Anatol Lieven of the New America Foundation discusses American overreach, the need to pick your fights carefully and why Korea shouldn’t be one of them. Hard to argue with this:
Charles de Gaulle defined the nature of statesmanship when he said that “to govern is to choose — usually between unpleasant alternatives.” This is something that the U.S. is finding it increasingly difficult to do. For it is torn among a multitude of different domestic lobbies and presided over by an administration that has grossly overestimated U.S. power.
In consequence, it has involved itself in fights in several different parts of the world simultaneously, sometimes over trivial issues.
Consider, for example, that at a time when the U.S. is facing crises of truly vital importance in the Middle East, it is also drifting toward a dangerous confrontation with Russia, a key player in the Middle East, over … South Ossetia.
What next, we wonder? Massive U.S. involvement in a Chilean-Argentine conflict over control of the Beagle Channel? A huge commitment of U.S. energy and resources to help Paraguay recover the Gran Chaco?
One would certainly hope not… not to belittle the importance of the Beagle Channel, of course.
There is one region that the U.S. can and should bow out of now: Korea. North Korea’s bomb test is obviously a very serious problem for the U.S., given its heavy military presence in South Korea. However, we should ask why, more than 50 years after the Korean War and 15 years after the end of the Cold War, the United States still has about 37,500 troops on the Korean peninsula.
In the long run, North Korea’s nuclear weapons are an overwhelming problem only for its neighbors, and it should be their responsibility to sort this problem out. Of course, they may fail — but then, the U.S. record in the region over the last decade has not exactly been one of success.
The U.S. is already reducing its troop levels on the Korean peninsula; it should accelerate the process and move rapidly toward ending its military presence. Moreover, it should negotiate a peace treaty with North Korea. This will remove Pyongyang’s motive to attack U.S. interests, ensure that China could never again attack U.S. forces in a ground war and allow the U.S. to concentrate instead on maintaining its overwhelming lead over China in naval and air power.
We must be very clear, however, that this withdrawal would also mean ceding to China the dominant role in containing North Korea’s nuclear ambitions — along with Japan, South Korea and Russia — and in managing the eventual collapse of the North Korean state and the appallingly difficult and expensive process of the reunification of the two Koreas.
Given how costly and difficult reunification has proved to be for the Germanys after the fall of the Berlin Wall, we should be only too happy to throw this particular time bomb into China’s lap. It would grant Beijing international prestige and an extra share of regional influence in an area vital to its interests, while saving us great costs and dangers.
I have a feeling we’ll be seeing quite a few “time bombs” becoming “other peoples’ problems” in the years ahead. Everybody hates the American Empire ™, but it will be interesting to see if other powers step up their game and how.
74 Comments
I’ve always been surprised by the failure of the USA to acknowledge the teachings of Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. No other parable in human literature better encapsulates the current predicament of the US government. That to do so makes me think the US is a failed state. Sinking one into North Korea would surely be a leg.
This is just a sidenote, and correct me if I’m wrong.
It’s interesting to note that the so-called “Korea experts” (e.g. Nicholas “Big Nick” Eberstadt at AEI, Michael O’Hanlon at Brookings, Peter Brookes at Heritage, Balbina Hwang at Heritage, etc.) at the major thinktanks have not mentioned pulling out US troops in entirety from the Korean peninsula. In fact, from what I have read so far, they are opposed to it. Does anyone know otherwise? I’d like to know.
Also, as John Mearsheimer said not too long ago, America’s goal will be to “cut China off at the knees.” I wonder whether this will be feasible should the Korean peninsula be turned over to the Chinese.
Certainly, the Japanese won’t be happy should the US gov’t listen to Lieven. According to a Japanese defense official I met in London recently, security of the Korean peninsula is of foremost concern to Japan, not only because of today’s North Korea but also because Japan cannot rule out in the future an invasion of the Japanese islands (if you think this is crazy, don’t take issue with me. He/she said it.). However, he/she didn’t identify the potential aggressor by name, but we all know who that is. And it’s certainly not Korea.
Handing over influence over any chokepoint in the world to China would be a huge mistake. And if you don’t think Korea’s a chokepoint, just ask China, Japan and even Russia. Tremendous amount of American blood was shed to achieve the geo-strategic advantage that the US has in East Asia today. Listen to Lieven, and Alfred Thayer Mahan and those who realized his dream may spin in their graves. And Mahan’s dream largely stemmed from his concern of China getting its act together and looking to expand its influence outward.
It appears Mahan has turned out to be correct. But, what will America do about this? Hand over a strategic chokepoint even without a contest?
America’s position may have weakened in East Asia since the beginning of the “war on terror.” However, America isn’t at such a position that it should give up what it has to China, a country that will undoubtedly challenge the US in the Indo-Pacific theater.
America should certainly choose the conflicts it enters into, but the brewing tensions in East Asia are too important for American interests that Washington bows out without an exchange of blows. And American presence on the Korean peninsula is a part of the East Asian equation. It is also a comforting symbol for other Asian allies that the US is in Asia to stay, and US presence in Korea will carry greater significance in the future as East Asian governments’ honeymoon with China starts to take a downward turn in the not too distant future.
Lieven’s thoughts are popular in D.C and pentagon, I am sure.
China is changing. It is emerging from a Communist state to a modern nation.
The US and China cooperation is increasing in commerce and in dealing with neighboring countries. The US’s trust in China is increasing as the Chinese seemingly move toward the US view in NK problem.
It is very possible for the US to leave four countries in the region (China, SK, NK, Japan) to sort things out(this means a war). I think the US should. These four countries with the exception of NK are pretty well-to-do. There is no reason for the US to rescue or help any one; they can help themselves.
SK is the fool. It really does not have the strength to withstand anything. Yet, it thinks it can. Well, fools die. History has proven that again and again.
The US should withdraw from this region and let China and Japan fight it out for the regional hegemony. The US can sell weapons and supplies before and during the war, and help two countries to rebuild after the war.
After a big war to let their steam off, these two, China and Japan, can be good friends, as happened between France and Germany.
“China and Japan, can be good friends, as happened between France and Germany.”
I surely believe so. It is a matter of time.
Same can be said about NK and SK, they will become the Netherlands and Belgium.
mingi’s above stated ex-spurts are hardly the sort that would have any understanding of the dynamics with which they are faced with in the region. Whatever such ideologists think and propose, the US is best served by cutting and running. any US direct military activity in the current atmosphere would carry too great a diplomatic risk. Its cumquats such as Mingi cites that keep calling to punch the Tar Baby.
America is going down, deal with it
Sunbin,
There are too much pent-up feelings between China and Japan -what happened in WWII and who should rule this part of the world.
A gigantic war with mucho death and destruction can finally bring closure to these feelings (stupid national pride and foolish need to be compensated).
I see a war coming down the pike as the US pulls out of this region to concentrate on the Middle East. Bush included NK in the axis of evil because the other two are moslems and he did not want to appear a moslem-hater. NK is a joke to the US and SKs are talibans.
The US must exit from this region. There is nothing to gain. That is, before the war starts.
The US need only pull out of South Korea, not Japan. With her forces out of South Korea, the US would have the military option to deal with North Korea’s nuclear facilities if need be. Also, by pulling US forces out of South Korea, the United States would essentially be signaling China to move in and clean house in North Korea, which would be safer than having Kim Jong-il’s finger on a nuke button. South Korea would then become the buffer state between China and Japan/US. This would probably kill Korean hopes for reunification, but it would make the world safer. Plus, it would allow South Korea to play the balancing role she has dreamed of playing.
Quoting De Gaulle on ‘unpleasant alternatives’? I don’t know in which context it was made (before or after the wars in Algeria and Indochina, or maybe the Paris massacre (actually, they covered that one up, so I doubt it)), but it seems to me like he was trying to make excuses for all the unpleasant things his government had done.
Once the US pulls out of SK, Koreans will be afire on unifying with NK and start a war with Japan. China can play a big brother by refreeing two Koreas to unify.
Once two Koreas combine, what those soldiers do for living? They, with China’s blessing, start a war with Japan.
As I wrote many times, Koreans will be the front troops for China. Koreans love to kill the Japanese for what happened in 1910-1945. The Chinese will vicariously enjoy the war but, when Koreans get hammered, they will enter the war.
The US knowing that China is behind it all should not enter the war on Japan’s side. And, by then, the ties between the US and China will be much stronger than now.
The economic engine of the US supplying the investments and smarts and the Chinese providing labors is the win-win juggernaut the world has ever seen. This arrangement will make both countries richer beyond dreams.
The US will depend on it in the future. China will be the closest ally to the US both economically and militarilly.
The dynamic duo.
Mingi has it all correct.
Before you have free speech, free markets, human or any other rights, and the pursuit of happiness, you need security. Military involvement, in particular American military involvement, is costly and sometimes divisive, but it’s hard to put a price tag on security. Security is the ante, the minimum requirement to get into the game of being a developed nation. Who would have invested a dime in West Germany all through the cold war if American troops were not there? The very fact that (Western) Europe is a wealthy, peaceful and prosperous region was, in the end, underpinned by the American military.
Abandoning East Asia (and Guam is not a sufficient base from which to guarantee projection of US power) as a military base so that Japan and China can ‘fight it out’ literally or figuratively would mean an end to SK as the world’s 10th largest economy, a huge flight of capital out of the region’s stock markets, inevitable re-militarization of Japan, a massive departure of western multinationals from Asia, job losses, GDP drop….
Of course you can adjust the numbers, whether it’s 5000 US troops or 35,000 troops, it’s their role as a tripwire, their symbolic presence that is essential. So long as any military action in the region must necessarily bring in the US, and no one wants to risk that, we can maintain an environment where politicians and pundits can debate in high drama and acrimony, but at least the general public can go about the more important tasks of developing their economies and bettering their lives.
Mingi has good arguments for why the US doesn’t give up something tangible for something intangible. If the US fully withdraws from Korea, we would need not promises but real concessions. This might be Nork collapse and reunification on ROK terms. Nork disarmament along with a peace treaty between Nork and ROK. Chinese overthrow of Kill Il Jung and a replacement that integrated the country into the world’s system of nations. This would be best case, but the wild card is the obstinate ROK carrying water for the NORk and taking advantage of US cover. ROK funnelling cash that helps the NORKS R&D nuclear weapons is intolerable to the US. Its senseless to keep US troops exposed to nuclear heat because our ally, the ROK, helped the NORKS develop them. So despite our preferences, withdrawal may be a necessity.
There would be no reason for China to attack either South Korea or Japan, since those countries are big markets for Chinese products. What would China gain from such an attack? How many Chinese producted can destroyed economies buy? China might, however, attack and occupy North Korea since North Korea’s economy is already in shambles.
Baduk,
A united Korea would not attack Japan, especially if US forces were there. Not only would they not gain anything by attacking, what would they attack with? Nukes? If Korea attacked Japan with nukes, that would mean the end of Korea. I do not think even Kim Jong-il is that stupid.
gbevers, who says they would have to attack Japan with nukes? And as for your confidence that KJI is “not that stupid”, I’m really not as sure. I am reminded of Pol Pot, who was foolish enough to start a war with an infinitely more powerful neighbouring country and led his own country to total and abject defeat in 1979.
Have a nice life, dlatn.
Quotes from “mon General”? Perhaps there’s a few more we can find to apply to the Korean situation:
A great country worthy of the name does not have any friends.
Authority doesn’t work without prestige, or prestige without distance.
China is a big country, inhabited by many Chinese.
Diplomats are useful only in fair weather. As soon as it rains they drown in every drop.
No country without an atom bomb could properly consider itself independent.
Patriotism is when love of your own people comes first; nationalism, when hate for people other than your own comes first.
Since a politician never believes what he says, he is quite surprised to be taken at his word.
The better I get to know men, the more I find myself loving dogs.
Treaties, you see, are like girls and roses; they last while they last.
________
Here’s one for the anti-Americans here:
You may be sure that the Americans will commit all the stupidities they can think of, plus some that are beyond imagination.
To which I quote in reply:
You’ll live. Only the best get killed.
http://www.brainyquote.com/quo.....aulle.html
Unfortunately, they don’t footnote their exact sources; I agree it would be interesting to know the exact context of the great man’s quotes.
A great man whose image was greatly tarnished when it was revealed just a few years back that his government had covered up the Paris Massacre and played a role in the disappearance of an Algerian dissident in Paris.
The unsolvable political problems between China and Japan go back more than a thousand years. If the Japanese would ever get real, start calling their top symbolic dude a “King”, things would become fine. But as long as they keep calling that now-worthless-for-practical-purposes guy an “Emperor”, eventual WWIII between the two big boys remains inevitable. We Westerners think such silly title questions don’t matter, but to the people over here, deep down inside, they really really do. China and Japan will have to settle this little point-of-pride someday, whether back in the alley or out on the front sidewalk…
And as always, Korea sits right between them, internally divided, without close international allies, and not spending their money on proper defenses…
When Korea and Japan fight, China will gain by selling to both countries. After the war, China can sell more.
Japan does not buy much of Chinese goods anyway. The Japanese got rich by selling their cars and electronics and not buying anything from other countries. Strong nationalism prevented them from using better quality goods from other countries. A sort of anti-example of mutual economic expansion through free trades.
Them sake-drinkers like to sell but they don’t buy.
China, on the other hand, does not play this type of game. It sells and buys.
This is why the US and China will go hand-in-hand to dominate the world economy. Free trade and mutual growth.
Someguy: “great” in terms of “notable”, not necessarily “great” as being “admirable”. But that’s an American’s perspective, not necessarily a nationalistic Frenchman’s.
He should be an interesting figure for Koreans to study, and then to decide whether to emulate, particular now that “one Korea” has nuclear weapons; also don’t forget his 1965 decision to give NATO and the American military bases in France “le boot”.
You do realize that DeGaulle was essentially out of power in France between 1946 and 1958, when key decisions regarding Indochina and Algeria were being made? I admit I have to research further to see what his views were, contemporaneously with the development of events there.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_de_Gaulle
Paris Massacre was an interesting reference, didn’t know about it at all till your mention caused me to look it up.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P.....re_of_1961
Helps to explain current events in France I suppose (ie the “relative” restraint of police).
“…Unlike many other politicians, he died nearly destitute, and his family had to sell the Boisserie residence. It was purchased by a foundation and is currently the Charles de Gaulle Museum…”
Hmm, didn’t know this, proves he was personally honest, which does tend to increases my respect for him. And there’s no doubt he was a brave soldier.
sanshinseon,
I have never heard the Chinese complain about the name “emperor” or the letter “皇” being used in Japan. It’s only the Koreans who keep calling our emperor “日王 (King of Japan)” in the newspapers and getting a kick out of the meaningless effort. It seems Koreans haven’t changed since the days of King of Chosun, who refused to accept an official letter from Japan in the 19th century, because it was signed “天皇.” They thought,”How dare you, little brother country, use the letter ‘皇,’ that’s reserved for the Chinese emperor.” Then, several decades later after the Japan-Sino War, they gleefully chose to call themselves the “大韓帝国 (The Empire of Great Korea)” and, of course, renamed their king “皇帝 (emperor).”
‘china will take over north korea.’
uh, no, it won’t because it can’t. the chinese better not misunderstand here; should they attempt an invasion, they’ll have their own private iraq on their hands.
it’s funny how people just assume that china can do whatever it wants to north korea. but then, these are the same people who believed that the us against iraq would be a cakewalk. i hope the chinese are smarter.
btw, why would china invade nk? i never see a reason given for their pending invasion. probably because the reasons would be so ridiculous. is it lebensraum? manchuria one of the more sparsely populated regions of china. buffer against the us? then why move your border to the country that houses your nemesis? need a naval port? friendly relations with the koreans will give them access to such port. i can’t imagine the chinese blowing up a powder keg for such a small return.
‘koreans not doing anything.’
i disagree; they’re starting to do something about it. do you think if you can see it, they can’t?
‘japan would be concerned.’
you better believe it. you think the jappanese want china a hundred miles away from it? if china invades, there is going to be war, and you can bet your bottom dollar on that. and korea’s number one ally is going to be japan.
lastly, some thought on japan:
deep down, i like the japanese. always have. i say bad things about the japanese but that’s because of things like yasukuni. once they stop, i’ll forget all about it. in my life, i have never felt a relationship with the chinese, but i’ve laways felt one with the japanese. their language sounds similar to korean. japanese grammar is the same as korean grammar. their historical institutions are similar to korean ones. they eat bean paste. i can’t think of two peoples in this world who should be close friends but aren’t. it strikes me that koreans and japanese go together. i hope both sides will see that one day.
and yeah, korea got get over the past. but japan got to do too. stop giving koreans ammunition. that’s how you nullify japan bashing in korea. and it doesn’t have to be everything, just the big one called yasukuni.
Wow, pawi actually talks sense for a change
Pawi,
China would invade North Korea to stop the two Koreas from unifying, and do you really think Japan or the US would ally with North Korea to stop such an invasion? They would only be concerned about China going into South Korea.
There would be no Iraq for China in North Korea since many North Koreans would probably welcome her with open arms, especially the Koreans in the North’s concentration camps. And if there is resistance, I am sure China knows how to deal with it, Tiananmen-Square style.
“Things like Yasukuni”? Even if the Yasukuni issue is settled to Korea’s satisfaction, Koreans will find something else to replace it.
Ref: post #14, to dlatn from our host.
Did you ban dlatn?
If so, I hope you’ll grant a last-minute stay of execution, governor.
I’m probably an inferior “Koreanologist” to everyone else here, nevertheless I always find myself wondering if I can detect the genuine voice of North Korean intelligence. Assuming that the North’s “National Command Authority” has at some point got to trust subordinates enough to allow some of them to monitor “foreign”/western media, anything like this blog has simply got to come up on their radar as a prime “listening post”.
Ideally such a monitor would do just that, while refraining from posting, still after a time the temptation to stick your oar in must be almost irresistable.
Three keys to my inference about Delightful Dlatn:
1) rather awkward application of the “Uncle Remus” folk tale to US political plight in the world; this takes some advanced education, as I doubt this particular folk story has much currency any longer in US standard 12 grade education (due to severe political incorrectness). So I doubt a US origin for dlatn.
From dlatn #1, above: “….I’ve always been surprised by the failure of the USA to acknowledge the teachings of Uncle Remus and Brer Rabbit and the Tar Baby. No other parable in human literature better encapsulates the current predicament of the US government. That to do so makes me think the US is a failed state. Sinking one into North Korea would surely be a leg…”
Not many Americans talk like that, nor (I think) would an American educated South Korean.
2) Also, another indicator, from dlatn #5 above:
“…Whatever such ideologists think and propose, the US is best served by cutting and running. any US direct military activity in the current atmosphere would carry too great a diplomatic risk. Its cumquats such as Mingi cites that keep calling to punch the Tar Baby. America is going down, deal with it”.
2nd reason: the accusation of US as a “failed state”, the “mirror image type” counter-accusation that I think I’ve noticed before in looking over openly acknowledged North Korean sources.
3) Cumquats? Now that’s an obscure insult if I ever saw one. BTW, dlatn, correct spelling in English is with a “k”. A Chinese origin word (I didn’t know that):
Main Entry: kum·quat
Etymology: Chinese (Guangdong) gAm-gwAt, from gAm gold + gwAt citrus fruit
: any of several small yellow to orange citrus fruits with sweet spongy rind and somewhat acid pulp that are used chiefly for preserves ; also : a tree or shrub (genus Fortunella) of the rue family that bears kumquats.
I say: bring back dlatn! Regardless of the validity of my analysis as to his origin/motivation, let’s hear what he’s got to say; he’s pretty sophisticated.
Has no one considered proliferation, or the fight against it, as a reason to stay for now?
Boots on the ground in the ROK does zip for non-proliferation. The Norks aren’t smuggling stuff over ROK ground, and ROK has made it clear they are not going to permit the interdiction of NORK shipping in ROK waters or assist in such interdiction elsewhere.
Indeed, Washington’s current chief interest in the Korean Peninsula seems to be preventing KJI from selling a nuke to Al-Queda and the general non-proliferation problem, not any grand long-term geo-political visions.
> Two Cents from Japan
> I have never heard the Chinese complain about the name “emperor”
> or the letter “皇” being used in Japan.
Why would the Chinese complain about it? It’s a problem more than a millennium old, and they’re patient. No need for talk, they’ll resolve it when they are able to.
> It’s only the Koreans who keep calling our emperor “日王 (King
> of Japan)” in the newspapers and getting a kick out of the meaningless effort.
Yes, Koreans have a proper sense of the real East-Asian order of things.
> It seems Koreans haven’t changed since the days of King of Chosun,
> who refused to accept an official letter from Japan in the
> 19th century, because it was signed “天皇.”
Good for him.
> Then, several decades later after the Japan-Sino War,
> they gleefully chose to call themselves the “大韓帝国 (The Empire
> of Great Korea)” and, of course, renamed their king “皇帝 (emperor).
Check your history books — they were forced to do this by the conquering Japanese, to declare their “independence” from China as an “empire” just so that Japan could take them over — it was anything but gleeful. Koreans never would have done that voluntarily, they knew full well how absurd and wrong it was…
Paul H., I think the open sensitivity to political correctness in American educational systems is a little more recent than you might think. “Song of the South” and its corresponding Uncle Remus stories were part of my reading in first grade in Connecticut back in 1979. I think it was around my 4th or 5th grade year when the school announced at a PTA meeting than the stories would no longer be available for use at the school library. At that point they went to great lengths to distance themselves from the stories and the PC campaign snowballed, not surprising for Hartford, Connecticut - liberal types abound there. PC aside, if we only had someone as realistic and intelligent as Uncle Remus running all of our respective goverments we’d all be alot better off.
Regardless if one agrees with the below argument, it is undeniable there is weakening commitment among Americans to get involved in another Korean crisis — and, unfortunately, if not an antipathy then an apathy about things Korean continues to build. As I have stated before, the two Koreas have created a growing sense of political fatigue in the US and probably elsewhere in the world, aside from its geographical neighbors.
An interesting consequence, however, of the US becoming disentangled from Korea would be The Korea Problem becoming a Korean problem. Except for the possibility of the DPRK possibly being suicidal enough to engage in WMD trade with terrorist organizations, the world could largely ignore this peninsula given larger and more pressing problems — and opportunities.
In a real sense, the US Forces Korea largely defines the prominence of both Koreas on the world stage. If for any reason, should they be withdrawn, both North and South would lose stature. It is not surprising that even Kim Il Sung actually wishes for US forces on the peninsula, regardless of his nation’s official demands for their removal.
Today the loudest argument for the US to remain stay actively engaged in this issue is to counter the spread of potential nuclear terrorism. Just how this may be done by keeping troops here is not at all clear. What may be the most salient reason for USFK’s existence is to act as a military counter option to growing Chinese hegemony in this region. Now, whether Washington — and the American public — wish to continue play this game while at the same time over-extending resources in a real or make-believe War on Terrorism is another question – and that may ultimately define America’s role in NE Asia’s future.
Baduk:
>Japan does not buy much of Chinese goods anyway. The Japanese got rich by selling their cars and electronics and not buying anything from other countries. Strong nationalism prevented them from using better quality goods from other countries. A sort of anti-example of mutual economic expansion through free trades.
Them sake-drinkers like to sell but they don’t buy.
Please, please, start basing your comments on actual fact.
Japan has a trade DEFICIT with China:
http://www.forbes.com/business.....43295.html
Can someone make a plugin for wordpress that allows registered users to just ignore all posts from a set user? That would be awesome.. Until then….
Fact: Japan does not buy much of Chinese goods anyway.
Fiction: Sino-Japanese trade hits new record
Fiction: Strong nationalism prevented them from using better quality goods from other countries.
Fact: (1) What brand of TV would you prefer the Japanese buy besides a Japanese one? May I ask you where your television came from? (2) Portable music, a Japanese invention. Not until the iPod mini came out did someone manage to get their hands into the Japanese portable music market, not due to “[s]trong nationalism” but because before the iPod mini, every non-Japanese electronic product was a pile of shit. My first non-Japanese/Sony music player (portable or not) was an iPod mini, and it shared play time with my Sony MD Walkman. (3) At present, the iPod is dominating the Japanese portable music device market.
Other random Badukisms:
Bullshit: “The Japanese got rich by selling their cars and electronics and not buying anything from other countries.”
Life on Earth: Can you explain your plans for getting rich by decreasing your income and increasing your spending? I think you could get an award for that if you could make it work.
WTF?: “A sort of anti-example of mutual economic expansion through free trades.”
Huh?: Please see the part above where until the iPod mini, the best product was Japanese. The same can be said for cars. Most Japanese cars are just better than most American cars; and this is especially true in Japan. I love my Lincoln Town Car to death, but I’d never consider driving something bigger then my house in Japan. Furthermore, how do you explain Americans buying Japanese products? Perhaps we Americans have “[s]trong nationalism”… for Japan…
While the point that the U.S. cannot fight every fight is true, the suggestion that we will become involved in South American issues to the extent we are in Asia, Europe, and the Middle East is probably far off the mark (straw man). Lieven is blowing hot air. The same goes for African issues, BTW, regardless of the new Africa Command.
To say that North Korea is “not our problem” basically equates to saying “nuclear proliferation is not our problem,” when it most surely is. Aside from proliferation, the U.S. has and will continue to have vast economic interests in East Asia. As Mingi notes, giving up regional influence we’ve built up since WWII would be a mistake.
Staying in Korea (and Japan) also prevents dormant tensions between China-Japan-Korea from rising up, and helps prevent a regional arms race that, if it occurred, could cause both Korean and Japan to go nuclear. To ignore this, I think, is very short-sighted.
Lieven also got the current U.S. troop level wrong; should be closer to 29,000.
@ Baduk; Lieven’s thoughts are not popular at the Pentagon with almost any Korea specialist (FAOs, analysts, etc.) that I know.
There is also the very real possibility that not much would happen, at least in the near future. The highly security-minded Chinese leadership are comfortable with a divided Korea (remember when Vietnam came together? And that was under a communist regime.) North Korea could look forward to its prospects for survival, as repulsive as that sounds, and things would be pretty much business as usual for Japan and south Korea. Notice how China has not committed itself to too many overly threatening acts against Taiwan, the renegade province. My two cents.
In regard to a possible arms race, I think both North and South Korea (w/o USFK) would be the primary destabilizing factors.
You know, as much as I like USFK playing tripwire in order to keep the won strongish for me to send home, I cannot deny the logic of the guy’s argument.
For those who read Richardson’s own (excellent) link in #34, be sure to scroll through all the responses to read Joshua’s counter argument comments, including the one at the very bottom.
Considering North Korea’s record of arms sales to anyone with cash, and the relative ease with which nuclear materials could be smuggled out of the region, the argument that their nuclear weapons are only a regional problem is not just weak but downright absurd.
Addressing the U.S. record on negotiating with North Korea; you can’t make a deal with a country that does not want to make a deal. On the flip side of that, one could say that China has not had much success in controlling North Korea either; if it’s a “regional problem,” who is going to ensure it doesn’t become a global one? Not China.
Lieven makes tired arguments (i.e., Bandow’s) that simply do not take a big-picture view or stand up to security realities.
emperor vs king
1) i confirm with twocent that Chinese do not give a damn about what the japanese emperor is called.
2) the conflict between japan and china only started after meiji retoration. NOT “a thousand year ago”. the japanese pirates invaded coastal china around 1500s but it was just some nuisance, not a ‘national’ conflict. they were not controlled by the japanese kings/emperor anyway.
3) yes, shin is right that there is a distinction between ‘emperor’ and ‘king’ in old chinese lingo. basically kings pay tribute to the emperor. the old dynasty emperors were arrogant and want everybody else to pay tribute to him (incl japan, korea — but japan never did since it was so far away), so the chinese emperor just pretend japan did not exist at all.
however, that is just nomenclature and even back in the dynasty time they only care about it when an ambassador arrived. today, there is no emperor in china, and nobody give a damn, really.
Darin,
In Japan, rice and meat prices are about 10 times those of the US.
Can you explain this blatant protectionism other than nationalism?
There are many many reasons for US troops to pull out of Korea, but the reason of “not our problem” isn’t one of them. Although I don’t think that’s what the author is saying–he seems to be just recognizing the reality we are not in a position to back up our words in military terms.
People have been yelling “not our problem” concerning Saddam’s WMD for a long long time. Of course, Iraq and her neighbors have oil which Korea and her neighbors don’t. But the mathmatics of it isn’t that far off. Japan alone constitutes a gargantuan trade partner with United States. Even if you are so right winged that you don’t care about trade relations with China and South Korea, that alone should give you jitters. As a matter of fact, president Bush really have been going along with ROK/China approach. If he was serious about doing things “his” way (that is supremely right wing approach), he would have beefed up military presence in Japan and really cranked up VOA signals. Even for Japan, it’s in Abe’s best interest to have US soldiers stationed in South Korea. Afterall, you want your first line of defence somewhere far away from your back yard as possible. From time to time, even the Japanese locals get “rape” jitters from US servicemen, so from a political angle, it’s better to have the bases in Korea rather than Japan where it can lead to frictions with Japan-US ties.
But here’s the real rub. Saddam was no where near close to proliferating WMD like KJI. You know those Taepodong exercizes? That unfortunately makes it America’s problem. Actually, DPRK was never America’s problem after the Korean war ended, but it became one ever since they been lobbing missiles over Japan. (how I miss the days when ROK would growl like a bull dog only to have Uncle Sam pull back on the leash with all his might) And here’s something else to think about. The idea that just because we sign a peace treaty with DPRK, that somehow they will no longer see us as threat numero uno, is as intelligent as the idea that somehow ROK sending $40 mil a year will stop DPRK from collapsing/invading. What is a peace treaty? For DPRK, it won’t accept nothing less than “normalized” trade relations with United States. “Normal” for DPRK will include but not limited to, seniorige rights over US currency, selling narcotics to US and allies, selling legitimate goods and services produced from slave labor, etc. So how are we suppose to sign a “peace” treaty with DPRK? You can’t ignore the fact that DPRK has been demonizing the US for the past 50 years. United States have become like jews for Hitler. You take that out of the equation and KJI is in real trouble. I.E. North Korean population have been indoctrinated to believe that Korea does not have unification because of United States. If United States is no longer an obstacle to unification, the DPRK government has to answer to the people why it is not unifying. So. The bottomline is that the DPRK can never have peace with United States. This is a very Lankovian logic here. Probably popular here, and probably true.
We’ve (that is liberals) been hoping that DPRK would make some reforms. At this point, it’s clear that is not going to happen. ROK knows what that really means. –>war Unfortunately for ROK, it does not produce enough disposable income to prevent this outcome. Norimitsu Onishi just wrote an article pointing out that Roh Moo Hyun’s popularity is dropping over economic woes. ROK isn’t in a position to give cash to DPRK. What this means is that somewhere along will come an ROK president who will say “engagement” and mean that in a very DPRK sense of the word–> lots of unified sports exchanges and nothing of real substance. No money being exchanged.
Brace for impact boys. The big one is coming. Keep a sharp eye on the NK daily website.
Any talk of China invading DPRK suredly gets my panties wet, but it will only happen on that day when Lenin’s body and Kim Il Sung’s body resurrects from their respective tombs to engage in passionate homoerotic love. On that day everyone who posts regularly on this blog will win the lotto and convert to Mormonism, God’s true religion.
Virtual wonderer,
I agree with you that DPRK is a problem for the US.The principle of nuclear deterrance only works on a nation-to-nation basis. If you have terrorists from country A sponsored by country B operating in country C, who are you going to counterstrike? Or can such counterstrikes be even justified? The present rules of war only apply to state wars, not terrorists, and Kim Jong-il is about to sell nukes to the latter. I think US (and the whole world) should be more concerned, because we may end up facing terrotist organizations armed with nukes.
sanshinseon,
If Japan had planned to annex Korea from the very start, it would have appointed a king, not emperor. When Japan finally did annex Korea, the Korean emperor was stepped down to king status, though the Korean royals objected. There were factions in Japan who had wanted to annex Korea from the start (and they eventually won with the assasination of Ito by a Korean), but the initial plan was to build a strong, independent ally standing on its own legs which could assist Japan in keeping Russia off her. The annexation/colonization was considered too costly for Japan who was already burdened with the cost of managing Taiwan.
No need to, because that’s not true. You will just give up, you’re an idiot.
twocents said, “The annexation/colonization was considered too costly for Japan who was already burdened with the cost of managing Taiwan. ”
Are you sure this was what Japan thought at the moment, not some hindsight by modern historians? AFAIK, Japan was eager to annex any “Lebensraum” from 1965-1945. Also Taiwan was not costly to manage at all, instead, it was rather easy to rule, with vast resources and income for the Empire.
Sunbin,
I believe it was Mutsu Munemitsu who stressed that “we have no more money for colonies, so keep out of Korea.” Ito was against it because he considered that the annexation of a country with a strong sense of identity like the Koreans would be too costly both monetarily and human-resource wise. However, I have read that by the time of his assasination, Ito had come to the conclusion that the annexation was inevitable, after having seen that no significant steps towards modernizaiton (especially in terms of educational reforms) had not been taken by the Korean government during the 10 years since their liberation from Qing and the Japan-Russo War.
As for Taiwan, Japan had just acquired it in 1895 and was spending huge sums of money for its development, such as the irrigation dams and canals (that ultimately had a total extension longer than the great wall of China), roads that were virtually non-existent before the annexation, hydroelectric plants, and endemic disease control (not to mention education and social infrastructure like sewage). Plus, the Taiwanese were giving one good fight against Japanese rule. These were all necessary to get production in the plantations and mines going, which, as you say, eventually became very profitable. If Taiwan had been a much earlier acquisition, it may not have presented a problem in 1895. Japan was still a fledgling power back then.
Paul H., maybe, but De Gaulle is not without his critics.
Jean-Paul Sartre was asked to write 7 pages for a magasine on his impressions on De Gaulle’s 1958 referendum to amend the French constitution…he wrote 75.
” Je ne crois pas en Dieu, mais si dans ce plébiscite, je devais choisir entre lui et le prétendant actuel, je voterais plutôt pour Dieu: il est plus modeste.”
(I don’t believe in God, but if, in this plebiscite, I had to chose between him and the current candidate (De Gaulle), I’d rather vote for God: he’s more modest.)
Albert Camus, a French-Algerian, wrote extensively of the Alegerian war.
“Who has capsized all projects of reform for thirty years, if not a parliament elected by the French? Who has closed its ears to the cries of Arab misery… if not the great majority of the French press? And who, if not France, with its disgusting good conscience, has waited until Algeria bleeds to finally realize that she exists?”
Someguy, in all fairness to le Grand Charles, 38 governments between 1945 and 1954 does not speak well of “a parliament elected by the French”. Rather it appears they were rotating parliaments elected by the French. And while I do find Sartre’s bon mot humourous, the fact remains that this very constitutional amendment gave France the stability she enjoys today. And remember, no one had elected le Grand Charles in 1958. Rather, the Army decided on 13 May that it had had enough. On a minor historical note, a recently published work on Vietnamese soldiers in Franch service contains a frontspiece photo of an all-Vietnamese commando (Commando “35″ Extreme-Orient), obviously airlifted in from Algeria, in the National Assembly building on 13 May 1958. (Les “Linh Tap”, Editions Lavauzelle)
> sunbin from United States
> 2) the conflict between japan and china only started after meiji
> retoration. NOT “a thousand year ago”. the japanese pirates invaded
> coastal china around 1500s but it was just some nuisance, not a ‘national’ conflict.
Surely, sir, you are aware of the Imjin War. I have heard that the Samurai hordes were not intending to stop at Pyeongyang, and that Ming China did feel compelled to involve its own forces; and i do believe that this happened sometime before the Meiji Restoration. And i have heard tell that this “title issue” first became a source of tension during the Tang Dynasty, which i do believe was over a millennium ago.
For your 1) & 3), in my Humble Opinion you are looking only at the surface of past and current public reality, not seeing deeper into the meaning of such disputes over names — and you are making the typical Westerner’s mistake that because WE don’t care much about such things, they surely didn’t and don’t, nobody ever would. Check any various scholarship on Confucianism on the importance assigned to titles, and why.
However, because i’m not talking about what’s displayed on the surface, i have no internet cites ready to “prove” anything, so I’ll just leave it as ‘my opinion’.
> today, there is no emperor in china
Hear i’m afraid you’re really being facile — Yes, through trial and error the Chinese leadership have found that the Emperorship is too big a job, and too dangerous when the One Guy goes nuts; thus they upgraded the “Standing Committee of the Politburo” to fill that job and play that role in a safer, more stable way — but if you think that change in political organization means they no longer consider themselves the “Middle Kingdom” with rightful leadership over Eastern Asia… then i guess we will have to disagree.
> Two Cents from Japan
> If Japan had planned to annex Korea from the very start,
> it would have appointed a king, not emperor.
> When Japan finally did annex Korea, the Korean emperor
> was stepped down to king status, though the Korean royals objected.
Well, Gojong already WAS a “King” — in tribute to and under the protection of the Emperor of China. The whole point was that in order to take Korea over the Japanese first had to force Gojong to become independent from China, as an “Emperor”, and then once that was internationally accepted (after 1905) they could downgrade him back to “King” under their own “Emperor”, and then compel him to sign away the country into colonial status altogether. I don’t believe that any of this process was the Korean’s own choice, or what any of them beyond a very few pro-J traitors wanted to do.
I am aware that there were various factions in Japan who had differing opinions on what to do with Korea and how fast, and that official policy did go back-and-forth. But i don’t know details about this, and thank you for educating us about it.
The version of the 1897 story i am advocating here is what i have long told my tour-groups when i take them to the Dongnip-mun (Independence Gate). If i’m actually off-base or even totally wrong about it, i certainly would like to know! If you have any evidence that independence/Emperor was really the Korean’s idea and desire, and that Japanese didn’t force them to do it, had nothing to do with it — please let us know, and i will be grateful…
We must note, however, that if you are going by sources published in Japan, they may be telling quite a different story from that told by Korean and Western historians of that period (and of the contemporary accounts of the Westerners in Seoul, such as the American missionaries)…
US troops in South Korea no longer deter North Korea; they only embolden her because North Korea knows the US will not do anything as long as North Korean artillery are pointing toward Seoul, which means North Korea has a hostage. With US forces in South Korea, any attack on North Korean nuclear facilities by the US could be blamed on South Korea. If US forces left South Korea, North Korea would lose her hostage, at least as far as the US is concerned. Without a hostage, Kim Jong-il would probably think twice about selling nukes to terrorists or doing other things that might provoke the US.
Now US troops are in South Korea essentially to deter China, not North Korea, but since North Korea now has nuclear bombs, the US probably considers China the lesser of two evils and would not mind so much if China were to take over the administration of North Korea. A peace treaty with North Korea would give the US an excuse to pull her troops out of Korea and signal China that she can do what she wants with the North. If China decides not to do anything with North Korea, then the US can can deal with the problem herself by attacking North Korea’s nuclear facilities without worrying about North Korea retaliating against Seoul.
US troops in South Korea is not only a waste of money, but they also limit US options for dealing with North Korean nukes. Something needs to be done before it is too late.
Dealing with North Korea: delay, delay, delay.
Old King Jong-Il will be dead within 10 years, I would say from what I’ve read (NK Today has a story and links). His sons are not even close to sufficiently prepared to take over.
When jong-il finally dies, it will be like when Park Chunghee died… some general or another will eventually take over, but a society that kept silent out of respect (misguided though it is) for ‘the great man’ (in K. Jong-Il’s case he is a stand-in for his father) will have no respect and instead massive pent-up complaints for his successor. No one would take Chun DoHwan seriously or accept him as leader, and it will be the same up north. Civil upheaval, elites torn between rival leaders, invitations by these rivals for help from outside forces….
Hwang Jangyop has always had it right. The removal of the Kim family is the necessary condition for change in Korea.
Agrees wholeheartedly with gbevers. We’re much stronger with our troops out of here.
The problem with that particular line of reasoning is that it assumes North Korea would or could not continue to use its artillery as leverage, which is almost surely false; those simply are not the rules that Kim Jong-il plays by, and never have been. If the USFK withdrew and the U.S. attacked DPRK nuclear sites, the regime could and likely would still retaliate against Seoul.
The North Korean leadership considers the U.S. nuclear umbrella to be a threat, which is why they call on the U.S. for the denuclearization of the peninsula, even though all U.S. nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in 1992. USFJ is also considered a direct threat by the regime, and it’s not going anywhere.
Besides keeping China in check, USFK moderates all the regional players’ actions/responses towards each other. The USFK/USFJ combination has been extremely successful at doing this. The only thing withdrawing USFK would accomplish would be to reduce U.S. leverage and overall stability in the region (i.e., an actual arms race rather than China’s lone build-up). The notion that removing USFK would somehow create more options for dealing with North Korea is flawed on all those levels.
sanshinseon,
So I guess Japan should have pasively watched the eventual defeat of Qing by Russia who would no doubt have taken Korea and Manchuria as its booty, like the French took Vietnam, and find Russia at her doorstep. But that was out of the question for Japan. Russia had already once tried to take Tsushima in 1861, Japan wasn’t going to risk having a whole fleet of the Russian Navy on the other side of the Sea of Japan with endless troops and resources supplied by the Siberian line.
Japan forcefully wrenched Korea out of China’s arms, but Korea could have remained unannexed if she had played her cards right. One anti-annexationist later wrote that all Korea needed to do to convince the Japanese politicians that a “strong ally strategy” was the best course to take was to send a single platoon of its official army to fight alongside Japan in the Japan-Russo War. Sadly, the the Korean politicians could not unite even under such circumstances.
You are right that Japan certainly was not doing Korea a favor; Japan acted according to its own interests.
By the way, I would like to read the missionaries’ records. Are they in English?
Richardson,
North Korea has not used its artillery against Seoul since the ceasefire, so what evidence are you using to come up with those “rules” you are talking about?
If the US pulled its troops out of South Korea and then bombed North Korea’s nuclear facilities, North Korea would have little reason to retaliate against the South, especially since the South would have been against the attack, in the first place. Retaliating against the South would mean the destruction of the North Korean regime rather than just a few nuclear facilities. Besides a limited attack on North Korea’s nuclear sites would show the North Koreans that the US was only concerned about getting rid of the North’s nuclear weapons, not the regime.
North Korea may consider USFJ a threat, but what would that have to do with South Korea if US forces were no longer in the South? Besides, if North Korea did consider USFJ a threat, then that would be a very good reason for her not retaliating against South Korea since such retaliation would give the US the excuse she would need to hammer North Korea with naval and air forces.
US forces in Japan would be enough to moderate regional players. North Korea would not go into the South with US forces so close. The US may not send ground troops back to Korea, but she would not hesitate to unleash her naval and air forces of North Korea if the North attacked the South.
What leverage does having US forces in South Korea give the US if they cannot be used? The leverage would come by pulling US forces out of the range of North Korea’s guns. Then the US could threaten military force and mean it.
Mr. Bevers,
Sir, you seem to have forgotten that KJI also possesses missiles in addition to artillery. In addition, they have submarines that can go undetected against Japanese coasts. If KJI wanted, it does not have to put Seoul hostage. It can use the typical terror tactics they have been known to use against Japan–and do the same exact thing to Japan what they succeeded in doing against ROK–>sever the US alliance with regional allies. The list of things they can do to Japan to scare them include but not limited to, place a nuke on a submarine and head for Yokohama. They can also be boring and send couple commandoes into Japanese subway stations and release sarin. Or, they can launch some cheap Scuds at random locations in Japan. Will Japan respond militarily? KJI is the kind of crazy bastard who will assume that Abe will back down. If DPRK provocation is “small” enough, they won’t engage in a war that will cost Japan far more. I want to point out to you, from what I understand, the Japanese anti-DPRK “Seabreeze” radio transmits from Taiwan. Why?
Also, I would like to point out to you we don’t really have good targets in DPRK. It’s not like there is a nice neat stockpile of plutonium we can blow up. Each of our cruise missiles probably costs significantly more than each of their decaying and empty buildings.
Only response that can trully scare KJI is to break down their information blockade. It’s probably far cheaper and far more effective to mass produce cheap SW radios and funnel them through China. But countries won’t do this because again, noone wants to be scud targets.
Again, hoping China will “do” something about DPRK is like waiting for the second coming of Christ to establish peace on earth.
Why would China do something so clearly not in it’s best interest, like toppling KJI? The idea that they would do this to keep korea from unifying is about par on intellectual level as hanchongryun kids believing that US stays in korea from keeping korea separate.
China is the same china that went through the cultural revolution, so their entire world view will be filtered by the lens of cultural revolution followed by Deng’s reforms. Ordinary Chinese people will believe that DPRK is like China during CR and that given enough time (i.e. KJI’s natural death) they can be like China and reform.
Bevers,
The North Korean regime has a long record of over-retaliating with both threats and actions (i.e., threatening to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” for relatively minor affronts, etc.). There is absolutely no credible reason to believe that they would not continue to use the threat of striking Seoul, if they believed they were under attack from whomever, which of course has been a primary reason for not attacking DPRK nuke/WMD sites. If the U.S. is in Korea or not makes zero difference in scenario where North Korea is being attacked and they respond. That they have not used that artillery on Seoul since the Korean War is not relevant to the topic of threats.
A withdrawal of USFK and concentration on USFJ and/or Guam would not moderate South Korea; you of all people should recognize the immature decision making process that sometimes manifests itself in South Korea! But no need to re-hash here what’s been written here and here; South Korea Must Choose Sides.
> Two Cents from Japan
> So I guess Japan should have pasively watched the
> eventual defeat of Qing by Russia who would no doubt
> have taken Korea and Manchuria as its booty …
I don’t find it useful to engage in “what if” and “should’ve done” speculation about history — just interested in what actually did happen, and why.
> Japan forcefully wrenched Korea out of China’s arms,
> but Korea could have remained unannexed if she had
> played her cards right.
OK, but our question here was, did the Koreans “gleefully” declare their kingdom to be an empire, and Gojong an emperor, or was this move forced upon them by the Japanese imperialists? The latter view seems to be standard among historians of that era; do you know of any historical source that indicates the former…?
> One anti-annexationist later wrote that all Korea
> needed to do to convince the Japanese politicians that
> a “strong ally strategy” was the best course to take
> was to send a single platoon of its official army to
> fight alongside Japan in the Japan-Russo War.
That’s interesting in itself; I hadn’t heard it.
> Sadly, the the Korean politicians could not unite
> even under such circumstances.
Not in the least bit surprising, sadly. They remain passionately disunited in the face of the worst domestic and international emergencies conceivable…
> You are right that Japan certainly was not doing Korea
> a favor; Japan acted according to its own interests.
That we can believe, in all times and cases. But are you saying this here to admit that Tokyo forced Seoul into that declaration of “empire”, or …..?
> By the way, I would like to read the missionaries’
> records. Are they in English?
There are many reprinted books of them available, and some scholarly works about them — delightful to read, for the most part — the Royal Asiatic Society Korea Branch carries them and would be happy to sell you a few — http://www.raskb.com
Sanshinseon,
I have never read that Japan forced Korea to become an empire. Did Japan also force King Kojong to make his dead wife, Queen Min, the empire’s empress? Would King Kojong really have to be forced to declear himself an emperor since China was no longer in the picture and it was an upgrade in his status? Your claim does not really make sense, but I cannot say for sure that you are wrong. Can you give us the name of the book in which read it instead of just a link to the Royal Asiatic Society, which, by the way, does not do anything to prove your point?
The Korean-language history books I have read have never mentioned that Koreans was forced to declare their kingdom an empire; in fact, they seem to have been proud of the fact that they were an empire. Even today I get corrected if I refer to Kojong as “King Kojong” rather than “Emperor Kojong.”
By the way, on the Royal Asiatic Society page to which you linked was a link to an old lecture called, “Rewriting Korean History,” which I think was mentioned here on this blog. The summary of that lecture mentions that in decades past anti-Communist education was conducted in South Korea in an “obscurantist manner.” I would just like to add that it was not only anti-communist education that was conducted, but also anti-Japanese education. Afterall, the slogan recited in Korean schools during much of that time was 반공반일 (anti-Communists & anti-Japanese).
‘why would the chinese topple kji?’
because that’s what the expat wants. he wants to see koreans brutalized. the chinese are simply proxies for his own desires. that’s why he never gives you the reasons for china’s pending invasion. at it’s core, the expat’s prediction of doom for the yemaek is rooted in his emotion.
***
gerry, nice to see you around here more often. miss writing about dokto? your 8 part series on a matter you say is trivial was absolutely smashing. so many maps and graphs. and even quotes from the sillok! you must have spent quite a bit of time proving to the world that dokto belongs to japan. i, as a korean, wold like to thank you for spending so much time writing about so much nothing.
gerry, please resume your posts on the islets. please continue to use that bigot’s(matt/shakuhachi) site(occidentaloon.org) to alarm the world of korea’s illegal occupation. stand up for free speech, gerry. btw, why don’t you live in japan? what keeps you in korea? need to feel better than somebody and have convinced yourself that you’re better than any korean? you don’t like the food. you don’t like the art. you don’t like the people.
what in the world would keep you there, gerry?
what could it be, gerry? what could it be?
****
pawi’s youtube recommendation:
jaclyn victor ‘gemilang’ at the malaysian music section. an ethnic indian who sings in malaysian and sounds like a black lady. the song is standard pop but what a trip to see malysian tv and discover the malay language is pleasant to the ear. you people that are interested in foreign cultures should have yourself a listen. not a bad song and the ladies got some power to her voice to boot.
sanshinseon,
Despite what you have said, I still think Koreans “gleefully” took on the title of emperor and empire based on Japanese sources, which I think would reflect the Japanese intent more than what missionaries or foreigners had to say on the matter from the outside.
http://www.jacar.go.jp/
Japan Center for Asian Historical Records
(English version search is available, but the search results are images in Japanese.)
Compilation of Miscellaneous Documents relating to Domestic Politics in various countries / Korea, Vol. 2
12. situation at the time of arrival at post
Reference Code: B03050003900
These documents are reports by Masuo Kato (加藤 増雄), who was appointed the Minister Resident to Korea in April of 1897, two months after King Kojun’s return to the royal palace from his one-year stay at the Russian embassy. Ever since the February of 1896 when King Kojun sought refuge in the Russian embassy, pro-Japanese people had been all but expelled from the government. The palace he returned to (慶雲宮) was located right in front of the Russian embassy, and King Kojun remained under strong Russian influence. (Later, in February of 1898, becoming sick of the Russian encroachment, he contemplates on a plan to find refuge in the US embassy, but the US ambassador refuses to accept the plan.) It was during this time of Russian control that the declaration of the new name 大韓 and his title as emperor was announced. Kato discussed this topic in the section titled “The Affairs Regarding the Title of Emperor (images# 28-30).” The transcription below is from http://dreamtale.ameblo.jp/day-20060917.html.
皇帝称号の件
当国国王が日常普通の事を処するに於ては、平人以上の智畧を有せらるるに拘はらず、儀式装飾等の事に至りては極めて浮華を好み、自ら揣らざるの極往々児戯に類する事を為して恐悦さるるを常とす。皇帝称号、国号改定の如き即ち是也。国王が、皇帝の称号を望まるる事固より一日にあらず。遠く、明治17年の交より折に触れては其の希望を暗示さるるを以て、廷臣も往々之れで歓心を買ひ、若しくは感情を和ぐるの手段として利用せんと企てたること一再に止まらず。[snip]
本官も一時断念して徐々に国の発達を待たるべき旨を内奏したれども、国王の希望は遂に抑ふるに由なく、各国の認容すると否とを問はず断然皇帝の位号に膺るの決心をなし、遂に10月12日を以て即位式を挙ぐるに至りたり。[snip]
是に於て本官は惟らく、本来我国に於ては、各国の帝王を一斉に日本語を以て皇帝と称するの慣例なれば、単に朝鮮国王に対し、日本語を以て皇帝と云ふ称号を用ふることは毫も差支なく、
[My translation]
The Affairs Regarding the Title of Emperor
Although the king of this country has wisdom above an average person in matters pertaining to daily affairs, he is fond of extreme extravagance in ceremonial accouterments and finds unrestrained delight in actions that are nothing but child’s play. The title of emperor and the renaming of the kingdom can be considered similar displays of this nature. The king has long desired for the title, and ever since the 17th year of Meiji (1884), he has hinted at his wish on several occasions. His subjects have repeatedly attempted to execute the change, in order to buy the king’s favor or to soothe his temper. [snip]
I have advised him to give up the attempt until his country has sufficiently developed, but it seems that the wishes of the king could no longer be suppressed, and regardless of whether foreign countries acknowledge the title or not, he has decided to take on the title of the emperor and has pushed through with the enthronement ceremony on Oct. 12. [snip]
In regards to this matter, our country has conventionally referred to all emperors of other countries uniformly as “皇帝” in Japanese, so I see no inconvenience for Japan to refer to the king of Korea by that title.
Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 5 and Ministry of Foreign Affairs No. 5, Kobun Zassan, Vol. 14, 1897
Report by Minister Resident Kato Masuo to Korea on developments of change in title of Korean Emperor
Reference Code: A04010035900
This report describes how the subjects of King Kojun pleads with their king to take on the title of emperor, stressing the fact that we are no longer bound by the Asian tradition but by International Law, which states that each autonomous nation has the freedom to call their leader whatever they like (各国自主なる者、随意尊号を自立すべしと), and that China and Japan respectively has an emperor (况んや、東亜の大清国と日本と、皆な此号あり), it is just right for us to have one, too. King Kojun turns down the pleas several times and his subjects repeat their pleas, according to tradition, and by the time King Kojun humbly accepts to take on the title of emperor, the new royal palace is already under construction.
The declaration was never officially made on paper, just announced at an assembly of foreign diplomats before the king/emperor. The Japanese response was one of disgust. “Let them do as they like. It doesn’t change the situation in the peninsula, and it won’t serve our interests to antagonize them by insisting on calling them king.” So while Japan, Russia, and the US ambassadors debated on the real future of Korea, the Korean court was going through with the ceremonial motions of their superficial reformation.
BTW, thanks for the link to the books on Korea. I had always wanted Hamel’s book in the original language. And only $12, wow!
> gbevers from Korea
> I have never read that Japan forced Korea to become an empire.
OK….
> Did Japan also force King Kojong to make his dead wife,
> Queen Min, the empire’s empress?
No, that would have followed automatically, i suppose.
> Would King Kojong really have to be forced to declear himself
> an emperor since China was no longer in the picture and it
> was an upgrade in his status?
That’s what the question has become, what we are inquiring — the above good quotes from Japanese sources from two cents claims that Gojong had wanted it for years, and that subjects had pleaded to him to do it — that could just be Imperialist propaganda to justify, or it could be more true — does anyone reading here know for sure?
> Can you give us the name of the book in which read it instead
> of just a link to the Royal Asiatic Society, which, by the
> way, does not do anything to prove your point?
You’re not reading carefully, nor following this thread of the discussion — check the ends of #53, #58 and #61 above, for the reason why i posted that link, which has nothing to do with ‘proving’ any point…
> The Korean-language history books I have read have never
> mentioned that Koreans was forced to declare their kingdom an empire;
> in fact, they seem to have been proud of the fact that they were an empire.
There certainly could be modern-nationalist reasons for that point of view, among those who are not thinking very deeply about it. In Korea’s official presentations of its history and tourist sites from that era, i’ve never seen it made any big deal of — rather, i’ve detected a sense of shame from those who seem to know what actually happened, how it turned out… But perhaps i could just be reading that into it…
> Even today I get corrected if I refer to Kojong as “King
> Kojong” rather than “Emperor Kojong.”
Hmmmm, i’ve never experienced that myself, don’t recall any Korean referring to him as Emperor… hmmmm. Can anybody else testify?