Over at Anti-War.com, Ivan Eland takes note of the beef protests in an argument for pulling US troops out of Korea. I think the headline — Ungrateful Allies — is both unhelpful and irrelevant, and his characterization of the demonstrations as a protest against LMB’s overly deferential attitude towards the United States is simplistic, but his main argument holds true:
Despite plundering their colonies at gunpoint (for example, the Spanish Eempire looted the gold from Latin America) and creating sheltered markets for their goods overseas (for example, British mercantilism), even the formal empires of old were not cost-effective, according to classical economists. The informal U.S. Empire that defends other countries abroad using alliances, military bases, the permanent stationing of U.S. troops on foreign soil,, and profligate military interventions is even more cost-ineffective. U.S. forces cannot plunder, and rich allies, such as South Korea, excessively restrict their markets to U.S. goods and services.
South Korea is not the only wealthy U.S. ally to reap the rewards of a U.S. security guarantee, while not fully opening its market to the United States. Japan and most of the European NATO allies also do the same. The foolish U.S. policy of continuing to subsidize the defense of these now rich countries – all economic competitors of the United States – allows them to reduce the drag that added defense expenditures would impose on their economies. Meanwhile, the U.S. economy has to bear the costs of defending the world.
[...]
Now that the worldwide Soviet threat has long passed, no excuse exists to provide welfare for rich allies merely to foster their security dependency on the U.S. Empire. All U.S. allies need to should all spend more on their own security; but they have no incentive to do so if the United States is willing to subsidize a shield against their mostly poorer enemies.
Read the rest on your own.
(HT to Western Confucian)
{ 1 trackback }
{ 32 comments… read them below or add one }
Just what is it that keeps the US military in countries that really don’t need it? Seriously, i’ve thought about this a lot but still have no answer.
Any suggestions?
foflappy, I’ve been trying to ask the same question round here the past few weeks. It’s obviously not for the plundering.
One possible reason is inertia. It takes a lot of political effort (amongst other things) to take them out. It’s easiest currently to just let them stay.
#1)
…because whenever a new president takes office you hear him say” what? We have troops WHERE?! uh, ok, well I guess we must have a good reason for that… somewhere”
Beef xenophobia strikes South Korea
Washington Post:
http://prairiepundit.blogspot......ed_content
Due to the recent anti-American protests that have been going on in South Korea, America must retaliate by boycotting Korean products.
BOYCOTT KOREAN PRODUCTS!
Here is a list of Korean products to boycott: http://itstheirdestiny.2kat.ne.....ATIONS.htm
BOYCOTT KOREAN PRODUCTS!
Obama especially targets South Korea.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06.....amp;st=nyt
Reminds me of NZ farmers’ attempts to get Kiwis to boycott Aussie products over fire blight.
http://www.iht.com/articles/20.....xfruit.php
Having said that, Aussies were happily paying up to $16 a kilo for tiny Queensland bananas when they were only $0.99 in New Zealand.
http://www.theage.com.au/news/.....55428.html
Perhaps the person who has best articulated why the US needs to leave Korea and other military outposts is Chalmers Johnson. With Obama’s background and worldview, he would be more likely than McCain to scale down our global military presence.
Whoever becomes the president, it would be hard to maintain the same level of troops in Korea.
Time is ticking for the USFK withdrawal and the second China-Japan War. The most casualities will come from Korea, who sides with China and attacks Japan.
Time is ticking.
Way back in the 70’s,Jimmy Carter had same idea about pulling out from Korea.
Tokyo had objected.
If Obama wants to repeat what Carter tried to do,I have a feeling few in Tokyo stands against that.
And,No.baduk,there will be no war between Japan and China.Korea minus USFK simply means more Chinese presence in Korean peninsula,which is basically a natural East Asian order.
or so it was before 1895.
Obama is bad for Korea, bad for the US.
KAmericans are douche bag idiots if they cast a single vote for him.
Those who think US troops are in Korea because the US forces them to be there are incorrect. A simple check of past news articles will show any time a unit from USFK is scheduled or even rumored to leave Korea it generates a Korean media news cycle where USFK and the MND usually verify or deny the report.
It is the Korean government (mainly the MND) who want USFK to offset the necessary military spending on R&D that they would have if the US was not here. The US provides state of the art weapons systems for Korea for a fraction of the cost that they would have to pay to develop or purchase from anywhere else.
Hence the reason why some are talking more and more about sending the one HBCT still in Korea back home. Personally, I agree that there is no need for a large US Army presence in USFK. (or USFJ for that matter) Most US Army soldiers stationed in Korea probably agree with this as well.
‘means more Chinese presence in Korean peninsula,which is basically a natural East Asian order. or so it was before 1895.’
the japanese seem to take pride in the fact they weren’t a vassal of china but two things they leave out:
1. if japan shared a land border with china, it would have been a vassal too.
2. because china had no land border with japan, they couldn’t have cared less about the japanese. indeed, even the koreans couldn’t have cared less about them. that’s the natural order of things.
‘we weren’t a vassal!’ declared hashimoto as he felt pride for his culture largely derived from korea and china.
Eujin, when it comes to Korea, whenever the U.S. proposes a withdrawl in troops it is Korea that demands the U.S not to withdraw. Even Kim Jong Il said that U.S. forces must remain in Korea after unification, although he tells his public that we Americans are at fault for the current occupation
cm must be learning form the koreans! here’s a brief snip from the article he mentioned:
‘You can’t get beef into Japan and Korea, even though, obviously, we have the highest safety standards of anybody, but they don’t want to have that competition from U.S. producers,” Mr. Obama said last month in a speech to farmers in South Dakota. Last week, near Detroit, he asserted that “if South Korea is selling hundreds of thousands of cars to the United States and we can only sell less than 5,000 in South Korea, something is wrong.”
Many scientists, public health experts and consumer advocates in the United States and abroad, though, have suggested that American beef exports are lagging at least in part because United States safety standards are lax compared with those in Europe and East Asia. As for automobiles, Korea’s auto imports have grown nearly tenfold in the past decade as trade barriers have eased, and Japanese and European car manufacturers have been more successful at capitalizing on those opportunities than their American competitors.’
perhaps the nytimes wants samsung ads. koreans feel american wants to foist sub standard product onto them. they aren’t having it.
korea is one of the most important markets for american beef but most of you seem to take the stand that koreans
MUST buy american beef any way america wants to sell it. in other words of you don’t advise american meat companies to placate their customers. why is that, mr red, white, and blue?
That statement, by lumping together all the countries of Europe and all the countries of East Asia, presumes that beef safety standards are uniform across the region. In the EU, they probably are, but in East Asia, they most certainly are not. Japan has the strictest standards, testing every single head of cattle. Korea’s lax testing and regulations that permit blood and some other animal protein into feed have earned an OIE designation as a country of “undefined risk.” That Korea has never had an identified case of BSE is meaningless because you can’t find what you don’t test.
‘Korea’s lax testing and regulations that permit blood and some other animal protein into feed have earned an OIE designation as a country of “undefined risk.” ‘
so, does that mean american standards are better?
Yes. The OIE has established three BSE risk classifications based on the existence of BSE, testing and feed practices, among other criteria: 1) negligible risk, 2) controlled risk and 3) undetermined risk.
A negligible risk country has had no indigenous (non-imported) cases of BSE within the last seven years and follows safe testing and feed practices. A controlled risk country, like the US, has had one or more indigenous cases of BSE but has implemented safe testing, feed, and animal slaugther practices to establish a negligible risk of transmitting BSE. According to the OIE, beef from countries of negligible and controlled risk can be safely traded internationally.
An undetermined risk country, like Korea, does not follow OIE testing, feed, or slaughter regulations, so a level of risk cannot be established. Korea has applied for risk assessment from the OIE, which has asked for more documentation. The OIE’s specific concerns are 1) not enough testing; 2) slaughter of sick cows; and 3) animal protein in feed.
This is why Korea’s refusal to import US beef is so hypocritical. Korea’s beef does not meet international safety standards. Korea has not yet had a case of BSE; however, Korea’s testing is judged by the OIE to be inadequate. You can’t find what you don’t test. Japan tests every single head and has found 14 cases to date. If Korea likewise tested every cow, BSE would almost certainly turn up.
yes
Totally concur with what Sonagi said, not that such facts matter to Korean nationalists.
Acropolis7, #14, so what you are saying effectively is that the US forces are being held hostage here by the Koreans? Does even Kim Jong Il have more say about the deployment of US forces than the US itself?
That suggests to me that the main reason US forces remain is because no one is willing to face up to the shit storm it would provoke in some quarters if they tried to leave.
Powi,
Sonagi is correct. I have seen the same post written in Korean by a knowledgeable Korean in some Korean newspaper discussion board.
Korea has a lower standard than the US. Talk about a kettle calling a pot black.
The whole Korean “mad cow” riot is based on a lie. Korean people are stupid. In addition to that, there was no case of Mad Cow disease in the US. Not even one.
I think this whole thing about mad cows are cooked up by the British to stop American imports. The British like to lie. Animal cloning BS also came from Britain.
The English are trying to make money by Bullshitting, while Americans and the Japanese are making real scientific and technological breakthroughs.
If a country fixes the system so that only the blue blood can be successful the whole country goes down.
America is much better country than Britain. And, I do believe MI6 did Pricess Diana in. The British princess cannot marry a MiddleEastern playboy.
That screw up the British superiority BullShit. MI6 had to kill her to save their pride.
Hypocrisy of it all!
#18 Sonagi, since Korea is not an exporter of beef, it would seem that there would be a disincentive for Korea to get classified by an international agency that seems to be focused on approving countries for meat export. Naturally, Canada and the US would have greater incentive than Korea to have more than 8300 cattle tested.
On the other hand, the argument about the prevalence of vCJD in the US using CDC statistics has been under question for sometime, as this article in UPI notes.
Furthermore, the article in last week’s NYT
which recapitulates earlier reports in other places, including another NYT piece, problematize any claims about the inherent safety of US beef. Thus, the remark in the article that “the accusation that the American beef is so tainted is a protectionist and nationalist canard, because it has long been certified as safe” is highly dubious. This isn’t to say that SK beef gets a free pass on evaluation, but SK beef isn’t being exported here and isn’t part of an FTA and its adjoining trade pressure.
Otherwise, I agree with you on your remarks about Chalmers Johnson, though you don’t really flesh these out. I think the US should pull its troops out of SK, not because SK gets a military expense dividend, which is obviously true, but because the presence of US forces in any country creates sore spots and ultimately undermines its own objectives. Regarding the earlier posts, the US is in Korea for its own strategie purposes, not benevolence.
If in fact any cases of BSE were found in Korean cattle, I would hazard to say that they would be covered up,and purposefully misdiagnosed anyway.
If any cases of vCJD were were found, you can bet the same.
Perhaps the Korean people are painfully aware of this and that is why they are not in the streets protesting that their own country raise it standards at least to the current US standards, if in fact it is the fear of vCJD that is fueling their hysteria.
Re #13
“the japanese seem to take pride in the fact they weren’t a vassal of china but two things they leave out”
No,This has nothing to do with “pride”.
Somehow,for the unknown reasons,we just don’t think the way Korean do in such issues.
And the two things you’ve mentioned are the exact reason why we can enjoy some distance from the continental geopolitics.An crucial advantage Meiji government foolishly abandoned after 1905.
“his culture largely derived from korea and china.”
And here I want to express my feeling of appreciation for Korean contribution to our culture a millenia ago.
It was quite important until we had direct contact with the Chinese.
‘It was quite important until we had direct contact with the Chinese.’
a thousand years ago? imjin wasn’t a thousand years ago. korean influence on your culture stopped somewhere in the 1700s near the 1800s. for instance, most styles of ‘japanese’ paintings specially the one that lead to impressionist paintings in the west is derived form korea.
show more appreciation, aceface. we korean deserve it.
ps how do like my gravatar?
“most styles of ‘japanese’ paintings specially the one that lead to impressionist paintings in the west is derived form korea”
They are not “paintings”,But “woodblock prints”.
And Hokusai’s great works that impressed Monet and Van Gogh were printed around 1830’s.
“show more appreciation, aceface. we korean deserve it. ”
That’s why we say nothing when Hyundai making fake Toyotas and Samusung make pirated Panasonics.
“ps how do like my gravatar?”
Very nice.
You know,one day you should seriously consider about moving aomewhere by the riverbank of the Yalu,instead of living in the US and yanking at the internet for “Korean pride”.
since Korea is not an exporter of beef, it would seem that there would be a disincentive for Korea to get classified by an international agency that seems to be focused on approving countries for meat export.
Korea is applying for OIE risk assessment because it hopes to get a “negligible” rating and use that rating in import negotiations.
think the US should pull its troops out of SK, not because SK gets a military expense dividend, which is obviously true, but because the presence of US forces in any country creates sore spots and ultimately undermines its own objectives.
Completely agree. Even if soldiers were required to remain on base 24/7 and thus there were no taxi robbings, Hongdae brawls and the like, there would still be resentment.
If the ground troops were removed from SK,I’d presume some more facilities in Okinawa would be closed down too,since they are basically there to back up USFK.
That would surely help decreasing resentement against US presence in Okinawa,which is benefitial for both countries.
I should modify my prior comment. USFK should leave both to save money and to remove a source of bilateral friction.
”Now that the worldwide Soviet threat has long passed, no excuse exists to provide welfare for rich allies merely to foster their security dependency on the U.S. Empire. All U.S. allies need to should all spend more on their own security; but they have no incentive to do so if the United States is willing to subsidize a shield against their mostly poorer enemies.”
And at an enormous cost to the US tax payer. For roughly the equivalent gross figure salary I earned in the US and then in Korea the following year, nearly 40% in taxes was stripped away from the former, and not quite 20% from the latter. Taxes, of course, are distributed to thousands of different concerns (some of questionable value?). Nonetheless, why was I paying much less when earning a Korean salary and living in a land being defended by US
troops?
You must log in to post a comment.