Looks like Seoul is interested in expanding the Korea-US alliance beyond the Korean Peninsula. From the Korea Herald:
The alliance between South Korea and the United States will move beyond the peninsula and drastically expand to engage Northeast Asian and global issues, Seoul’s top foreign and security policymakers said yesterday.
“Korea and the United States must seek strategic win-win relations with extended interests for both, based on the traditional cooperation accumulated over the past 50 years. Both the range and the depth of the alliance must be deepened,” Foreign Minister Yu Myung-hwan told reporters.
He added the Seoul-Washington alliance must not be limited to the security of South Korea, but should also encompass such issues as the spread of democracy, human rights and environmental issues.
These sentiments were echoed by the Defense Ministry:
“We aim to develop a future-oriented alliance based on common values and interests between Korea and the United States. Beyond the matters on the Korean Peninsula, the alliance will contribute to the stability in Northeast Asia and peace in the world,” the ministry reported to Lee.
The ministry yesterday gave a policy briefing to the new president, outlining its key principles for national defense over the next five years.
It’s nice to hear the Korean side bring these issues up on their own, especially considering how enthusiastic the last administration was in embracing this issue.
For its part, Korea is looking to bolster its overseas military presence, especially with UN peacekeeping operations.
All of this will probably go over well with the Americans, who are apparently thinking along the same lines (and have been for quite a while):
U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Burwell Bell on Tuesday said it was “time for Washington to reexamine its Defense Treaty with Seoul.” The U.S. should “look beyond the narrow scope of the DMZ threat (from North Korea) and solidify the alliance as a pillar of stability and cooperation that will be an example for all the nations of Northeast Asia and the world.” Bell made the remarks in a hearing at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
“As an example, after the fall of the former Soviet Union many believed that (NATO) would become obsolete due to the perception that it existed only to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War,” he said. But instead of disbanding after the fall of communism, “NATO has evolved into a multi-dimensional alliance whose members share the fundamental values of democratic principles, individual freedom, and free market enterprise.”
As I’ve said before, it’s a good thing that the two sides are discussing ways to turn what is, fundamentally, an outdated Cold War alliance into an alliance relevant to today’s world.
I’m keen to see, however, how this works out practically — it’s easy to say the alliance “should also encompass such issues as the spread of democracy, human rights and environmental issues,” but quite another to build political and military structures to address said issues. Sharing basic values is nice, but they do not an alliance make — we share basic values with Sweden, Finland and Ireland, with whom we have no alliances, while we enjoy close military ties with Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, with whom we share virtually nothing. NATO’s been fortunate in that the Balkans and Afghanistan have given it something to do; otherwise it would be just as irrelevant as the Korea-US alliance has become. Can Washington and Seoul find “work to do” (I don’t mean that in a skeptical sort of way), so to speak? We’ll see, I guess.
{ 12 comments… read them below or add one }
Right now this looks like little more than the typical effort of the Korean conservative/comprador class to set up the historically precedented trade-off of security cooperation with the US in exchange for a free ride on economic issues, from which the group represented by the GNP has benefited so disproportionately (compared to both other Koreans and American business interests) in the past. My bet is that Uncle Sucker isn’t going to bend over to get more smoke blown up his ass regardless whether the donkeys or the elephants get the run of DC.
I am guessing that being concerned with “the spread of democracy, human rights and environmental issues” is a reference to China. I wonder just what is in the minister’s mind just now.
It’s time to leave South Korea. They’re strong enough to handle what ever may come their way. We need to start worrying about ourselves and our own borders and quit intervening in other countries’ affairs.
#1,
Sure, but I also think that the new administration understands that there are certain ways one must behave in order to be taken seriously by the international community. Getting the local population all riled up about an inhabited islet will get a government the international attention it craves but it certainly won’t gain any respect abroad.
Can they find work to do? Surely. Job # 1: Head over to the bank and transfer those funds to pay for USFK’s upkeep – just like the Japanese do. That would be an excellent start, especially if it were done without the typical cajoling. If Korea is unwilling then it ought to be left to its own devices.
Funny he should use it to compare with NATO, were it dissolved I wonder if Russia would not have developed (at least marginally) more democratically.
It is hard to deny that NATO and its continued expansion at the behest of the United States has provided the perfect boogeyman for a despot like Putin to use as a distraction/reason to solidify power and curtail freedom.
I was thinking “outside the box” and pondered the imposibility but interesting thought of a joint North Korean/South Korean UN Peace MAKING Force…a Quick Reaction Force to be utilized in a Rwanda like scenario.(under UN control).
The North has over 100,000 special Forces troops and are very disciplined though reputed to be ruthless, which actually may be a good thing in a limited war setting.
The quality of UN troops is mixed with Paks and Indians making up the bulk of UN Peacekeepers. An influx of tough soldiers used ina war fighting capacity may be jsut the thing to give the UN real credibility, especailly in places like teh Democratic Republic of the Congo.
“He added the Seoul-Washington alliance must not be limited to the security of South Korea, but should also encompass such issues as the spread of democracy, human rights and environmental issues.”
A step in the right direction. I’ll be interested to see if they include NK in this new philosophy.
Is it just me who gets really bothered by the term ‘win-win’? It seems to pop up all the time over here, and every time I read it or hear it I think to myself, why not use mutually beneficial? It sounds better, more professional, not like a used car salesman.
I like #7′s thinking, although the NK aspect is something I hadn’t thought of.
Something I’ve had in mind for a while is an international body that was designed to, pardon the cliche, kick some ass. I know it’s easy to be cynical about things like this, but I think it would be good to have some force in the world that was multinational, could deploy quickly, and put some fear into nutjobs like genocidal dictators and the like. The huge challenge would be to structure it so that it is not easily corruptible and was used for the right reasons. No small feat. But it would be something new.
I get the feeling this is towards NK and China.
I’m surprised the US hasn’t bothered to lessen the restrictions on Japan and turn them into an asset.
ElephantTalk:
I think that magical force is called the Anglosphere
You must log in to post a comment.
{ 1 trackback }