Land being returned to Korea by USFK is “soaked” with oil and heavy metal, reports the Hankyoreh Shinmun (Korean). In particular, oil and lead pollution levels are over four times the national level.
This was according to an October 2005 report by the Environment Ministry obtained by the Hankyoreh. The report surveyed soil pollution levels at 15 U.S. base areas to be handed over to Korea. With the exception of the Yongsan helicopter pad, all of them had soil pollution levels way in excess of national levels. The average total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) level of the 14 offending base areas exceeded 2000 mg/kg, over four times the 500 mg/kg “level of concern” requiring soil treatment should the areas be turned into parks, playgrounds or sports fields. It’s also greatly in excess of the 1,200 mg/kg “countermeasures level” requiring that use of the land be suspended. Lead pollution was equally high, recording levels of 400 mg/kg, way in excess of the 100 mg/kg “level of concern” and 300 mg/kg “countermeasures level.”
Camp Page in Chuncheon was the most polluted base with TPH levels of 50,552 mg/kg. This was followed by Camp Garry Owen in Munsan (47,819 mg/kg), Camp Stanton somewhere near Paju (23,724 mg/kg), Camp Greaves along the DMZ (29,072 mg/kg), Camp Howze in Paju (27,901 mg/kg) and Camp Giant (20,767 mg/kg). Apparently, Paju is floating on so much oil leaked from USFK facilities that the city is considering applying for membership in OPEC.
In particular, Camp Page has extremely high levels of volatile BTEX (benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xzylene) contamination.
Lead and ground water contamination levels were also way in excess of recommended clean-up levels. I don’t feel like going through the numbers again, but they were high.
The Hankyoreh’s report marks the first time base-by-base pollution survey results have been released to the public.
84 Comments
Yes, the military made a mess and its up to them to clean it up, but let’s just hope it doesn’t turn into something ridiculous, like another anti-American hatefest complete with demos and candlelight vigils.
Yes, the military made a mess and it’s up to them to clean it up,
Actually, I respectfully disagree.
Article IV of the ROK-US SOFA contemplated precisely this scenario back in 1966 when both sides agreed to the following language:
“The Government of the United States is not obliged, when it returns facilities and areas to the Government of the Republic of Korea…to restore the facilities and areas to the condition in which they were at the time they became available to the United States armed forces, or to compensate the Government of the Republic of Korea in lieu of such restoration.”
This was the arms-length negotiated trade-off Seoul agreed to in exchange for not having to pay the United States market value for improvements USFK made to the land [again, things like airfields, hospitals, high tech training ranges, etc.] like the German government is required to do in Europe.
Furthermore, given that the ROK courts have not yet even begun to enforce their Byzantine environmental laws against their own armed forces for these sorts of clean-up costs, it’s highly unlikely that USFK would consent to set precedent by paying for any such actions.
In fact, most of the contamination being complained of here likely occured long before the ROK even had environmental laws on the books, and would therefore have to be examined and adjudicated according to the laws and practices in place in Korea and in use by the ROK military at the time.
The key however is that this is a sovereign to sovereign deal we’re talking about here, signed by both nations’ authorized representatives and ratified by the ROK National Assembly. Trying to renegotiate Article IV in the media without simultaneously agreeing to provide USFK with the counterbalancing “residual value” of the improvements to this real estate, like has long been done in Germany, is a bit over the top and dishonest, even for the Uri Party.
The press and NGOs are way out of their lane on this issue. A simple reading of the controlling legal documents is usually the best place to being the discussion.
I think before USFK pays a dime it should have American inspectors conduct their own environmental survey of the camps. I find it interesting that these camps are considered unsafe because of all the pollution yet all the US soldiers that were living and all the Korean civilians that worked on the camp did not get sick and die.
If American inspectors validate the Korean inspectors claims then I would be more willing to see USFK pay out some money, but not all because the hazardous material removal, programs, and inspections are all conducted by Korean contractors and Korean civilians working for USFK.
I still find it ironic that the Korean government is criticizing USFK for pollution and I can walk to the nearest river and see raw sewage and trash dumped in it or go to the nearest mountain and see picnickers leave all their garbage all along the hillsides.
It would be interesting if the Hanky were to put this is perspective by comaring the environemental pollution around Korean conglomerates’ industrial facilities, including refineries, steel foundries, chip mfg. plants, chemical plants leatherworks, etc., etc. I guess that, like an honest acknowledgment that, as part of the tradeoff for US military protection, the cost of ameliorating and clean-up is, as Charles has pointed out, to be borne by Korea, it’s too much to expect.
With the millions of US taxpayer dollars in petrochemicals that have passed through these bases over decades, it’s no suprise that some of it ended up in the ground. I’m hoping that the US will foot some of manpower, if not payment, to clean up the sites as they vacate them.
Either way, places like Yongsan will be returned to parks. Look what Seoul did with their previous garbage dump, Nanjido. Now it’s World Cup Park.
Why are you citing a passage of the SOFA from 1966? Has the SOFA never been revised and amended since then?
How does the Memorandum of Special Understandings on Environmental Protection which was signed in 2001 factor into this?
I?? hoping that the US will foot some of manpower, if not payment, to clean up the sites as they vacate them.
They have already been doing that for decades at every installation in Korea. But it’s never enough for the nay-sayers at GKU.
The fact is, anytime a spill happens on a US installation, whether in Germany, Japan, or Korea, the base engineers inspect it immediately and conduct a “spill response” to soak up free product and prevent its spread and to eliminate the source. Unlike what the NGOs and media would have us believe, our troops are not actually wading knee-deep in oozing toxic black death on these bases, just waiting for the opportune moment to turn the problem over to the ROKs and slip out the back door.
If something is spilled on a US base, it gets cleaned up, and as a general rule the local press is invited on base to witness the effort and report on it. This practice, experience has shown, is far different than the ROK military’s own clean up standard, which as far as I know is still “throw some sand on it and don’t say anything to anyone.”
But the key is, even when we do clean up, we do so in accordance with US DOD standards, not to Korean standards, which are set impossibly high and not enforced against anyone in Korea except USFK anyway. And that means that there is still some fuel in the ground at some installations. Of course, many of these installations were inherited from the Japanese Imperial Army and have been seeping fuel from old forgotten underground storage tanks for decades, but this is only a peripheral issue. The real crux of the argument is that the United States is a sovereign nation not subject to the pronouncements of local courts.
Again, I return to the point I made earlier that the US military is in Korea at the invitation of the ROK government and on terms agreed to by both sides, including Article IV quoted above. If those terms are no longer acceptable to one of the sides, they should be renegotiated face to face, not through leaks to the media in an effort to inflame a public outcry.
For what it’s worth, I’m fairly certain USFK would happily agree to clean up every grain of contaminated sand at Camp Page in exchange for the ROK paying market value of the Camp Page airfield. They give us 100 million dollars for the modern air base they just inherited, and we spend 20 or 30 million of that money to clean up the soil underneath. But, the ROK government knows it has nothing at all to gain and much to lose by reopening SOFA negotiations for property turnovers.
Remember, setting out the responsibilities of US troops in a foreign nation is not a matter of “doing whatever the community happens to think is right at any given moment”, but rather a matter of “living up to the agreements you put your signature to.”
Bluejives wrote How does the Memorandum of Special Understandings on Environmental Protection which was signed in 2001 factor into this?
Thank you for pointing this out. Yes, in fact this MOU is a huge factor in assessing these sorts of allegations. But it is absolutely not the come-to-the-rescue document the local press has often made it out to be.
Importantly, by republishing the Article without change, the 2001 revisions to the SOFA specifically reaffirmed the continuing validity of the Article IV language cited earlier. It’s downloadable from the USFK homepage, but the 2001 revisions dealt mainly with criminal jurisdiction of off-duty soldiers.
The ROK side is not now nor have they ever yet been willing to revise Article IV and relinquish their immunity from paying residual value to USFK.
The MOU you cite above, rather than changing anthing in Article IV, merely sets out procedures to be used not just at turnover, but also at enduring installations where environmental contamination may be discovered in the future.
What the MOU does not do, however is change or abbrogate in any way the protections USFK and the ROK both enjoy under Article IV. Instead, citing USFK’s willingness to “respect” [but not "obey"] newly developing ROK environmental regimes, the MOU set out a series of new lengthy and detailed procedures for discovery, reporting, and mutual information sharing in instances of contamination. Nowhere in the memorandum does USFK accept an obligation to remediate anything anywhere to local standards.
Respecting local environmental laws means reporting spills rather than covering them up. It emphatically does not mean USFK has accepted a duty to clean them up to Korean standards. This interpretation was understood and accepted by both sides at the signing.
In fact, the document specifically states that any clean up USFK does agree to pursue, at its own discretion, will be done in accordance with DOD instructions and standards.
The important language here is that while ROK environmental standards are very specific and require a quantity-based approach [i.e. so many parts per million] DOD standards are a quality-based approach. The language used in both the DODI and the MOU is “known, imminent and substantial danger to human health.”
That means USFK has accepted a burden, or more precisely DOD has imposed on USFK the burden to discover and remediate environmental contamination that in USFK’s own internal opinion meets the level of a known [meaning USFK has no duty to search for these things], imminent [as opposed to something that may be damaging 20 years down the road], and substantial [meaning people are getting very sick right now] endangerment to human health [as opposed to simly damaging wildife or plant populations].
Further limiting USFK’s liability in such situations is that DOD only requires remediation to be conducted until the known, imminent, and substantial danger is removed. It emphatically does not require that the contaminaton be removed, only the danger, and in fact experience in Japan has shown that a completely acceptable remediation technique under this standard is to wall off an area and keep people away from it rather than to clean up a single grain of soil.
The DOD standard is a tough one, but it is mandated by Congress which has prohibited, in no uncertain terms, any expenditure of appropriated taxpayer funds for environmental clean up of overseas installations in excess of what is minimally required to remove the danger and continue the mission.
I hope this helps.
Well, the bases are contaminated, but those bases are standing on American soil. Yessiree, the USFK bases are located in Korea but the land they are standing on belong to America. Korean government, circa 1950s, gave those lands to the U.S. of A.
There is no reason to give up those lands. Just have one park ranger stationed in every one of them, when the US closes down the bases.
There is no reason to clean up the land. Just sell them “AS IS” to the highest bidder, be it Korean government or a civilian construction company. I think the going price should be $1 million per sq. foot, at least for the YongSan camp.
I say once more, those lands belongs to the Good Ol’ USA. The US can do anything she wants with those lands.
Well, the bases are contaminated, but those bases are standing on American soil.
Baduk, you are one of the last people I want to publicly disagree with, but I will try to disagree without being disagreeable. Simply stated, you are incorrect here.
Unlike the land under the US Embassy, USFK facilities and areas are NOT US sovereign land. According to the SOFA they are merely granted for USFK’s “use and occupation”, but emphatically not US “ownership.” Also according to the SOFA, the ROK can request the return of these lands at any time. They have done so on numerous occasions in the recent past, most notably Koon-Ni Range, Camp Hialeah, and even Yongsan Garrison.
Charles, thanks for your awesome comments (I hate to use a tired and overused word like awesome, but in this case it is suitable).
From today’s The Korea Herald
I guess this is all from the US bases, huh?
If these mudheads are serious about cleaning up the local environment, they ought to start prioritizing the targets of their protests, starting with Korean business and the govt that doesn’t enforce its own laws against them.
I did some reviews of similar issues that were big in 2000-2002. http://www.usinkorea.org/2nd/e.....index.html
Anyway, what I am curious about is Marmot. (Do we still call you Marmot? It’s an endearing name..)
I read this blog a lot, so I like it. It’s informative and the comments are usually from people who have been in Korea for some time and have some knowledgable insights.
I wonder why, though, Marmot quoted extensively from Hankyoreh without a single comment from himself? How often does that happen (his not giving any comment at all), and why here?
My guess is that he knew it would be no problem having several of the USFK guys and others jump on it to make points easy to anticipate. By why a total Marmot silence? I can’t remember what the post was about, but I was curious about the same thing about a year ago. You don’t see a blogger or Marmot quote from anything without a little comment much, and why on a big issue?
Having this long quote from the left-leaning paper about a hot button issue that will stand a good chance of being taken up by Korean society somewhat like it was in 2000, if not that high of a spike in anti-US activity, with zero comment from the poster is interesting. Having it come after a long post in which Korean society’s attitude toward mixed-race (especially black mixed race) Koreans is explained as how the society is changing the attitute made it more interesting.
I don’t mean to seem like I’m pressing a point here. I wouldn’t have thought much of the Hines Ward post along these lines if it had not been followed with the un-commented on extensive quotes from the Labor Party’s paper of choice. I also had in mind reading it some post last week or so where the Marmot mentioned he might be mellowing in age. I also remember some commenter (perhaps Joshua from OnefreeKorea, I think it was) who said last time I posted a note like this that he thought Marmot had turned some corner over a year ago away from a realization that anti-US culture in South Korea was an important topic for the US to understand.
I guess this shows the popularity of the blog. When the blog gets blogged about and the blogger becomes a personality.
I hope he will take this as some minor type of flattery.
It isn’t even a complaint.
It is just an idle curiosity I want to scratch….
I find it interesting that these camps are considered unsafe because of all the pollution yet all the US soldiers that were living and all the Korean civilians that worked on the camp did not get sick and die.
I am not saying this in support of the Korean side, but I just want to point out that you don’t need to have people dropping like flies as soon as they hit a certain proximity with a contaminated base in order to demonstrate that something might be seriously polluted.
In Orange County, California, the vast El Toro Marine Base is being turned over to authorities and developers who for years argued over whether the land should be turned into a much-needed major airport or into a grand park. After years of public debate and pressure (those farther away generally wanted an airport; those nearby generally wanted a park), the Orange County Grand Park was announced.
Well, it turns out that the land has some serious contamination that will require hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up.
So the affluent homes around the area were near “Orange County’s most tained land,” but there weren’t Marines and local civilians living and working there who got sick and died (not provably, anyway).
Korea may be stuck with the clean-up costs, per the SOFA, but in Orange County, the Navy is responsible for the expensive clean-up, since it is benefiting from the sale of the land.
Maybe I should ask Charles Kim how much money, if any, USFK pays for the lands it occupies here in Korea. Does it pay “rent,” or is the military support it gives considered payment?
Anyway, in OC the Navy is doing the right thing:
In Korea, the legal thing might be no responsibility to pay for clean-up, but I don’t know if it’s “the right thing.” No, I don’t mean that as a “special consideration for Korea” thing, just that environmental responsibility should be taken more seriously.
As others have said here, environmental responsibility by USFK has been taken seriously, often more seriously than Korea has taken it itself. USFK has, as far as I’ve been able to find, taken up overall DOD standards — as they have been raised over the past 50 years — not Korea’s rise in standards.
As for rent — I think it depends on which base you are talking about. Yongsan and the US Embassy not paying rent for being on “prime real estate” in the “heart of Seoul” has been mentioned frequently in the press for many years — way back into the 1990s at least.
I have also read conflicting statements about rent on other US bases and on paying utility fees.
It is hard for me to take comments like this seriously. Because it makes me want to ask pointless questions like, How much blood does 37,000 KIA earn? Or the 5,000 killed since the end of the war? How much in rent reduction do we get for providing Korea with the tax breaks and security to produce the Miracle on the Han?
Can we begin to approach an estimate on that these days? With President Roh bringing back up war time control and juche-defense, there have been some articles about the costs of replacing USFK, and we have seen how the Korean government has reacted to that — rather than saying it will put forward the billions to replace USFK, we’ve gotten as a response talk of downsizing Korean forces and balking at the idea funding advanced weapons procurement in the future.
Does any of that factor into a rent discussion? Utilities?
Here is an exercise I did a couple of years ago with the English language versions of the Korean press.
http://usinkorea.org/issues/yo.....korea.html
My weak Korean language skills made doing this with the Korean versions of the press too time consuming. I’d bet money it is the same. I’d be glad to be proven wrong.
I checked for specific items on pollution involving USFK or the US Embassy and cases involving the Korean military or Korean chaebol or specific Korean businesses.
Well, thank you Charles and Spewer for deflating the usual obnoxious criticism that comes from such a biased source as the Hankyoreh and others. There is one problem with your comments and that is it would require the Korean media and society to act in a truthful and rational manner towards such an issue.
Rational thinking and in Korean society and government is as almost as rare as a Korean tiger, sad to say.
Thanks to Charles Kim, I stand corrected.
However, even though the US does not own the land, it has the use of the land as long as it likes. I believe the wording was very liberal in the tune of “occupy and use as long as the US wants, free of rent”.
So, there should be no discussion of rent payment. Korean government gave those lands in 1950s for the US to use anyway it likes. Koreans in the midst of the Korean War gave the land to USFK to use as military bases forever.
This situation is different from Germany or Philippines.
So, let’s keep it.
About cleaning up the soil. I have considerable experience in this area. Don’t! Kushibo mentioned that there are some lands the Navy is still cleaning up and will be doing so for next several decades (=forever). They basically haul the soil and bake the organic materials out. The environmental scientists also try this and that, but nothing really works. Do you know how much money they are sinking into this? Don’t even ask!
As I wrote, just place one soldier per camp and do not return the lands to Koreans. Make the deserted bases into forest parks. Korea needs them.
Kushibo, I’m not saying there isn’t pollution on the bases I just don’t think it is at the level and as dangerous as the Korean environmental inspectors say. I would be more sympathetic to the claims if US inspectors did their own environmental impact assessment before spending millions of dollars on a clean up that I’m sure Korean contractors are just drooling over the possibility of.
Plus it is just hypocritical to begin with to go after USFK for pollution when I am willing to bet that theses bases are cleaner than ROK Army and Korean industrial areas.
Baduk, if you are in Korea, I think you should get together some fellow Koreans and any American expats with the desire to do so, and take some weekends to go around Korean factories and military bases, like POSCO, and drill some holes like Green Korea does around US bases and video the water and fuel oil mix that fills them up and dip rags on a stick into them then set them on fire to show how flamable they are. Do similar video on slime and other things in water run off near Hyundai plants and the like. I’ve got space on my site for you to upload the videos.
Just go to Green Korea’s site and check out what it has done and videos over at
http://www.vop.co.kr/new/index.html
And mimic it but focusing on Korean targets, not USFK or US Embassy ones to show the hypocrisy.
I’m half serious….
If I were still in Korea, I think I would do it with my camcorder some weekends, especially if what I fear is about to come in South Korea does swing into effect….
I’m pretty sure I would do it if things come close to being as bad as 2000.
And this quote from Joongang adds something into the mix for the coming months I haven’t mentioned yet
“A U.S. official said yesterday that Washington would not consider goods manufactured at an industrial park in the North Korean border city of Kaesong as South Korean products in its free-trade negotiations with Seoul.”
US sanctions on North Korea effecting Kaesong products is a ready made issue to throw into the mix to heat things up if the society is receptive.
I wish I were still teaching adults in Korea. I could get a sense of how much this is reaching out into the people.
There were maybe 2 or 3 times over the years where it got to the point where I would control the free talking topics because I had gotten to where I couldn’t put up with another day of class after class bringing in these talking points from the news.
My guess is that I would be hearing all of this in my classes today if I were teaching —- that the news is being paid attention to and it is something Koreans want to chew over.
As others have said here, environmental responsibility by USFK has been taken seriously, often more seriously than Korea has taken it itself.
My question, a completely non-rhetorical one, would be whether “taking environmental responsibility” would mean handing over a seriously contaminated base, citing a document that says there is no legal responsibility to clean it up.
USFK has, as far as I??e been able to find, taken up overall DOD standards ??as they have been raised over the past 50 years ??not Korea?? rise in standards.
“Overall DOD standards” of the past have left many bases in the United States quite contaminated, including the El Toro Marine Base. On the other hand, DOD standards have led the Navy to take responsibility for cleaning up the base in Orange County to the tune of $300 million. What will happen in Korea if the bases are in fact contaminated?
As for rent ??I think it depends on which base you are talking about. Yongsan and the US Embassy not paying rent for being on ??rime real estate??in the ??eart of Seoul??has been mentioned frequently in the press for many years ??way back into the 1990s at least.
What does the US Embassy land have to do with the discussion of contaminated military bases?
usinkorea, I asked Charles the question precisely because I wanted to cut through the rhetoric (such as what you mentioned above about Yongsan) to see how possible USFK rent payments might affect the overall calculation of who pays what. What the “progressives” complain about is exactly what I don’t need as an answer.
It is hard for me to take comments like this seriously.
Maybe that is the problem here: no comment was made to take or not take seriously. I asked a question with no agenda whatsoever. It appears you inferred intent that was not in fact there.
Because it makes me want to ask pointless questions like, How much blood does 37,000 KIA earn? Or the 5,000 killed since the end of the war? How much in rent reduction do we get for providing Korea with the tax breaks and security to produce the Miracle on the Han?
An emotional and irrelevant non-response to a dispassionate, specific, non-rhetorical question… isn’t this the kind of thing you often chide Koreans about?
As for this…
Can we begin to approach an estimate on that these days? With President Roh bringing back up war time control and juche-defense, there have been some articles about the costs of replacing USFK, and we have seen how the Korean government has reacted to that ??rather than saying it will put forward the billions to replace USFK, we??e gotten as a response talk of downsizing Korean forces and balking at the idea funding advanced weapons procurement in the future.
…I don’t recall defending Roh Moohyun on any of these actions, so I’ll leave the response for whoever it is who did.
Does any of that factor into a rent discussion? Utilities?
Not what I wanted to know. Which is why I asked Charles.
A couple of points I wanted to make.
First, the chinbo/jinbo “progressives” have been talking up the issue of base contamination for a very long time; they live for the times when it resonates with the general public that might not support their ulterior motives. Both “progressive” and non-leftist environmental groups also target ROK military bases with some of this as well, as well as Korean corporations.
It is almost certainly true that there are some (many?) corporate and (and military) entities in Korea that are worse pollluters than USFK. But the existence of worse offenders does not let USFK (or anyone) off the moral hook. “Sure, I was bad, but those other guys are even worse,” is no defense, ethically speaking.
It appears right now that USFK has the legal basis for saying they’re not going to pay for clean up. From a “rules is rules” standpoint, USFK would be in the right. [As we can see with the US push to get Japan to re-open its markets to American beef; "rules is rules" is a conveniently ignored notion even among rule-of-law types.]
But if that happens, even if several ROK administrations signed off on such an agreement (or maybe because of that), it will feed into the common (mis)perception that SOFA provides USFK with the impunity of extraterritoriality when it comes to matters of responsibility.
But bringing rent into the issue throws it so out of whack whether you meant it as a serious question or not.
“An emotional and irrelevant non-response to a dispassionate, specific, non-rhetorical question??isn?? this the kind of thing you often chide Koreans about?”
I cannot see how the question of rent can be asked without reference to how it has been used by the anti-US groups and Korean society. You might have meant it as an isolated question, but it is not an isolated.
The same rent and environmental crimes have been used against the US Embassy as the USFK bases.
What I am saying is — if you ask the same question the anti-US groups and Korean society use when they want to foment negative attitudes toward the US in Korea, you shouldn’t be suprised when people place the question in that same context.
In fact, your rent question was thrown in out of the blue, unless it is connected to the context in which the same discussion goes on with all these issues in Korean society and the press.
And the talk of dead GIs and the economic impact of having USFK in country to defend Korea is not completely pointless —– if we are going to force ourselves to sit down in a serious discussion about whether USFK (and the US Embassy) pays rent and utilities (and how that effects issues like pollution and Korea’s reaction to it — which I fail to see how or why you would mention the one without getting into the others).
I cannot see how the question of rent can be asked without reference to how it has been used by the anti-US groups and Korean society. You might have meant it as an isolated question, but it is not an isolated.
I asked because I was going somewhere with this line of thinking: if the US has paid rent for those bases, a reasonable claim could be made that the “rent” the ROK has received could be used in the clean-up process. It’s just an inchoate thought on my part: an owner can’t expect every bit of rent received to be pure profit, since upkeep??ithin reasonable limits??hould be an expectation on the part of the receiver of rent payments.
That’s what I was asking. What the anti-USFK, anti-Japanese, anti-ROK government, anti-American, anti-capitalist “progressive” chinboistas have to say about it is irrelevant to my question, which was asked dispassionately and non-rhetorically, in a post devoid of passion or rhetoric. It was not coated or couched in any way that would indicate I was about to spew the chinboista point of view.
And the talk of dead GIs and the economic impact of having USFK in country to defend Korea is not completely pointless ????if we are going to force ourselves to sit down in a serious discussion about whether USFK (and the US Embassy) pays rent and utilities (and how that effects issues like pollution and Korea?? reaction to it ??which I fail to see how or why you would mention the one without getting into the others).
Neither is Korea spending 3% or more of its GDP on its military, or the opportunity costs of having tens of millions of men spend two years or more of their lives in uniform. Or the some 5000 South Korea men who gave up their lives fighting on America’s side in the Vietnam War. For that matter, what are the terms of the payment? Does this act like a wild card that can be used in any argument? If so, for how long? How about France, Germany, Italy, Belgium, Britain, etc., etc., does theh 200,000 lives lost achieving V-E Day grant the US special privileges over there? If so, for how long?
Yeah, these are good questions, but none of them are relevant to my question. No more than if someone at the grocery store asks how much is the price of eggs and I start talking about transportation costs, the price of feed, whether or not chickens are an efficient source of protein, or which came first, the chicken or the egg?
Part of the clean up talk between the governments is the usual haggling that goes on in such cases. Like with trade issues. Both sides try to position for a better deal for their nation.
But, in the Korean context, such issues are usually blown out of proportion. Environmentalism focused on US bases has been routinely done so frequently in the past 10 years.
The discussion is so out of whack, trying to discuss it in a normal frame of mind is like trying to untie the Gordian knot.
Bringing in pollution in places in Korea not connected to the US in Korea is both sensationalizing the issue and putting it in a proper perspective — depending on the disccusion, but in Korea, keeping the discussion from the sensational doesn’t seem to happen much.
What stardard of clean up is to be applied?
US DOD guidelines would make some sense.
The standard Korean society applies to its bases and industrial areas would make some sense.
Eventually, some level of agreement on joint clean up will be reached and implemented.
In the meantime, Korean society will continue to use an inflated stardard they doesn’t apply in Korea (or elsewhere) to describe the bases as major health hazzards to the lives of Koreans all over the nation.
It isn’t just the Green Korea’s making strides with this issue. Green Korea is frequently quoted as an authoritative source.
And if other groups are making as much headway in Korean society with non-US related enviornmental problems, I haven’t seen it.
Concern for the environment has made strides in Korea.
But I don’t see POSCO or Hyundai coming under repeated fire with access to the hearts and minds of greater Korean society like we see with USFK and the US Embassy.
OK. Now that you’ve explained what line of thinking you had, I can see it. More than likely, one of the ways clean up will paid for on the Korean side (it will end up a joint effort) will be from the sale of the land the base occupies. It might not work so well for Yongsan, because I believe a good chunk of the money from any sale is slated to pay for Pyongtaek expansion.
If you had stated the line of thinking in the first post, it would have made sense like you wanted it. Without it, as it was in the orginal post, just plopped out there in a discussion of environmental problems on US bases, exactly the way Green Korea and the like (and the Korean press) do with US bases and the US Embassy compound, it was natural to take the rent issue up with the environmental issue the way they do.
SOFA defines the standards that will be used in the event of contamination.
SOFA states:
These standards will continue to be developed with reference to THE MORE PROTECTIVE STANDARDS FROM RELEVANT US STANDARDS AND POLICY AND REPUBLIC OF KOREAN LAWS AND REGULATIONS AS GENERALLY ENFORCED AND APPLIED WITHIN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA, without prejudice to the United States Forces Korea, by undertaking biennial review of the EGS for the purpose of accommodating new rules and standards.
The DOD’s EGS clearly (and quantitatively) define the environmental standards in the OCONUS compliance manual that decides if these areas are toxic or not. The OCONUS manual classifies both toxic and regulatory levels of contaminants such as lead benzene etc. If USFK violates it’s own EGSs standards as well as the Korean government’s, the 2001 ratification legally obligates to the US to clean up these areas to acceptable levels.
It’s also clear by the levels and kinds of contamination the USFK did not follow its own USFK EGS correct response procedures for the handling of petroleum products in the event of fuel spills.
SOFA also states:
The Government of the United States confirms its policy to conduct periodic environmental performance assessments that examine, identify, and evaluate the environmental aspects of United States Forces Korea operations in order to minimize adverse environmental effects; to plan, program, and budget for these requirements accordingly; to promptly undertake to REMEDY contamination caused by United States Armed Forces in Korea that poses a known, imminent and substantial endangerment to human health; and to consider additional remedial measures required to protect human health.
USFK is bound by the 2001 SOFA revision to “remedy” the contamination.
“to promptly undertake to REMEDY contamination caused by United States Armed Forces in Korea that poses a known, imminent and substantial endangerment to human health”
See Charles Kim’s note above about what “known” “immient” and “substantial endagerment” mean.
“It?? also clear by the levels and kinds of contamination the USFK did not follow its own USFK EGS correct response procedures for the handling of petroleum products in the event of fuel spills.”
This probably calling for current standards to be applied to decades old actions.
Like I have said like a mantra before —
if you go digging around any place that has had fuel oil tanks for long periods of time in the past 50 years, you are going to find this kind of soil contamination. Whether you did in Korea or the US.
I would bet my right lung “USFK did not follow its own USFK EGS correct response procedures………in the even of fuel spills” ———– if we are talking about fuel leaks and contamination in the 1960s and correct procedures of the early 2000s.
If you look at the news archives for how fuel leaks in Wonju (at two bases), the US Embassy, Osan, and Yongsan were handled by the US military, you will find contemporary standards for fuel leaks and even soil contamination were used. You have to look hard for it in the Korean news articles, but it got out in bits and pieces there. The Stars and Stripes was better at letting USFK explain things.
Like the picture of the cement box at a fuel tank in Wonju Green Korea got big play out of despite a perfectly reasonable explaination by the base.
But, things like that don’t get printed much in the Korean press.
Like the fuel contamination discovered at the subway line near Yongsan. How many articles came out after the drill bits from the contamination at the subway turned up kerosene while the drill bits with the contamination at Yonsan was gasoline? I think there were some of the Yonsan pollution, but I didn’t hear any more about the subway….
Who provided the funds and built that modern air base?
From:
http://www.house.gov/hasc/test.....ulding.htm
Yes, and we’re not even touching upon the fact that back in 1966, poverty-stricken ROK was in NO position whatsoever to negotiate the SOFA or any other “agreements” on fair and equitable terms. That’s a whole another story in itself.
Would it be unfashionable to suggest that we will be glad to assist the ROK Government in cleaning up toxic waste sites at US bases and elsewhere in the country just as soon as the Korean War is over?
I mean, until then, it doesn’t make sense…
And for anyone to suggest that the US has been purposely damaging Korea is both intellectually unsupportable and mean-spirited. There have been too many Americans who died to defend the Liberty of that third-rate piece of ground for us to ever make any money off the deal.
OTOH, there are many Koreans who recognize that sacrifice and appreciate it. And out of respect for them, I won’t suggest what I think of the unprincipled scoundrels who support the Kim Jong Il regime…
Hi again, Bluejives:
You wrote: we??e not even touching upon the fact that back in 1966, poverty-stricken ROK was in NO position whatsoever to negotiate the SOFA or any other ??greements??on fair and equitable terms. That?? a whole another story in itself.
Actually, even starting with a ready made template hammered out between the US and Japan sometime earlier, the ROK-US SOFA still took more than five years and nearly 90 formal negotiation sessions to work out.
President Park was all take and no give, and Korea has ended up with arguably the most beneficial SOFA of all to date. Contrary to what the NGOs would have you believe. Read the document side by side with the agreements entered into with Japan and Germany.
The “weak and poverty-striken” argument used so frequently by the local NGOs holds no water at all. It’s just another iteration of Korea’s favorite “shrimp among whales” line. Reality is different.
This document was negotiated by tough Korean diplomats, brought up in the Japanese beauracracy, who knew darned well that the US wanted very badly to keep its troops in Korea at the time and would therefore be very flexible and willing to bend to Korean demands.
Whether those same conditions still apply today is a different questions, but if the ROK government had even once thought during the ensuing 40 years that Prez Park gave them the short end of the stick, they could have called for the SOFA Joint Committee to reopen negotiations. They have only done this more than once, but each time they have stayed far away from opening up the Pandora’s box that is Article IV.
Korea will never give up its immunity from paying fair value for airfields. It matters not one whit whose funds build the airfiled in the first place. You think German tax money doesn’t build milcon facilities like airfields and hospitals in Germany? And yet the German government is still on the hook under their version of Artcle IV to compensate the US fair value when we return those facilities to them, even though they built them. And since 1991 we’ve closed more than 600 military sites in Germany. Germany gets the distinction of paying for all these things twice if you think about it. Korea is free from that responsibility. Who do you think has the better deal, Korea or Germany?
The funny part is, the German government keeps complaining that Korea got a better deal, while the Korean government keeps complaining that the German government got a better deal.
In Germany, of course because we get paid for these facilities we are also on the hook to pay for environmetal cleanup. And some of our bases are left over from the Nazis who knew nothing nor cared nothing about environmental safety. We still have to pay for cleanup. But you know what? It’s a bargain. Germany doesn’t think so, but we do.
The ROK Government can open up negotiations on any article of the SOFA at any time and for any reason or for no reason whatsoever, and yet, despite passage of 40 years and re-negotiations of several other Articles of this SOFA, they remain silent on Article IV.
Thanks for brining up this issue though. I meant to mention that earlier, but it slipped my mind.
It’s amazing how the Korean people can be so willingly ignorant on the Article IV protections and immunities they enjoy.
A PARABLE, KINDA LONG BUT I HOPE IT’S WORTH YOUR TIME:
Not to belabor this environmental point too much because I know there are other worthy topics of discussion awaiting us here, but I thought I?? take a minute and write out an analogy [metaphor, parable, whatever] that I have heard used several times while in Korea to illustrate the US perspective on this whole environmental contamination issue.
Before I do, however, let me point out, this is not meant to be an analogy that can be applied to all aspects of ROK-US relations. So please don?? try to stretch it beyond its intent.
Anyway, yes, I already know it?? kind of hokey, but it goes something like this.
_________________________
In the middle of the night the phone rang at John?? house. Half-asleep he picked up the receiver and heard his friend Kent?? voice.
??ello, John, are you awake???r
?? am now. What?? going on, Kent???r
??ohn, a terrible tornado just tore the roof right off my home. I know you??e a professional carpenter and I was wondering if you would be able to come over tomorrow and help me rebuild before the rains come and do even more damage.??r
??h, I?? supposed to be working at another site tomorrow, but since you say it?? an emergency, I??l take some time off and come over to help. What time do you want to get started???r
??s early as possible. I?? having about ten of my brothers and cousins over to help as well, and well?? was wondering, since you??e a professional carpenter and all, if perhaps you might umm??ring a bunch of tools and supplies and such so we can get started. You know I won?? be able to pay you much, but I??l provide sandwiches and lemonade while we work.??r
??K, Kent, not a problem, I??l bring the stuff over and we??l get started first thing in the morning.??r
??hanks, man. See you then.??r
As the day unfolds the work goes well. John brings a truckload of tools and supplies, teaches Kent?? brothers how to use them properly and by mid day the new roof is already beginning to take shape. It?? much nicer than the previous roof, with a higher arch to give Kent?? home more breathing space, and with reinforced gables to protect it from damage in future storms. John is working hard and everything seems to be going well. Every now and again John gets a chuckle out of watching the brothers and cousins work, but he likes their ??an do??attitude. He notices they are all hard workers and fast learners, and this roof is going up even faster than he had expected. Because they are not professionals however, they are constantly hitting their thumbs with the hammers and shooting nails into their boots with the air guns. The atmosphere is light and cheery, but laced with a steady stream of expletives from every direction.
One of the brothers though, seems to have shown up in a bad mood and has been giving John a hard time the entire day.
??an, your tools are ****. Why didn?? you bring the good tools instead of this worn out ***? How much are you charging my brother Kent to use these worn out piece of **** tools of yours? Dude, what kind of ******** carpenter are you that you brought ? inch pine plywood instead of 34/ inch bass? Are you trying to rip my brother off? Arrogant ******. Why don?? you just get the **** out of here and let us do this ourselves? We don?? need your ******** help.??r
John tries not to let the barrage of negative comments affect his mood, but he notices that even when Kent is present to hear this, he does nothing to stop his brother from saying these things to John. Why he won?? stand up for his friend is a mystery, but there?? still work to be done so John keeps on working.
Along about mid-afternoon, as chance would have it, John himself swings a wild blow and the head of his hammer lands full force right on his thumb nail. Just as even a monkey will sometimes fall out of a tree, so will a professional carpenter sometimes hit his thumb with his hammer. John let out a quick ??ammit??and kept on working.
Out of nowhere however, Kent suddenly appeared with a mason jar in his hand saying, ??ey John, we have a rule around here that anyone who pollutes the environment of my home with such language has to put a dollar in the jar.??r
??uh, I??e been working here since sunrise listening to you and your brothers spill out a constant flow of foul language, even in your casual conversations, but you didn?? ask them to put any money in the jar.??r
??ell, John, this is a new rule and since you??e in my home you have to abide by and be respectful of my rules.??r
??ook Kent, I came here at your request, brought all my own tools to help you out at my own expense, and now you want to enforce a new rule against me that you won?? even enforce against yourself or your brothers???r
??ell, I know it sounds strange, but since you??e a professional we expect more out of you. You can?? expect me to ask my brothers, who don?? know any better, to put money into the jar every time they hit their thumbs and utter a curse, can you???r
??ell, yes, in fact, I can. If you want to make up new rules, that?? fine. It?? your home. But if you think I have some sort of moral or legal obligation to stay here and let you enforce them against me alone while you let you foul-mouthed relatives get off scot-free, you are wrong.??r
??ou see John, that?? why we??e never been really close friends. You are so arrogant. You think you can just waltz in here and ignore the rules of my house, and tell me that you aren?? subject to my rules. How can anyone be so haughty???r
???? not ignoring or disrespecting anything or anyone. I?? telling you that you can?? create new rules and enforce them against me alone when I??e done so little in comparison to you and your relatives who do not seem to even be subject to your new rules. It?? arbitrary and unfair and you know it. So, you know what? Let me just gather up my gear and I??l be on my way. You and your brothers can finish this on your own. I??l leave the rest of the nails and shingles. You know how to do this job now and don?? really need my help anyway.??r
At this point, the one brother who had been giving John a hard time all day came up and said, ??eah, pack up your **** and get the **** out of here you ******* little ******. We don?? need ******** like you around here anyway.??r
John turns back to Kent and asks, ??o, aren?? you going to enforce your new rules against your brother for that little tirade???r
To which Kent replies, ??o, why should I? He?? just expressing his personal opinions. Are you trying to say that I should stifle free speech in my own home or that you are above criticism? Why should we have to walk on tiptoes around you while you pollute the environment of my home and make my children listen to such filth? Are you more special than the rest of us such that we aren?? allowed to even speak our minds around you???r
Without another word, John packs up his things and leaves.
As he drives down the driveway, Kent yells out after him, “What the ****! You’re not leaving all these woodscraps and **** behind for me to cleanup on my own are you? Why are you trying to take advantage of me like this?”
I had logged off and went to take a nap when that idea occured to me —- what about asking Korea to pay for airfields, golf courses, hotels, apartments and any other structures they do not tear to the ground but take over and use once handed back? Or, how about the infrastructure projects built off base along with base construction by the US military during and immediately after the war? I think Wonju’s primary city roads were builty that way.
To me, it doesn’t make sense to get into these discussions about past rent due and should Korea pay for US built golf courses. I don’t see making Germany pay for it, or Japan, though if that is what the agreement says, so be it.
The alliance was to serve both nations interests, and I understand that some or a good bit of the talk on nuts and bolts issues are required when you get down to it — especially on things like private land occupied by US facilities (if being much harder for me to accept the Korean argument about the embassy and Yonsan not paying rent for state owned property).
Slightly touching on this, on the relocation to Pyongtaek, for a short time a couple of years ago, I almost agreed with the Korean position that the US should pay a large portion of the Pyongtaek move, but it dawned on me — that what will probably happen over the next 10 to 25 years or so is either the North will collapse and USFK will leave, or USFK will leave regardless of the state of te standoff, and South Korea will take over what should turn out to be a highly modern base. I don’t think the US should spend a lot of American tax payer money to build a state of the art base we will not be able to use (perhaps) in a decade or two when the base is also primarily to defend another nation.
I wish to God that a Korean newspaper would print a condensed version of Charles’ postings, including the parable, but such will never happen.
Okay, I am going to put in my 2 cents’ worth. I have been teaching in Korea for 4 years, and my son is stationed in Dongducheon. As a mother, I have this to say: I raised my son to clean up after himself. He did not ask me to give birth to him, so I guess I had no right to ask anything from him at all, but still, I insisted that he CLEAN UP AFTER HIMSELF. Now, I really don’t give a rip what the SOFA says about who is to clean up what. I would absolutely bet that the Yanks have some form of “baseline” polution survey for every single one of the
bases they are stationed at. Use that baseline, calculate the amount of polution they have contributed, and clean up after themselves.
Whether or not Korean companies polute is NOT THE ISSUE. Don’t be obtuse you guys. You are sounding as irrational as you claim that the Koreans are. If everyone else is jumping off a bridge, does that mean you are going to do it too?? I know that is an old saying, but then I am an old person.
Given all that, I still expect people to clean up after themselves.
And bluejives is an American. One would think he’d welcome the chance to view things in the cold light of truth and rationality, even if it does spill cold water on the Korean government’s and media’s stream of lies.
dogbertt, I am also an American. My son, stationed at Camp Hovey is an American. I don’t give a flying flip what Article IV says, if Korea wants to going swimming in a cesspool of filth and polution of their own making, I don’t care. But if any of that cesspool is the result of anyone who claims to be an American, then I do care. Their actions are a direct reflection on me. And as responsible individuals, they need to clean up after themselves. If they don’t like that, then they need to move back home and let their mommies finish raising them.
Given all that, I still expect people to clean up after themselves.
Gillian, please accept my apologies. I thought I was being clear in my prior posts, but apparently I was unsuccessful.
The fact is, you are absolutely right. USFK does baseline environmental surveys every single time they find a spill, AND every single time a spill is reported to them by a 3rd party. They also have extensive clean up procedures set up. In fact, did you know…USFK spent more than 3 million dollars last year alone to clean up after themselves, including clean up performed on ROK/US joint-use land like training ranges.
Over the past 4 years USFK has removed every single underground fuel storage tank on every installation throughout Korea, except for the giant 10,000 gallon tanks at the AAFES fuel stations on the larger bases. But these are double walled, double lined modern tanks and are monitored constantly.
USFK IS being proactive. They are being responsible stewards. What they are not doing, and are prohibited by accepted principals of international law and Congressional mandate, is allowing the erosion of legal rights they bargained for at arms length with the ROK government as the “price” of obtaining US military protection for the fledgling republic.
The Republic of Korea has made certain promises and assurances to the United States that it is now engaged in a campaign to evade. If your language institue director did this to you, you would stick to your contract as well, I think.
Don’t buy into the NGO portrait of USFK as some sort of oil-spewing monster who neither knows nor cares where the fuel ends up. That simply isn’t the case. Every single command is staffed with an environmental team that is hard at work on a daily basis to keep things clean. No one is perfect, and with so many vehicles conducting so much training and eating up so much fuel, spills are bound to happen, but the efforts are there. And USFK thinks it a matter of pride that US clean up policies are far and away more progresive than the ROK’s own military practices.
Other problems are out there as well though.
1. Every time you turn a shovel at a USFK base you turn up buried “treasure” left over from the Japanese occupation or the Korean War. USFK has even gone so far as to clean up these messes as well, but of course they are only able to do so up to US standards.
2. Much of the compained of contamination at these installations is from dry cleaners on US bases, but many of these dry cleaners are neither owned nor operated by the United States. These are contract companies owned and operated by Korean citizens who do business on US bases for profit. Even under Korean law, they are responsible for their own messes. The United States has no obligation to pay for another’s messes simply because we used their services or they performed those services on our installation.
Congress doles out the money for this stuff, and Congress decides how it shall be used. The ROK National Assembly may wish that it had authority to mandate how USFK shall clean up after itself, but until they start actually paying the bills, they may only express their opinions as to what should happen, not give orders as to how it shall happen.
It does reflect poorly on the integrity of ROK National Assemblymen however when they conceal the deals they made, refuse to tell the Korean public of the benefits they have long derive from these deals, and still accuse the United States of poor environmental stewardship.
This issue will get much uglier very soon if the ROK Government continues to refuse to live up to its committments.
Gillian,
Like Charles said, your dismissing of Article IV misses the point. It is a simplistic dismissal itself.
And citing Korean pollution is not simply a childish ploy though I admit it can sound that way.
It is a question of proportion.
If the pollution on US bases in Korea are terribly abnormal, incredible health risks, — cesspools as you say — and a large amount of abnormal clean up will have to be done before they can be used by Korea again, you and Korea would have a point.
But, one of the problems with Korean society flying off the handle and going nuts frequently on even minor infractions means it is really hard to ever know how to interpret what they say.
There is also the fact, as Charles said, that in many of the cases that have been front page news, clean up was done or even in the process of being done — which is how groups like Green Korea caught wind of them in some cases to start with. But, in the process, Korea also has the habit of running wild with what turn out to be ridiculous charges.
For example, in Wonju at one base, when USFK had taken some type of environmental system off line to do a 2 million dollar upgrade (I think after they had noticed a problem or had found a problem while doing the upgrade) Green Korea ran to the press screaming about the pollution USFK had found itself and stated contrary to the truth that the system that was simply taken off line had ever existed in the first place. (I don’t remember the details specifically about what type of system it was. It’s in the news archives. But this is a basic outline of how it went down).
Green Korea also got a lot of play out of a photo of a cement box which was actually part of a back up system to catch material the primary systems didn’t get - just in case. Green Korea’s statements were that the simply little box was wholly inadequate and showed just how little the arrogant Americans care about the Korean environment and its people.
If you go through the different spikes in anti-US environmental activity, they usually follow that pattern.
The Korean media quote the anti-US groups a lot and provide a lot of inflated claims. USFK comes out and tries to explain what is really going on but can only get tid bits into the Korean press. But even when clean up is done, all that remains in the public mind is how USFK’s pollution is highly abnormal - even by Korea’s standards - and it does nothing about it.
And as I noted before, when Korea goes absolutely nuts over 20 gallons of embalming fluid being dumped in the Yongsan sewer (an infraction) and that sewer material is processed three times before touching the highly polluted Han River —-
—– is shoots Korean society’s credibility to hell.
Or, Korea discovers soil contamination at a subway area near Yongsan and the media starts frequent articles about it. Yongsan discovers soil contamination on its base and starts cleaning it up, and tarps over the soil is considered trying to hide the evidence, and taking the soil out to treat it is never going to be enough, and this is just the tip of the iceberg, and story after story runs, but when the drill bits at the subway leak turn out to be kerosene and the stuff at Yongsan is gasoline, suddenly the subway contamination isn’t such a hot national issue after all.
Korea’s ire should be in propotion to the damage done and its health risks and whether it is really ignored or USFK doesn’t pay its fair share.
We don’t get that in Korea.
We get Korea ignoring the environmental standards USFK uses, the clean ups it does, and Korea going nuts for months with editorials about threatening the lives of 10 million Korean souls in Seoul because of 20 gallons of embalming fluid illegally poured into the Yongsan sewer.
Charles, first, I am a public school teacher not a hagwon teacher. Just wanted to correct the impression.
And if you read what I said, I said: “But if any of that cesspool is the result of anyone who claims to be an American, then I do care.” Please take care to read the word “if”. Now, IF the USFK had in fact cleaned up after itself, then that should be a fairly easy thing to prove. If the Korean government does not wish to print this fact, then it is up to the USFK to print this information in the Korean language, I do believe they have a Korean language website, in order to get the information out to the masses.
I also know, because my son works in the motor pool, that when oil is spilled, clean-up involves throwing some kitty litter on it and calling it good. This is equivalent to sprinkling Joy dishsoap on an oil slick and thinking it is taken care of, simply because one can no longer see it.
Now, I am not saying that the USFK goes around purposely pollluting. What I am saying is that the amount of polution that the USFK is responsible for should be a rather simple matter to ascertain. A couple of bean counters could then come up with a dollar figure, and this does not have to become an international incident.
But the USFK does need to respond to this issue, in public, for the Korean public, and give them the facts. Of course the Korean government is not going to give the facts to the people, that goes without saying. Given that, the USFK does need to give the facts to the population, in a language that they can read.
That’s all I’m saying……
Charles I don’t totally agree with your definition of known, imminent and substantial danger.
First of all “known” means proven to exist which both sides concede is true. “Imminent” means causing acute rather than chronic illness or death. How much exposure to many of these carcinogens causes acute illness is unknown, but levels of accepted toxicity are defined in the EGS compliance manual. How much benzene or toluene is acceptable where your kids play? Benzene causes leukemia which sounds pretty acute to me and we don’t know how much or how many exposures causes this. “Substantial” would mean in a large enough quantity to cause danger to human health.
Acceptable health contaminant limits are debatable but legal acceptable limits are clear.
USFK is obligated by SOFA to clean up these lands to comply with regulatory rates that are given in the OCONUS compliance manual because SOFA cites it as the relevant environmental standard by which USFK must abide.
For example for the pollutant benzene the DOD has regulatory standards of .5(mgl) and chronic toxicity reference levels of .005
If the levels exceed these standards USFK must clean it up.
I concure. If the level of polution is such that I would not want my child playing there, then it needs to be cleaned up. That is the morally decent thing to do.
Frogmouth,
Please forgive my forthrightness, but I believe you and others here are still missing the main point of this issue by a very wide mark. It is not a question of ??ow we do what is right by local community standards?? but rather ??hat are our legal obligations vis a vis the ROK Government???r
First, there may be any given amount of known, imminent, and substantial endangerment in the soil, but that does not change a few facts, namely that Congress has mandated the solutions, one of which is simply to put up a tall fence and a bunch of ??o not enter??signs as was done at Yokohama [?] Bay back about ten or twelve years ago. That effectively??n Congress??opinion, remedies the known, imminent, and substantial endangerment, even though local communities may have different standards or opinionos of its effectiveness. Congress writes the checks so Congress says how much is enough.
Second, you still seem to think that contrary to the plain language of Article IV, that the United States has some other source of legal duty to clean up things which the ROK has specifically agreed to take care of on its own without US assistance or financial contribution.
If you don?? mind, may I ask you what, if any, responsibilities does the ROK owe the United States? That may be a subject of intense debate, but I submit that it need not be. The source of any nation?? responsibilities to any other nation must be found in the written agreements those two nations make together.
In this case, Article IV of the ROK-US SOFA spells out in very clear, very concise, unmistakable language that the ROK, as a condition to receiving the military protection of United States forces, has agreed to this task. The authorized ROK Government representatives signed the document, the ROK National Assembly ratified the document, and the ROK has enjoyed the benefits of US performance of its side of this document for nearly half a century. Nothing before or after the signing has abrogated, edited, diminished or in any way changed the language in Article IV. Why are we arguing about it now?
Does it not strike you as a bit dishonest for one party to a contract, a party that has enjoyed the full benefit of the other party?? performance of that contract for many years, now seeks to back out of its own obligations under that contract, calling it unfair or unconscionable?
If the ROK cannot be trusted to live up to its agreements, what nation henceforth will ever dare to enter into an agreement with them?
Let me put it another way, using Gillian?? situation as an example, although I?? not trying to pick on her. Just need a convenient example to use.
Suppose you enter into a contract with a Korean school to teach, let?? say??0 hours of classroom instruction per week for a benefit of 2.5 million Won per month. Let?? say you teach your required hours per week for a full month, for a total of approximately 80 work hours, and at the end of the month the principal of the school tells you, ??e??e very sorry, but we have decided that this agreement is no longer fair to us. Even though we realize you have fulfilled your obligations under every Article of this agreement, we don?? like this part of the agreement so we have decided that if you want to enjoy your benefits under the contract, you now have to work 25 hours per week, after which we will only pay you 2 million won instead of the agreed upon 2.5 million.
What would you do? You have already performed your part. Do you settle for this breach, roll over, and do what the school demands, or do you assert your rights under the agreement that the school originally sign up to, and which at the time of entering and until just this moment both sides agreed were fair?
Or do you pack up and leave?
That is the position of the United States at present.
Since Janaury 1967, under all 26 articles of the SOFA the United States has fulfilled its every duty, even allowing some of those duties [food inspections, criminal jurisdiction, etc.] to be redefined over the years as the situation between the two countries evolved. Now, however, the ROK side has unilaterally decided that it will not fulfill its obligation under Article IV, despite the teacher having taught the full 80 hours, as it were.
What are the options? What would you do?
Well, here I?? entering into the realm of opinion rather than fact, but it would seem to me that the US can either roll over and play by the new rules, [not likely] or it can call the ROK?? bluff. It can insist that this part of the agreement, which until only ??esterday??was perfectly acceptable to both sides, be fulfilled, since the United States has long worked to perform its part in good faith. If the ROK obliges and agrees to fulfill its own duties the alliance goes on forward. If the ROK insists that it cannot or will not, for whatever reasons, live up to its agreements, the US may pull out its troops and the alliance may be redefined or ended altogether.
One situation I cannot see happening however, and you can quote me on this, is the US simply agreeing that Article IV no longer applies, and that we will pay for these clean ups that the ROK previously told us they would take care of on our behalf in exchange for other benefits received.
To do this would not only anger the US taxpayer who has footed the bill to protect Korea for a very long time already, but would really piss off Congress who has specifically set limits on what sorts of clean ups [and to what levels] are allowed on foreign installations.
So, we have a dilemma.
On the one hand the ROK side has benefited by the United States adhering to the provisions it signed up for under the Mutual Defense Treaty and the Status of Forces Agreement, and on the other hand we have a newly rich ROK Government no longer willing to abide by its own promises, and that just at a time when it is finally able to do so.
What do you recommend?
Frogmouth, I apologize for tacking this last bit onto here like this and not including it all at once in my prior post.
You wrote earlier, “For example for the pollutant benzene the DOD has regulatory standards of .5(mgl) and chronic toxicity reference levels of .005
If the levels exceed these standards USFK must clean it up. ”
This is an incorrect statement of the law.
For two reasons.
First, The duty to define the terms “known, imminent and substantial endangerment” belongs to the Environmental Executive Agent in each theater. In Korea it is the 4-star commander, I believe that is Gen LaPorte, or whoever his successor is. The EEA is required to consult on each environmental matter with his medical advisor, [Commander, 18th MEDCOM] and his Environmental engineer to determine the existence of a “KISE”.
Congress left the terms specifically vauge because the environmental sitation is different in each country.
What constitutes a “KISE” in Germany may be different than what constitutes a “KISE” in Japan, or Korea. For that matter, what constitutes a “KISE” today may be far different from what constitutes a “KISE” tomorrow even within one country. There are so many varialbes, it cannot be determined in advance what a KISE is or will be. A black pool of toxic goo in one location at one tme may be far more or less dangerous [or known, or imminent, or substantial] than the same pool in another place or at another time.
These terms were purposely left vauge in order to give military commanders the flexibility to address situations responsibly without sacrificing the mission and without prejudicing binding agreements [like Article IV] which the United States may enter into with host nation governments.
Second, the DODI does not require a clean up, as you stated. Rather, as I hinted at before, it only requires a removal of the KISE, and that may be accomplished by cleaning up in some cases, or by simply fencing or walling off an area or by shutting down a well in other cases.
Thank you.
In this case, Article IV of the ROK-US SOFA spells out in very clear, very concise, unmistakable language that the ROK, as a condition to receiving the military protection of United States forces, has agreed to this task.
Quote the article where Korea says it will pay for cleanup.
In contrary I shamelessly cut and pasted the article that USFK promises to remedy the contamination.
Put up a fence around the contaminated area?? Is that some kind of joke? The key word here is “remedy” Putting up a fence is not that especially considering the fact USFK will be leaving the area. A remedy would involve using standard environmental procedures to solve the problem not some shabby stopgap measure to temporarily contain or stop toxic exposure.
Charles please directly quote articles rather than your spin on them. Irrelevant analogies don’t help your argument either.
Charles, I hear what you are saying, and on paper, it all looks very justifiable. Now, please consider this:
Currently the American military does not elicit great international support. I think we can all agree with that statement. In fact, if one were to be more blunt, it could be postulated that on an international level, the American military is sucking big, green donkey dicks.
Now, let’s say that the USFK decides that they are going to pull out of Korea, since it is obvious that the Korean government is not willing to live up to its agreements. Should the USFK leave without cleaning up their mess, and being really swell guys, maybe even some of the ROK’s mess, then the international communtiy will look on and perhaps thing, Hey, those guys aren’t so bad… And geez, I sure wouldn’t want to be the one in Korea dealing with those infants….
But should the USFK simply keep pointing to a piece of paper, put up with a squalling infant who does not live up to its end of the contract, the rest of the world, myself include, will shrug and respond with, “Well, and you were expecting WHAT?”
Now whatever it would cost to put this situation right would be money well spent if it meant 1) the USFK could pull out with their heads held high, and 2) that the image of the American military on an international level could be elevated even just a little.
Sometimes the right thing to do is not the legal thing, but simply the right thing.