A study group composed of former high-ranking officials and experts has released a report on how to best rejuvenate the Korea-US alliance.
You can get the full report at the Korea Society homepage.
How the report represents a new beginning, however, is not particularly clear to me. From the Chosun Ilbo:
The group says it was a good decision to hand operational control over to Seoul in 2012 but adds the decision should be premised on an adequate deterrent against the North Korean army. It stresses troop control should be transferred after a comprehensive evaluation of the Northeast Asian situation, including the Korean Peninsula, and the South Korean military’s capacity to carry out operations on its own.
The report also advises the U.S. government to respond positively to South Korean government’s request to complete OPLAN 5029, a contingency plan by Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command for the collapse of North Korea. The report urges the U.S. to give active support to OPLAN 5029 given that the Lee Myung-bak administration is looking to take the operational plan off the shelf where it had been put by the previous government. The report also supports the governments of the two countries in their review of OPLAN 5027, the Combined Forces Command basic warplan.
Adequate deterrent against the North Korean army? A comprehensive evaluation of the Northeast Asian situation? South Korea’s capacity to carry out operation on its own? What is this, 1955? This isn’t a new beginning as much as it’s a return to the Cold War status quo.
Particularly interesting is the suggestion that the US give support to OPLAN 5029, a contingency plan for joint operations in the event of a North Korean collapse that was vetoed by then-National Security Council chairman and now unemployed former presidential candidate Chung Dong-young as a violation of Korean sovereignty. Why would the Lee administration want the plan revisited? The answer, children, is China, China, China. From the report:
The more significant concern among South Korean military and security officials, including some of those serving as advisers to the incoming Lee administration, is the need to maintain the USFK to deter any potential outside forces that might intervene in a crisis on the Korean Peninsula. In the conversations conducted by the New Beginnings group in South Korea, anxiety about China was repeatedly expressed. One senior security leader argued that a U.S. presence and continued U.S. wartime OPCON were essential over the long term “to deter Chinese intervention” in Korean Peninsula affairs.
At which point Washington really needs to ask itself a) might Seoul simply be using the “Chinese threat” to bamboozle the American taxpayer into subsidizing South Korea’s defense, and b) why should Americans really care whether Chinese forces cross the Yalu in the event of a North Korean collapse? Heartless as it may sound, but countries make decisions like this all the time. Seoul, for instance, clearly doesn’t see much interest in sending combat troops to Afghanistan in support of a long-time ally, and its potential participation — and very limited participation, at that — is primarily the product of US arm-twisting.
(And hey, maybe the South Koreans balking at contributing blood and treasure to support a state-building project in a God-forsaken patch in Central Asia that so far has resulted in a regime that sentences journalists to death for blasphemy is a GOOD thing. Perhaps Seoul’s just ahead of the curve!)
All I’m saying is that if we’re going to commit to assuming at least partial control of yet another Third World shithole ruined by decades of criminal mismanagement and, at worst, possibly start World War III by going head-to-head with the Chinese to support South Korean claims to said Third World shithole ruined by decades of criminal mismanagement, we need to ask ourselves, “What’s in it for us?”
Sphere: Related Content
47 Comments
“What’s in it for us?”
Apart from the standard boilerplate rhetoric about the “sanctity of the alliance,” wouldn’t one of the main arguments be that continued US military presence in East Asia ensures geopolitical stability here, thereby facilitating and enhancing continued US market access to the world’s most economically dynamic region?
Obviously, geopolitical stability is important, but why is it the US taxpayer’s responsibility to ensure market access to not only for US goods, but the goods of economic competitors such as the EU, Japan and China, especially when it seems China, Japan, Russia and Korea seem perfectly able to develop the deterrent capabilities to keep one another honest. I also wonder, if the US continues to subsidize allied defenses, whether the US economy will remain competitive enough to take any real advantage of whatever market access said geopolitical stability provides.
#2: “why is it the US taxpayer’s responsibility to ensure market access to not only for US goods, but the goods of economic competitors such as the EU”
Good question, and perhaps it isn’t the US taxpayer’s responsibility, but I’m sure that the financial and corporate interests of Wall St. are very happy to have their investments and trade in this region subsidized by the US taxpayer.
<At which point Washington really needs to ask itself a) might Seoul simply be using the “Chinese threat” to bamboozle the American taxpayer into subsidizing South Korea’s defense
Bingo! The only reason that Uncle Sucker got attached to the Korean tar baby post WW2 was security considerations. The mandarins yangban manque of the GNP who have enjoyed the greatest benefits from the resulting mercantilist arrangements under which Korea modernized are hoping that Uncle will still shuffle those long legs to the same tune if they can reorchestrate it in a new key.
#4: “The only reason that Uncle Sucker got attached to the Korean tar baby post WW2 was security considerations.”
That’s one theory. Another one is that in was in the interests US-Anglo financial elites to have Korea plugged into the emerging post-WWII global enonomic order and backed by such global institutions as the UN, World Bank, IMF, etc. That game plan worked pretty well for them for a long time, but is perhaps becoming less and less viable for said US-Anglo elites with the emergence of China and a new East Asian economic dominance. Still, I would argue that Wall St. continues to do pretty well in this part of the world.
Wall Street would continue to do well even without US forces in Korea. I’d imagine they’d do even better if the subsidy paid to the South Korean Ministry of Defense in the form of USFK were instead paid directly to US corporations so they could compete better against European, Japanese and Chinese firms.
#6: “Wall Street would continue to do well even without US forces in Korea.”
That’s debatable. If the US pulled out of East Asia or even just South Korea tomorrow, it would quickly destablize the entire region — to the detriment of economic growth amidst the political turmoil and ensuing arms race. Even North Korea has said it wouldn’t mind having US troops here post-reunification. Japan and China are also terrified of each other and probably feel better having the US in this part of the world — at least for the foreseeable future.
I’m sick of hearing how it’s in the best interest of the US shit all the time eventhough it’s partly true.
Guess what people! it’s in the best interest of Asians to have the US here. Of course no one would ever admit that-ESPECIALLY most Koreans.
The US wouldn’t be that bad off if it stopped trading with Korea. Sure it may cause a little pain, but Korea would be far worse of in that situation.
Maybe that’s what should be done, just cut all ties with Korea. Maybe they deserve it.
far worse off that is.
of course, the expat gets it wrong becuase his focus is too one sided. somebody who runs our country sees a need for troops in korea. that’s why they’re there.
still further, as i’ve said before, korea has already given the lives of it’s soldiers without as much as a thank you from the american people. indeed, i’m flabergasted to see that there are documentaries on australia’s ‘help’ with regards to vietnam but not a single one on korean involvement, even though it supplied over 1/2 a million troops.
moving on to assisting the us with it’s war against radical muslims, the koreans need to ask themselves if making the jihadis into enemies is really a benefit to korea. i’d say it isn’t. let the west handle the crazy mullahs since they’re the ones who created these fanatics. being an ally doesn’t mean being stupid.
lastly, any war that might break out with sk and china will certainly invlove both america and japan on the side of south.
the start of ww3? wow, china really is crazy, isn’t it?
Exactly my point. I don’t see how making enemies of China, Japan, Russia and North Korea to protect Seoul is really a benefit to Washington. Being an ally doesn’t mean being stupid.
‘Maybe that’s what should be done, just cut all ties with Korea. Maybe they deserve it.’ exlaimed the expat as he secretly hoped for the us to punish koreans for treating him as if he were a minority.
‘fat chance, expat.’ pawi in response
#10: While the deaths of over 5,000 young Korean men in the Vietnam War was truly tragic, I would never say thank you to them for participating in such an evil, neocolonial war.
If you’re going to start trotting out these kinds of arguments, why don’t you ask yourself how many South Korean troops killed Vietnamese soldiers and civilians (more than 5,000, I’d bet), and do they really deserve thanks for doing so?
‘Exactly my point. I don’t see how making enemies of China, Japan, Russia and North Korea to protect Seoul is really a benefit to Washington. Being an ally doesn’t mean being stupid.’
the paragraph doesn’t make any sense; you wrote this in anger.
‘If you’re going to start trotting out these kinds of arguments, why don’t you ask yourself how many South Korean troops killed Vietnamese soldiers and civilians (more than 5,000, I’d bet), and do they really deserve thanks for doing so?’
over 10% of the vietnamese population died as a result of the vietnam war. know what that means? that means you need to shut up.
#11: Robert, you’re still not getting my basic point. It’s not about “Washington’s benefit.” It’s about Wall St. above all else, with the military-industrial complex playing a very important secondary role.
It makes perfect sense, Pawi. Just, as you argued, Seoul should not anger the jihadis to support an ally, Washington should not risk angering China, Russia or Japan — which are, after all, more geopolitically important to the US than Korea — by extending defense guarantees to Korea. Heck, the only reason the North Koreans are a threat to us is because we back South Korea to the tune of 25,000 troops and a “mutual” defense pact. Should we risk a North Korean nuke going off in LA to deter a North Korean invasion of the South?
#15: “over 10% of the vietnamese population died as a result of the vietnam war. know what that means?”
Yeah, it means the South Korean gov’t supported it so blood is on its hands as well.
You are an idiot if you think all Americans supported the Vietnam War.
I shall ignore all future comments from you, so spew away.
Whether intended or not, America’s military might does serve as an insurance policy on its financial markets and its listed companies. Let’s say you had the option of lending money to both Jack and Sam, both were willing to put their homes up as collateral on the loan. Only Jack has comprehensive home insurance. That makes your loan to Jack safer.
America’s military strength contributes to the overall safety of any investment made in an American company. You know that the HQ of Walmart is not going to be obliterated by an artillery barrage.
It is very hard to quantify the value of this insurance, but it is real. And it extends (to a lesser degree) to any market ‘defended’ by the US military.
As for no one admitting it (#8), when I lived in Singapore 10 years ago, the government was quite open with its policy that providing support for US navy presence in Asia was desirable and good for SE Asia as a whole.
#10,
Actually, there has been a few documentaries made here by Korean film-makers in recent years…but they were usually about atrocities committed by South Korean soldiers. Accusations of atrocities committed by some South Korean soldiers in Vietnam are hardly new.
I think you’re smart enough to understand why American film makers aren’t interested in the touching the topic.
http://populargusts.blogspot.c.....etnam.html
That alternative theory is pretty implausible considering that in 1945 Korean GDP per capita income was less than ~ 50USD with little prospect for improvement; the part of Korea that held the most potential for (re-)development (after destruction/Soviet removal of the infrastructure installed by the Japanese) was the North - and outside the influence of those presumed scheming nasty liberal imperialists; that those other bugaboos of neo-liberal domination, the World Bank and IMF, had just been set up and their remits (like the Marshall Plan) were effectively limited to Western Europe; and that the US policy makers (viz. Acheson)were still generally cognizant of the prudence of not getting entangled in potentially conflictive situations on the Asian mainland.
On the other hand, it is equally clear that in the course of events the US did get economically as well as militarily involved w/ Korea, notwithstanding the absence of any pre-planned conspiracy to do so.
The notion that current US inertia in disengaging from Korea also is driven by a cabal of Amerikanische Finanz-capitalistas meeting in the basement of 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza is similarly implausible (I know because I used to attend the meetings); but I gotta run now.
To: Dr. Evil
From: Igor
Re: Peasants waking up
Dear Dr. Evil,
Our blog monitoring teams with the Private military company
named Black-Agua Inc. have picked up suspicious peasant chatter. A blogger by the name of Marmot is disseminating foment against our long term strategy for the North East Asian region. This asset is going rogue. We suggest sending in a team of Korean micro-wave gang stalkers before he foments an uprising.
Best regards,
Igor
Of course, not all South Korean soldiers committed atrocities in Vietnam. So, I can understand your point…
Then again, you don’t hear me complaining about the fact that few people know that 10 000-20 000 Canadians fought under the US flag in Vietnam.
#21: Sperwer seems to have forgotten what the Cold War was all about.
“I know because I used to attend the meetings.”
Well, there you go.
OK, let’s agree that it’s all about Wall Street, US-Anglo financial elites and the military-industrial complex. I’m assuming stability is just as important to European financial elites and stock exchanges. Wouldn’t it be better simply to let the European economies deal with the extra expense of protecting the world? And sure, Japan and China distrust one another, but at the same time, they are highly dependent on one another economically. For that matter, Japan and Korea are two of the biggest investors in China, and two of its biggest trading partners. Assuming economic interest alone was not enough to dictate “stability”, they could all develop nukes — kept the Americans and Soviets, who were much more hostile to one another than any of the major players are now, from going at one another.
#24: “Wouldn’t it be better simply to let the European economies deal with the extra expense of protecting the world?”
Not for said European economies. I’m sure they’d much rather have the US military be their global attack dog, at least for now.
That’s my point. Even if we were to agree that US foreign policy is controlled, to borrow Sperwer’s term, a cabal of Amerikanische Finanz-capitalistas meeting in the basement of 1 Chase Manhattan Plaza, I don’t see how it would be to their advantage for rival cabals to freeload off them when they themselves could be doing the freeloading. Moreover, I’m going to assume for the moment that said cabal has much more riding on China than Korean reunification, which would seem to rule out involvement in things like OPLAN 5029. Alas, that doesn’t appear to be the case.
I leave it to you Americans to determine your own vision of your place in the world. But remember, boss, that those people are your business partners. You pay for everyone’s security, to their benefit, and at your cost. But that security helps them to develop their own consumption-driven economies, and trade with you, to your benefit. Despite the size of US military expenditures, your economy consistently outperforms the EU in GDP growth, and just about every other measure of economic performance.
Why conservatives are happier than Liberals:
http://www.economist.com/world.....d=10924082
A big reason for our higher economic growth is our higher population growth. We have a higher birthrate and more immigration. On a previous thread, someone contrasted US economic growth with Japan’s. A commenter pointed out that if population growth were factored in, Japan’s overall economic growth was actually higher.
that’s the hegemon’s place in the world.
Wow! Baeksu double special excommunicated Pawi in number 18!
here’s a great video if you have an hour to kill, and you haven’t just had a large pasta dinner.
world shifts east-what it means for the US
here’s a great video if you have an hour to kill, and you haven’t just had a large pasta dinner.
world shifts east-what it means for the US
China already is in North Korea. Half the Korean Peninsula has accepted the historical relationship coming from at least the Qing Dynasty up to the time of the Japanese. North Korea is a vassal state of China.
It is not a matter of “freeing” the North. It is a matter of getting the Chinese out!
Fat chance given the way the Chinese feel about another ancient vassal - the now province of Tibet.
#27: “I don’t see how it would be to their advantage for rival cabals to freeload off them when they themselves could be doing the freeloading.”
Well, see this is where things get complicated and where Linkd’s point about economic interdependence is quite relevant. Apart from all the US Treasury bonds China holds, it has a $200 billion sovereign-wealth fund that is heavily invested in Wall Street. South Korea also has significant holdings in US Treasury bonds as well as investments in other US securities and equity, and ditto for many other governments around the world. I’m not an economist but perhaps one could even argue that foreign countries holding or subsidizing US debt are in effect helping to subsidize the global US military presence that Robert has his concerns about, which is in turn in their interest because it guarantees global stability more often than not. Rather than looking at economic cabals on a national basis, it would probably be better to look at layers of global finance and examine who has shares of what? Who is invested in Goldman Sachs stock, for example, and where in turn is Goldman Sachs making investments? In any case, I would argue that the status quo will continue for a while as far as the US global security regime is concerned, which is of course the point of your original post — same old, same old. Too many people at the top are profiting the way things are set up for now, and Korea is just one small part of a larger global security network dominated by the US empire. It may not be cost effective for the US taxpayer, but do you really think global finance cares about them one whit? Ask Brendon Carr if he thinks it does. I’m sure you can already guess the answer.
‘I shall ignore all future comments from you, so spew away.’
no, you won’t.
‘It makes perfect sense, Pawi. Just, as you argued, Seoul should not anger the jihadis to support an ally, Washington should not risk angering China, Russia or Japan..’
i read your call for korean soldiers in american combat zones as an order for human fodder. you want koreans to die in a war but will later denigrate their deahts by telling us about the benefits to south korea.
the last time south koreans gave their lives, that’s what you did. talk about all the benefits.
As opposed to what, Pawi? 35,000 Americans dying in a war but later denigrating their deaths by telling us how American intervention was all about protecting US interests in NE Asia? That’s precisely what most Koreans under the age of 40 will tell you, so please, if you’re looking for gratitude for Seoul honoring the Americans by allowing them to hire South Korean mercenaries for the Vietnam War (well, OK, more along the Hessian model in that the prince, and not the soldiers, were getting paid), ask one of your neighbors in the States.
#32: “Wow! Baeksu double special excommunicated Pawi in number 18!”
Well, see Maddlew, Pawi is clearly a masochist (he seems to thrive on his daily public floggings here in the Hole), whereas most of the time I am not a terribly sadistic person myself, so really, it’s not the kind of relationship that’s going to bring pleasure to either side.
As far as trolls go, I find Brendon Carr a more interesting case study. Most of the time he seems to be on the up and up in terms of the comments he makes, but then every once in a while he slips into what I would call “stealth troll” mode, for no other reason than just to stir the proverbial pot as far as I can tell. The recent accusations of Brian being a racist/sexist is one example that comes to mind, and which Carr had an obvious hand in exacerbating. But then he quickly reverts back to standard “good-faith commenter” mode, until he can lure enough people into an unsuspecting complacency — only to strike again.
Who is for whom you have a hard-on, Kingster? Rosa Luxemburg or Karl Kautsky? I haven’t forgotten what the Cold War was about. I just don’t subscribe to the capitalist exploitation for dummies cartoon version of the neo-
MarxistStalinist fairy tale by which you apparently are bemused. Maybe that’s because I got to see the ways things worked when I worked for the so-called “Wise Man” who was known as the “chairman of the establishment”; maybe it’s not.#41: Well, your countertheory in #4 that the US has only stayed in Korea for the last 6 decades due to “security considerations” begs a certain question: Security for what? Security for security’s sake? Nonsense!
I understand pawi. He’s not really anti American at heart. I believe he’s one of the big supporters of America and Korea. It’s comments like this make him that fly off the handle and instills in him the snide attitude.
“Maybe that’s what should be done, just cut all ties with Korea. ”
(and other similar dark views on Koreans)
He’s a wounded bear that’s lashing out. I just think he cares too much. Just let it go, pawi.
That’s not what I said, but I can’t decide to give you an F for reading comprehension or intellectual dishonesty.
#44: Yes, you mentioned also that we were being bamboozled at present by the GNP neo-yangbans in order to keep China in check, but that still does not answer what the US has gotten out of the arrangement since 1945 and why we’re still here. Robert’s question was “What’s in it for us?” and all you have said is that the US sort of, well, by happenstance “got involved with Korea militarily and economically.” Sorry if I remain unpersuaded by such vague argumentation.
Just 3 hours north for many of you in Korea, Dear leader is giving on spot guidance to a pig farm while countless children are being indoctrinated to believe he is God on Earth. This is going to be one interesting unification once the U.S. pulls out.
Koehler raises the obvious questions about US Forces being in Korea and the liabilities of such, but Linkd provides the less-than-obvious, subtle reasons why US Forces are found in overseas bases around the world.
If the the US wishes to remain a superpower, it can’t have it both ways. In many ways being a superpower sucks. It’s expensive, much of the world resents or even hates you, and its your youth whose blood is spilled for causes that often don’t seem to make a lot of obvious sense.
The reason why America continues in its role is due partially to nationalist ego, but also due to a sense of responsibility. The American ideal is the protection and spread of liberal democracy. Yes, I know, in reality this ideal has been proven to be more hooey at times than fact, but there is something to be said for maintaining that national myth since it sometimes delivers, such as in the case of South Korea.
The other consideration is what would happen if the US began withdrawing its forces from Korea, Okinawa, Germany, south Asia and elsewhere? Like it or not, the US is the global police force. You may not particularly like the cops in your neighborhood, but would you want them to disappear all together?
Many Americans quite understandably are tired of America being the Global Cop. On the surface, its comes across as a crummy deal. But as Linkd points out, America ultimately does benefit as does those in whose markets it protects.
The difficult question, that may be actually unanswerable due to its complexity, is whether the overall global cop proposition is good for America in the long run?
The only recent historical parallel we can turn to is the British Empire. And even that case study may offer only partial understanding of America’s conundrum.