Foreign Minister Song Min-soon, during a forum, stated that U.S. troops will stay after the peace pact between the two Koreas has been signed.
The U.S. forces in Korea will maintain their presence on the Korean Peninsula even after a peace regime is established, and continue to carry out a role that would serve new security needs in Northeast Asia,” Song told a forum.
Song said the Seoul-Washington alliance was already adapting to a new role. U.S. bases are being consolidated and relocated further from the inter-Korean border and South Korea will regain wartime control over its own troops by 2012.
I don’t know whether Song cleared this with Washington, and was sort of surprised that Song made the above comment, considering his previous statement regarding the U.S. From the sound of it, the ROK government may be thinking about keeping China and Japan at bay, after the peace agreement has been signed?
{ 14 comments… read them below or add one }
From the sound of it, Seoul believes that US Forces Korea belongs to them, not to the American government and people.
Wait until there is a peace treaty, and then see what priority Uncle Sucker puts on maintaining troops in Korea. My wager is it will still be deemed of geopolitical importance to keep a US presence (US Air Force at Kunsan or Osan, and possibly a Navy liaison at Pyongtaek Port), but that the Army is going to be bugging out as soon as possible — like 12 months or however long it takes to pack up and/or abandon their belongings.
Vershbow says this is the last chapter of the Cold War playing itself out. Well, when the Cold War played itself out in Europe, our troops were pulled out of Germany and Western Europe — we’re down to something like 43,000 in Europe, where we had 100,000 as recently as 2004 and 200,000 before 1990.
And Americans generally like Europeans (and vice versa); Koreans generally loathe America (but want the full-access pass to America’s wealth and freedom), while Americans — sorry to say — are indifferent to Korea. This is a not a deep friendship, and once the “common enemy” is gone, annyeong.
can’t we all just get along?
i agree with mr. carr’s comments saying americans are indifferent to koreans, and koreans can’t wait for their turn to line up in front of the US embassy holding candles saying “yankee go home.” but when some korean jesus lovers get f**ked over in foreign soil, it isn’t “yankee go home” but “why the hell are you not helping us.” i’m sure the korean demonstrators had a hell of a time changing all those banners on such quick notice.
anyways, even with all this ungratefulness, and even if there is a “one korea,” the US army will probably stay because of china and taiwan. korea is the only place where there is a geographic connection to china by land; landing an army by sea generally has the highest mortality rate.
i’m sure the US army won’t stay in korea for the kimchi.
To be fair, though, perhaps we shouldn’t fault Song too much when you have the USFK commander saying the US wants to stay:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200710/200710020019.html
http://www.ndu.edu/inss/Press/jfq_pages/editions/i47/18.pdf
Personally, I’d rather Bell have said, “The decision to deploy forces to a particular nation is one made by the civilian leadership, ergo, I really shouldn’t comment on whether the US should remain in Korea or not.”
Love the new avatar, Mr. Blogger.
“as long as we are welcome and wanted”
Well, I notice that Bell covered his butt nicely with this comment. Isn’t this what Rumsfeld said, too, and we’ve seen a reduction by about 25%? Depending on who is leading the US at the time, Korea may very well see a serious downgrade of the alliance as I hear that even Hillary isn’t happy with the ingratitude shown here towards the US.
“…I hear that even Hillary isn’t happy with the ingratitude shown here towards the US.”
Really? I’d welcome a link; if you can’t recall specificially, any sort of hint you could provide as to where you might have seen it would be appreciated and I’ll see if I can find it.
Brendon Carr,
Koreans generally like America and Americans. I am not lying.
Your xenophobia forces you to think the way you do.
Even if you go and live in South America, India, Africa or what have you, you will feel that locals hate you.
You are not good at befriending people who look different from you. Don’t blame Koreans. Maybe you have contempts for non-Whites.
Learn. People are same inside.
About the US forces, I agree with you. Army will be gone right away. And, AirForce will follow soon enough.
Korean Peace Treaty will work for Korea just like the Paris Peace Talk did for VietNam. Korea is over. People you hate will die.
Are you happy?
I don’t think you’re lying, Baduk. But I don’t believe you are “plugged in” to the Korean zeitgeist anymore. And I think you’re projecting minjok-centered thinking onto me — after all, you grew up soaking in it, and I did not.
Paul H., sorry, I don’t have a link. A Democrat friend said something like this to me about Hillary being critical of South Korean ingratitude. Didn’t she say something about this at one point? Anyway, he was trying to console me by pointing out that Hillary might not be so bad and may not be all that sympathetic to the leftist KJI butt-kissers in Korea. But knowing that Hillary is the type to say whatever will get her elected, who knows what she would be like in her dealings with Korea. I can only hope she wouldn’t stand for it. Then again, it would just be better all round if Rudy got in.
Snow, here’s a quote from Hillary. It’s indirect, quoted in a NYTImes story about Giuliani attacking her, but I assume it could be found elswhere; I’ve seen other references to Hillary using a similar line in her speeches.
“Clinton has told crowds she would send ‘distinguished Americans of both political parties to travel around the world on my behalf with a very simple message to the governments and the people alike: The era of cowboy diplomacy is over.’”
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/us/AP-Giuliani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
(posting now, before my slow computer crashes again…)
To follow up on my #11, I would say that IMO it’s most likely that any further withdrawal of US forces from Korea would be regarded by a President Hillary Clinton as “cowboy diplomacy”.
Thus, if you are a US voter and you want the status quo with USFK in Korea to continue, you should support Hillary. A Giuliani or a McCain would focus like a laser on the inherent contradictions of the US spending billions and tying up significant numbers of its forces while the ROK keeps expanding its subsidy of the North.
Reason for leaving them there: Democrats are sensitive to perceptions of their being “weak” on national defense, so leaving forces in Korea would be a logical way to avoid this, especially if US is withdrawing rapidly from Iraq in a possible Clinton administration.
Maybe you’re referring to Hillary’s “historical amnesia” comment:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200510/200510260015.html
She later backed off from it a bit:
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200510/200510300013.html
The word “loathe” is a too strong to describe the general sentiment, which is more a contradictory and complicated mixture of resentment, envy, and condescension tempered with admiration for our technological achievements and SOME cultural traits like adaptibility and tolerance. I agree with your point that the military alliance is a temporary marriage of convenience not grounded in profound cultural or historical ties like our special relationship with Britain. I’m almost hoping that Chung Dumb-young gets into office. Maybe another five years of leftist idiocy will sink the listing ship.
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }