soldiers end up convicted in a Korean court and put in a Korean jail.

But, until that happens, all hell can break loose, and the fact the soldier ends up in jail is simply forgotten when the next GI crime pops up.

It has been the same with each of the pollution cases I’ve been able to track down in the press.

But, a lot of people don’t want to talk about it that way. And they don’t want to take on other considerations once they get into the conversation either.

I am not saying that is you. I mean it is the norm in Korean society when USFK comes up.

Well, the LAT does, and you can imagine what a fan I am of Lala-land.

Sorry, but it wouldn’t be prudent for me to detail what I know about Doosan here. Maybe if we ever get to talk a walk and trade perspectives on the forest and the trees…

Meanwhile:

I do want to add that, without actual knowledge that Pohang Steel or Hyundai (which you seem to be saying were hypotheticals) are responsible for major pollution, those claims are speculative. As in Orange County, maybe the US military (and the ROK military) are the worst polluters.

As I mentioned in a previous post, there is a good account in English of the environmental depradations of the Korean industrialists in “Poisoned Prosperity.”

Your last sentence is really problematic. Do you seriously mean to compare the record of one military facility in the OC, where there is almost no industry of the sort that creates serious pollution, with the record of a few dozen bases in Korea, which is the 12th largest industrial nation in the world, and one that got there through a breakneck program of reckless development of the most polluting industries with PCH’s HCC program.

Similarly, in re your

In the wake of the Doosan crisis, if memory served, laws were changed so that executives and others responsible could go to prison for environmental damage. Maybe that threat has forced a great deal of change since the 1990s and pollution is considerably less. In a country where loads of money have been spent to clean up rivers, institute and enforce a massive recycling system, change from particulate-belching Diesel mass transport to compressed natural gas (CNG) vehicles, etc., etc., maybe progress has been made with corporate polluters. It?? not entirely implausible.

Not only is it plausible; there have been improvements. But there are HUGE gaps between legislation and enforcement (except in the case of USFK) and a lot of eyewash, e.g., nearly all non-passenger vehicles in Korea still are particulate-belching Diesel polluters, as are nearly all buses. The most effective environmental initiative in Korea has been the domestic recycling program imposed on consumers. But frankly that nearly pales into insignificance compared to the absence of effective enforcement against institutional polluters (again, excepting USFK).

The apllicable analogy here also involves Doosan, i.e, the recent breach of fiduciary duty/embezzlement scandal for which the whole senior cadre of the clan was investigated without detention and then found guilty without any real punishment. All that remains is the upcoming presidential pardon.