A couple of days ago, I posted that Korea’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission has recommended the government begin negotiations with the United States to receive compensation for a US bombing raid during the Korean War that killed 51 civilians.
In that post, I asked whether US allies had made similar demands for civilian losses in bombing raids during WW II.
Well, here’s the Truth and Reconciliation Commission report on the US bombing. I’m not sure really what to make of it, other than the fact that the US military documents they used are really hard to read (and I wonder if the commission members themselves understand what they say) and that the commission relied on testimony from only three survivors. What the report did point out, however, is that there is, in fact, a precedent for restitution, namely, the “Act to indemnity for damages caused by American forces abroad,” enacted by the US Congress in 1918 to pay restitution for losses to French civilians caused by US troops during World War I.
That being said, I can’t really find information on the act or how it was implemented. I’d also question whether the commission wants to bring up World War I precedents for indemnities, lest some wise ass (like me) call for a German-style indemnity to be slapped on North Korea.
This is only the first Korean War incident for which the commission has called for US compensation. There are bound to be more — perhaps 214 more (including the Nogeun-ni incident). Whether or not the Roh administration actually takes the advice of the commission is another matter. The chairman of the commission, Father Song Ki-in, is a close friend of Roh, but that doesn’t mean he’s going to listen to him, even if — as I expect to be the case — Roh might personally sympathize with what he’s been saying.
And what Song has been saying, coincidentally, has been quite interesting. Speaking on KBS Radio in January 2006, he said, “If you look at history to now, (US assistance to Korea) has been out of US national interests, they’ve never really helped us in actual fact… If just dialogue with Pyongyang goes well, all the United States needs to leave here is a team of advisers.” In a 2005 interview with the Weekly JoongAng, he said, “North and South Korea, Seoul and Pyongyang first need to join hands to [get the] US military to withdraw. North and South Korea must closely stick together, even if kept secret from the United States.” He’s called the US a “barrier to Korean reunification,” and has blamed the US for the division of Korea, saying, “If you look at the old Katsura-Taft Agreement, doesn’t it clearly reveal has the United States has treated our nation? Actually, many US troops were killed during the Korean War, but the 38th parallel was drawn by the Americans, and they provided the cause for drawing the parallel.”
(Just to be fair to Song, he’s also claimed he hasn’t called for an end to the Korea-US alliance, and that some of the quotes attributed to him were taken out of context. If you want to do the work tracking down the full statements, be my guest.)
In the end, all this is very easy to say for a civic activist still living in the 1980s, but very difficult for a sitting Korean president to act on. Especially so when said president has said North Korea need not apologize for the Korean War, and another commission dealing with historical issues cleared some 83 Koreans found guilty of abusing Allied POWs during WWII (and in the process — oblivious to the irony, no doubt — casted doubts about the fairness of the Tokyo Trials, much to the everlasting thanks of the Japanese far right). Brian in Jeollanam-do does a good job of explaining the insanity of it all.
Fortunately, the nonsense is unlikely to last for much longer (fingers crossed), with the Korean presidential election just a month away. Still, it’s stuff like this that makes me want to send money to Ron Paul. The only reason some decision made by a commission led by a useful idiot half way across the world matters at all to Washington is because it has unwisely decided to not only keep 25,000 troops in South Korea, but actually solidify that presence by spending taxpayer coin to build a new headquarters in Pyeongtaek. And for what? To protect a country fully capable of protecting itself? To make the United States forever a factor in South Korean politics?
17 Comments
What do you have against Ron Paul?
Nothing. I like the guy. Not sure if I’d vote for him, but I respect him and a lot of what he says.
“If you look at history to now, (US assistance to Korea) has been out of US national interests, they’ve never really helped us in actual fact…”
The US went to war in support of political regime the South Korean government, then spent decades propping up its hobbled economy through direct and indirect aid. Truly, any Koreans who believe that another nation - whether the US or any other - would do such things for completely altruistic reasons should quickly disabuse themselves of that notion.
Song is an absurdist to state this - his statement suggests that other nations would somehow behave differently, and that is laughable. Of course he is not in favor of dissolving the so-called alliance between the two governments; the manifold benefits of the arrangement extend not only to the US, but obviously to the Korean economy as well.
Discovering that US has actually contemplated and acted on the idea of economic redress, as it apparantly did with the French back in 1918 (truly a bygone era), had to provide the commission with some motivation to attempt this here and now. For me, this just comes off as pitiful opportunism.
More fantastical revisionist ideology is not a substitute for finding truth, nor is it wise.
Song reminds me of the drunken adjoshi in the metropolitan’s recent tale, angling for a payoff.
Once again I note my inability to view this in English. I looked all over the link for a hyperlink that would allow me to read the report in English, can’t find it; if it’s there I’d appreciate somebody pointing it out to me.
If no English hyperlink translator is there (almost certainly it isn’t since there’s no note in English, nor an American/UK flag to click on for a translation) — at least point out for us where the links are for the old US military documents; I can’t tell which are documents and which are advertisements. I tried clicking on some at random and got a warning box which made me cease and desist; the last thing I need is a cookie or another surge of incoherent (to me) advertising emails
Presumably it’s not a matter of incapability, since the commission has provided pictures and summary bios of its members in English.
“…you shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.” John 8:32
As quoted by Martin Luther King in some famous speech of his, not so? In just looking over the pictures and bios of the commission members I can readily discern that they are a highly distinguished, literate, and progressive bunch. Surely they don’t have to be Christians in order to want to identify their cause with the world-renowned civil rights struggles of MLK in the US of the 50’s and 60’s.
If there’s no English link, if somebody will provide me with an email address for the commission I will send them an email requesting their immedate action to provide an on-line English translation.
Publish the email address here so others can do the same if so minded; let’s get going on developing a surging upswell of intense American interest. If one’s cause is just, why hide your light under a bushel?
I see the two “email” (w/ supplementary English wording) links at the bottom of the page.
The one on the right gives me some sort of format which appears to be for writing out an email; I’ll fill it out and transmit it, if somebody here will tip me off that the email will go to the T&R Commission (even if the likelihoold is that it will just be deleted by some antagonistic commission staffer).
The one in the middle gives me only the international road symbol for “forbidden” beside some Korean language text, so I presume I am not allowed access to it from my location in village-bombing war-mongering Amerika.
Never mind, I took another look & found the English language link (upper right hand corner).
My apologies to the T&R Commission, proceeding to remove foot from mouth before going on to examine whatever they’ve posted.
If you look at history to now, (US assistance to Korea) has been out of US national interests
100% correct.
…they’ve never really helped us in actual fact…
100% incorrect.
Whatever your views on the Korean War, one basic fact remains: Had it not been for the U.S, Song wouldn’t be posturing at the pulpit - he’d be living out an orwellian nightmare (if he was alive at all) with a Kim badge on his lapel.
Nothing disgusts me more than when people try to adjust the truth to fit their ideology, rather than the other way around.
I think if you read a little more about the company Ron Paul keeps, you’d probably stop, and then back away slowly. And then take a long shower.
Great post, btw.
““Act to indemnity for damages caused by American forces abroad”
You got that one from a Korean anti-American site, apparently. I think they are misinterpreting the Young and the Dawes Plans, which were American plans that imposed the payment of war reparations on Germany. These plans were created to weaken the defeated countries’ military and, brace yourselves, so that the Allies (namely France) would be able to pay its war debt to the US.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Plan
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dawes_Plan
So, why would the US be giving money to France after WW1?
Joshua, just because certain groups donate to Ron’s campaign does not automatically make him a supporter of that group or agree with what that group says.
No more entangling alliances. Let our troops protect Americans and let our free-markets spread liberty. If SK wants to smear us and make demands for apologies, let them do it without our troops.
#11,
Just don’t get out of Nato and Norad.
Ron Paul is O/T to this thread, so I’ll be brief and ask you to continue the discussion here. Paul doesn’t just take money from David Duke and Stormfront, he keeps it, weeks after learning who contributed it. He lets them raise funds for him. No sane candidate would take Nazi money.
Now, as far acknowledging that South Korea is abusing its relationship with America in general and its soldiers in particular for rank political gain, yes, I recall having made that point somewhere myself.
I advocate removing all U.S. ground forces from Korea on a very short timetable. Whether any air forces remain should probably depend on whether Korea begins to act like an ally again or whether it just continues to exploit anti-Americanism as if there are no negative consequences for that.
Since air doesn’t need to be stationed in Korea to be deployed there effectively if the need arises - and the need should be strictly one that serves US interests, narrowly construed - the air resources should be pulled too. If Korea begins to behave like an ally, a genuinely reciprocal mutual defense commitment is enough, i.e., Korea needs to fully fund its defense requirements w/out any US taxpayer support.
For the record, let it be noted that I’ve been through every sublink on the English language T&R website and found absolutely nothing about any of their findings to date — only organizational and procedural information.
Not even that makes any reference to alleged US specific war crimes.
If somebody can show me otherwise I’d be happey to stand corrected. And if there’s a link anywhere else giving an English translation of their findings I’d appreciate the address.
Well let’s parse these comments a bit more, shall we? The U.S. always has acted in its own interest toward Korea — of course it has. Isn’t that what realist foreign policy suggests? The U.S. was responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula — pretty much indisputable historical fact there.
Is South Korea better off today because the US intervened in the Korean War? I think that’s pretty indisputable. But that doesn’t change the fact that along the way, some US troops at some points committed some acts that would be characterized as war crimes under international law. Perhaps fewer than the Chinese, and definitely fewer than either the North or South Korean armies, but they happened nonetheless.
Compensation is a tricky issue, and trying to give relative ranks of who did more bad to whom only gets one bogged down in a morass of nationalistic and ideological posturing. Perhaps the best thing to do is to just focus on the truth (Japan did enslave the comfort women, Koreans did mistreat allied prisoners of war, North Korea did start the Korean War, and the US did shoot civilians at Nogunri and other places) and not try to force the reconciliation.
Very well, let’s parse your comment a bit too.
1) “The U.S. was responsible for the division of the Korean Peninsula — pretty much indisputable historical fact there”.
Are you referring to the division of the post-WWII occupation responsibility for the previously Japanese-occupied Korean peninsula, between the US and the Soviet Union — or to the failure of the predominantly US-led “UN” offensive of Sept-Nov 1950 to fully secure all of North Korea, in order to effect reunification under the Syngman Rhee ROK government?
Probably the first. If so, it’s worth remembering that Soviet ground forces were entering Korea in force beginning 10 August 1945 (while the war was still ongoing) — and that this was long before any US forces were in a position to do so. Had it not been for the joint occupation agreement arranged between the US and the USSR, all of Korea would have been occupied by the Soviets.
Which of course would have facilitated unification. If in retrospect you think this is what should have happened (ie, the “truth”) — why not just say so forthrightly?
2) “Perhaps the best thing to do is to just focus on the truth…”
Yes, but in my Father’s house there are many mansions, and under His clear blue Korean sky there are many “truths”.
I’m perfectly agreeable with making my country (the US) have to deal with the T&R Commission’s “truth” as regards the 215 “incidents” — and on the T&R commission’s own terms. All I ask is that they put them out there in English for display, in the full spotlight of US (and world) publicity; after all, if one really believes in one’s own “truth”, it deserves nothing less.
“The truth is out there”.
3) “…not try to force the reconciliation.”
The “reconciliation” that is being forced here is an artificial one, by the ROK towards an unrepentent, recalcitrant, and belligerent DPRK. It’s being leveraged on an ROK presumption of infinite patience (and infinite assumption of responsibility) on the part of the US.
Well, so far that’s been a “safe” assumption by the ROK. I guess we’ll see just how much longer that can last.
2 Trackbacks
[...] at the Marmot’s Hole he has a couple of postings up here and here about the Korean government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s report that the US [...]
[...] you have to take a look at the people doing the surveying. These comments by a leader of the Korean Truth & Reconciliation Committee Father Song Ki-in should give [...]