In the IHT, Philip Bowring writes that while Chinese nationalism gets all the attention, Korean nationalism could prove just as destabilizing:
The two Koreas, even combined, are no match for China’s economic and military might. But the latent intensity of nationalism on both sides of the peninsula’s demilitarized zone is more focused and potent.
For all their political and economic differences, the two Koreas sometimes seem to share a paranoia about foreigners. The recent mass demonstrations against U.S. beef imports are a case in point. This may be a passing issue, having much to do with domestic politics and inept management on the part of President Lee Myung Bak. But the mix of nationalism, anti-Americanism and sheer unwillingness to accept both the opinion of the World Health Organization and the global trading rules to which South Korea owes much of its prosperity was shocking.
The almost hysterical opposition to American beef imports may not sway the government in Seoul, which can still focus on larger issues, particularly the U.S.-Korea free trade pact. But it has left a nasty taste and been a reminder of the other aspects of Korean nationalism in South Korea that continue to irritate foreign trading partners.
Bowring points out why this is dangerous, of course:
None of this is going to seriously undermine relations with China any time soon. The China market is too big, the need for Beijing’s cooperation in dealing with Pyongyang too great. Likewise, the beef issue is not going to cause a major rift with the United States, which is still needed as a trade partner and regional guard - though it could help kill the free trade deal now opposed by Barack Obama.
But Asian countries are going to need more cooperation, not less, in the years ahead, as improved regional arrangements will be needed to compensate for the gradual erosion of the American-led system put in place after World War II. The last thing anyone needs is revanchist thoughts about “lost territories,” real or imagined, or cries of “traitor” directed at presidents who make constructive deals with trading partners.
I might also point out — staying on message — that in addition to the regional dangers, this potentially explosive nationalism also indicates the dangers to the United States of entangling military alliances in the region. Does the United States want to go to war for Dokdo? Gando? How about Ieodo?
Sure, sounds stupid, but then again, who would have imagined Europe destroying an entire generation over some remote Balkan backwater?
It could be argued that the presence of US forces in the region exacerbates the problem. Besides serving as a nationalist lightning rod for South Koreans and Chinese, the US troop presence — by keeping everyone at a safe distance — encourages nationalist rhetoric because the parties involved know no harm will come to them. Why not score domestic political points by declaring “diplomatic war” on Japan when you know the JSDF won’t retaliate with a real war? Relatedly, it also weakens the incentive of local powers to play nice with one another. Why should, for instance, Seoul and Tokyo build a strategically sensible but politically costly bilateral security relationship when they can just rely on their hub-and-spoke alliances with Washington?
(HT to Korea Economic Review)
74 Comments
robert, it seems your contact form isn’t working, and I’m trying to find a way to get in touch with you.
sorry to litter up your comment board with this.
you can drop a me line at the e-mail address on the sidebar on my blog. . . or would me calling sometime tomorrow be better?
(feel free to delete this off-topic comment after you’ve read it)
“It could be argued that the presence of US forces in the region exacerbates the problem.” Do you think the troops should leave? I can’t remember what you’ve said previously about this.
Chinese nationalism still makes the Korean variety look puny since China can back it up with real force. That’s why, when Koreans “nourish revanchist thoughts” they can’t be taken too seriously, while China’s Northeast Asian Project is a real cause for concern, given China’s track record.
Despite all the empty-headed protesting of late, I really think the majority of Koreans are not rabid nationalists but rather, as someone else in the Hole pointed out recently, just passively quiet when the minority of loudmouths spout off.
It is the overall interest of the NE Asian players for the US troops to stay, as repugnant as this sentiment seems on the surface. As far as the US itself is concerned, the pros and cons seem to split down the middle.
This issue is the “sleeping tiger” I have mentioned in the past. I still consider it an awful possibility.
The last part is an excellent reason why American troops should be drastically reduced here.
The more foreigners have come in contact with Korea, the more Korea’s reputation has suffered. The quandry Korea faces in the world is that the more prominent it becomes, the more it is disliked. This, in addition to its self-destructive internal strife would appear to relegate it to second-world status or worse.
I don’t know if this is nationalism.
This is know-nothing socialism and populism. Despite of Korea having a top rated education test score, it proves that modern education system is run by know-nothings.
“The more foreigners have come in contact with Korea, the more Korea’s reputation has suffered.”
Mizar, they don’t all marry juicy girls and come away bitter.
#6 It’s the stupid leading the blind!
#7, so ya mamma ain’t for every GI, life sucks. I’ve always thought NE Asia’s current political landscape vaguely resembles 19th century Europe with semi-democracies and authoritarian kingdoms expousing bellicose nationalist sentiment for public consumption to deflect the ire of the masses from the problems at home. Throw into the mix a scramble for colonies, be they economic ascendency in SE Asia, raw materials, history or revanchist goals and you have a very volatile mix. As much as I share RJK’s thoughts that it would be a desirable thing for the US to vacate, I can’t see it happening in light of such animosity. A good start to getting the ball rolling would be a regional security framework (as just about every IR hack will tell you), but when the only current one lies under the aegis of ASEAN, there isn’t a great deal of hope.
@7: No, some of them meet assholes like you and come away bitter.
swlee: “Mizar, they don’t all marry juicy girls and come away bitter.”
What is it you are trying to say? That my wife is a whore? From you’re name I would assume you are Korean and from the content I can see you have racial issues.
Thank you for reinforcing my point.
“the US troop presence — by keeping everyone at a same distance — encourages nationalist rhetoric because the parties involved know no harm will come to them. Why not score domestic political points by declaring “diplomatic war” on Japan when you know the JSDF won’t retaliate with a real war? ”
Problem is this is exactly what’s happening between Taiwan,where there is zero U.S troop presence…
And Robert,You can count out “Dokto” from potential war zone,hence the rock is now in the hand of Koreans and those who wants back is thinking about taking the case to ICJ.
Is swlee really pawi’s sockpuppet or vice versa? They both seem to hate themselves rather terribly…
Sad, really…
LMB’s election has only delayed the inevitable that comes with the rise of China, not only economically but also militarily. Korea will grow closer to China as this regional power grows in might because they share a common heritage and history and a deep rooted antipathy toward both the US and Japan, driven, in large part, by the younger generations’s willingness in both countries to pick up the sword of nationalism.
LMB’s tenure as president has just begun but I predict that by the end of his presidency, the Korean Left will have succeeded in destroying the economy for its own political gains and, as a result, the next president of the ROK will make KDJ and Roh look like right wingers.
And as such, the US-Japan alliance will only become stronger. The only question for Japan is will it nuclearize. If it does, it will have meant that Article 9 of their Constituion would have been revised drastically and Japan, effectively, has re-militarized.
Alliance with Korea is not harmful to US interests in the region but no longer a necessity to America, which can project power in the Pacific through its alliances with Japan and Australia and naval supremacy that the Chinese will simply not able to overtake.
Two other counterweights to the growth of Chinese power are India and Russia. The US should continue to develop deeper relationships with these regional powers that can become much more useful in containing China than an alliance with a second-rate middling power that is becoming increasingly unreliable.
If Jude’s terrifying prophecy comes true ( I doubt it ) I’ll hopefully have of banked enough cash to buy my boat and sail off into the sunrise, if need be with my wife’s immediate family.
Of course I’m stashing some of my money away from here.
“The only question for Japan is will it nuclearize. If it does, it will have meant that Article 9 of their Constituion would have been revised drastically and Japan, effectively, has re-militarized.”
First off,if there is anything to be called as consensus exists in Japan,and that would be to stay non-nuclear.
Secondary,revising exisiting constitution has nothing to do with neither going nuclear,nor has regime change in the troublesome name of “re-militarize”.
Japan would stay more or less “democracy”after the constitutional revision.
.Only change is we now call,a spade a spade.
Robert,
Ye are wise. Do you get many hits from the US embassy or ever get a chance to mingle with embassy staff?
I recall Eujin asking why US troops remain in Korea, speculating that it might be inertia (easier to stay than go) and some commenter mumbling vaguely about strategic needs. For reasons explained by Jude, the China threat is overplayed. At most China might carve out a buffer state should North Korea collapse and use its might to bully its neighbors. This scenario is more likely if the US military is still in the South when that happens.
China’s southern neighbors are able to cooperate to form a collective counterweight in ASEAN, and Koreans would be able to bury the hatchet and form a loose alliance with Japan if their survival depended on it.
As an aside, will Pawi’s mini-me ever outgrow his predictable English teacher/GI jokes and come up with a more clever gambit?
However, I think these fears are unfounded:
Only Koreans think that Japan would actually try to take Dokdo by force, Some Koreans might fantasize about Gando, but even the most extreme irredentist would not dare provoke the PLA. China recently reached a joint exploration agreement with Japan over an East China Sea dispute similar to Socotra Rock and is pragmatic enough to avoid a military confrontation with Korea.
I dunno why, but too many people here drift to worst case scenario all the time, as if they want war and disaster to happen…
“I dunno why, but too many people here drift to worst case scenario all the time, as if they want war and disaster to happen…”
I think you’re right.
“The two Koreas, even combined, are no match for China’s economic and military might. But the latent intensity of nationalism on both sides of the peninsula’s demilitarized zone is more focused and potent.”
What? South Korea alone has kill ratio of 25 to 1. Every 25 vietcong died at hands of a single korean soldier.
Combine that with north.
do the math.
but you are right. there is so many chinese to kill.
“I dunno why, but too many people here drift to worst case scenario all the time, as if they want war and disaster to happen…”
Because to most of the posters here knows, when wars comes, only them asian in asia will die. Even for those living temporary in Korea, still look through everything from their home country’s, like USA, perspective; how USA/West need to be the strongest, the one have to be in control all the time.
It is simple: Divide and Conquer.
Look back at all the posts here. Most of them have a current of spins which encourage distrust and fear within the China/SK/Japan countries. Because as long as these countries don’t work together as a whole then they will never be strong and the USA/EU will always dominate them.
Another reason for the intense protest in Korea is because unequal and unfair relationship between SK and US and the feelings that their president is working for the interest of US companies instead of normal korean public.
Netsk if the US really wants to dominate China, Japan and S Korea then why does the US tolerate a trade deficit with all three, terms of trade that are disfavorable to the US, while providing security for two out of the three?
More likely that US presence has prevented them from “dividing” to the point of going to war with each other.
And the EU? Gimme a break!
Show specific examples of this US/EU conspiracy to “dominate” East Asian countries. Yeah, helping them all grow economically, that’s it right?
After WWII the US had a responsibility to fill the power vacuum left by the fall of the Japanese Empire. Remember? And if Japan or Korea asked the US troops to go, they’d go. The Philippines is an example there.
Of course the US has made mistakes. It doesn’t mean you have to get all paranoid.
“Another reason for the intense protest in Korea is because unequal and unfair relationship between SK and US and the feelings that their president is working for the interest of US companies instead of normal korean public.”
That is a recurring theme, but that is nothing further from the truth. It’s left wing propaganda spouted by the youth who know nothing about how international trade and cooperation works. You have to give a little, to receive back. Why must Korea always have to receive?
Have to disagree w/ Sonagi about the potency of ASEAN’s counterweight.
Certainly there’s been anti-piracy security cooperation amongst the Malacca Strait (SOM) littoral states, and economic ties have deepened with its (somewhat) FTA, yet there isn’t much more to that. The member states’ Defense Ministers have only recently held meetings on strengthening cooperation, and stronger defense ties are envisioned for 2020.
Without blue water capability China has chosen to maintain the status quo in the South China Sea (SCS), but China’s first aircraft carriers should be launched in 2012 or so, and its pilots have been training carrier landings (granted, on land) for some time now.
Given China’s Malacca dilemma and its string of pearls (Pakistan, Maldives, and Myanmar) strategy to protect its interests in the Indian Ocean, I think its probable China will fortify its defensive position in the SCS - Taiwan holds the only airfield in the SCS and several ASEAN states have token military presence that can’t be sustained if conflict arises.
Once China has the ability to project and sustain force in the region will unilateral resource exploration and exploitation follow? There’s been much ado over the SCS’s oil and gas wealth, and this may prove too temptimg to ignore for long.
Beijing has refused to negotiate a meaningful multilateral settlement to the SCS dispute, preferring bilateral agreements such as the one it signed w/ the Philippines. Better to play off the ASEAN states against each other.
States such as Indonesia and the Philippines are scrambling to complete (or start) their oceanographic surveys of their respective extended continental shelves to be submitted to the UN by May 2009 - see UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). If submitted on time, these claims are likely to increase tensions within ASEAN as well as with China. I think this works to China’s favor.
The SOM and SCS are the world’s most vital waterways, the region is believed to hold abundant petroleum and gas, and without a permanent American presence it’s a vacuum waiting to be filled. I think the Chinese may be able to do so in less than a decade. Irrespective of the ASEAN counterweight.
Why must Korea always have to receive only, yet not give back anything? Why do you expect that?
‘I dunno why, but too many people here drift to worst case scenario all the time, as if they want war and disaster to happen’
your expat here would love to see korea destroyed and koreans killed. and why? because some little korean kid stared at him.
‘Because as long as these countries don’t work together as a whole then they will never be strong and the USA/EU will always dominate them.’
the last thing the west would want is to see china, japan, and the koreas get along with one another. the poster has a sharp eye.
‘At most China might carve out a buffer state should North Korea collapse and use its might to bully its neighbors. This scenario is more likely if the US military is still in the’
as usual, sonagi has no idea what she’s talking about. china won’t be carving anything out of nk. sorry. china will be in a war that it will lose. sorry.
And how does the presence of the US military in Korea (or even Japan) prevent China from unilaterally exercising its claims in the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca?
And that’s the last thing an _American_ would want, because that scenario will never be in America’s interest. Never.
Didn’t you claim to be an American?
I cancel my prophecy. I just recalled how the Righteous Army soundly defeated the Japanese and stopped the Soviets dead in their tracks as they tried to march down the peninsula.
Hahahaha….
Right. It’s really the Pentagon fanning the flames of Dokdo.
Nice line, although I must say, it sounded better in the original Japanese.
Gotta love Chinese netizens.
You were truly born after your time, Pawi. You’d have made Hirohito one fine soldier.
#21
That whole kill ratio is bullshit. Do a simple web search and read up on the topic and you’ll see that body counts were inflated…severely.
Of course you’ll never get a “high and mighty” Korean to agree with you. This is especially true of the Korean-Chameleon draft dodges. The evidence is out there.
Robert Peevey’s bio, “Praying for Slack” has a great storey about the ROK Marines so called effectivenss in Vietnam.
Again, a Korean will never agree with you, they are infallible after all.
International Monetary Fund? Europe
World Bank? USA
What happened when Japan wanted to set up Asia Monetary Fund that are more knowledged with asia economies? Well, the USA didn’t like it, as it doesn’t have a lead/controlling role in it, so it told Japan to back off and killed the proposal.
How about the East Asia Economic Caucus proposal? Yupe, it got killed off too because the USA wouldn’t have a lead/control role in it.
As long as China/Koreas/Japan and other asian countries are divided it will be very hard for them to develop native institutions that can help their country reach their full potential.
‘cancel my prophecy. I just recalled how the Righteous Army soundly defeated the Japanese and stopped the Soviets dead in their tracks as they tried to march down the peninsula’
korea ain’t choson anymore. china won’t be taking any part of what is now north korea. your comments otherwise simply more proof that the westerner wants to see asians kill one another.
“Robert Peevey’s bio, “Praying for Slack” has a great storey about the ROK Marines so called effectivenss in Vietnam.”
JohnT, pick up “Vietnam Above the Tree Tops” if you want a second opinion regarding Korean troop effectiveness in Vietnam.
However, I don’t know if you are up for second opinions, since you come up with your own conclusions which seem so uniformly anti-Korean any ways.
Balance is good for the soul JT.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I.....kuo011.jpg
Hakko Ichiu!
‘a Korean….., they are infallible after all.’ john t
well, yes, we are. thanks for noticing us becoming so wealthy in so little time. thanks.
‘Is john t really jtb’s sockpuppet or vice versa? They both seem to hate themselves rather terribly…’ poster
‘agree.’ pawi
‘robert peevey! robert peevey!’
is an obscure author that nobody’s ever heard about. his wife is japanese. nothing more needs to be said.
Bruce Cumings’ wife is Korean. Nothing more need be said.
What an absolute tool you are.
Is Netsk advocating the resurrection the Greater East Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere? ‘Cause that would be hilariously scary.
# 38,
Good point, although I think Netsk was talking about setting up native financial institutions.
However, it appears that the Asian regions with the most Western influence (Hong Kong and Singapore) have the more advanced financial institutions. Something that shouldn’t be forgotten before someone goes off about how “native” insitutions can only come to it’s full potential on solely on their own.
And why did Japan and other Asian countries heed the US’ wishes? China and Japan hold about 12% of all outstanding US treasury notes, and thus hold quite a bit of clout over the US. China and Japan are the world’s second and third largest economies, and yet they are unable to establish a regional monetary fund without US backing? And how is this possible?
Japan is more than welcome to rid itself of meddling Uncle Sam by taking full responsibility for its own defense.
Iceland, Lithuania, Bulgaria, Bosnia, Serbia, Estonia, Latvia, Vietnam, India, Indonesia, Philippines, Pakistan, and Argentina, all in danger of an IMF bailout. They are teetering on an economic collapse due to negative effects of US subprime mortgage and very high price of oil and natural resources. Chosun Ilbo reports in today’s news.
If those countries collapse, a second wave of countries may go with them, which may include South Korea which depend on exports to these countries.
South Korea doesn’t have any time playing nationalism. They have no time wasting precious resources to needlessly protest on streets. This is a wrong time to be hostile toward foreign investors. The left wingers are already blaming Lee Myung Bak for all the current economic troubles.
For those wondering why the US doesn’t just pull USFK from Korea there are many reasons and inertia is part of the equation but another major factor is you have to have somewhere to put 28,500 soldiers in the US. Many soldiers from 2BCT, 2ID that deployed to Iraq from Korea got jerked around quite a bit when they returned from Iraq due to the lack of space.
I know guys in units that had to live in rented out college dorm rooms when they got back because the post they went to had no room for them and then the army a few months later made their unit move again to another base where they once again lived in a temporary housing before barracks space opened up for them. Needless to say those soldiers in that unit were not happy campers being jerked around like that with their families after coming back from a year of combat in Ramadi.
With the closing of so many military bases and the redeployment of units from both Korea and Germany in recent years US bases are packed with soldiers. You literally have units rotating back from Iraq falling in on barracks that were just vacated by units deploying to Iraq. In one form or another there will be troop cut backs in Iraq next year which means those soldiers will receive housing priority first of any new barracks being constructed currently.
Don’t expect USFK to make any drastic troop cuts until the Iraq troop deployment schedule is stabilized and more barracks as well as family support facilities are constructed which means a few years down the road before the US can even think of making any drastic troop cuts in USFK.
My , I was unaware of the trauma suffered by these brave soldiers of freedom. Heroes fresh from the battlefield of democracy thrust into squalid university dorms, forces to sleep in separate beds to the rest of their squad.
Jerked around.
And then all the hardship of rotating troops, housing priorities, sub-standard service facilities.
Who said invading sovereign countries was easy.
I’ll limit my comment to ROK Army and Marines in Vietnam. From personal observation, some of the most highly disciplined and professional troops in Vietnam in 1968-69 (my years). Not baby killers, and not the hapless, trigger happy idiots portrayed in many comments by the uninformed. The U.S. was lucky to have them as allies, even if they did help fund their expenses.
Sonagi, Good point on the intertia factor, and GI Korea, a tip of the plumed hat.
#22… Because to most of the posters here knows, when wars comes, only them asian in asia will die. Even for those living temporary in Korea, still look through everything from their home country’s, like USA, perspective; how USA/West need to be the strongest, the one have to be in control all the time.
Strategists run these kind of scenarios every day, academics too. So do you think they have a vested interest in seeing East Asia destroyed? No, so how do you, Pawi and WJK all go from a simple theory of possible war and extrapolate that to a hatred for all things Asian and a willingness to watch you all die? If I go on an predict environmental collapse in my native Australia, something that is a possibility given that we have the most marginal climate and ecosystem anywhere, does that make me a self-loathing Aussie? If that kind of emotional, non-sequitur nonsense is the best you lot can do here, you are all indeed a sorry bunch.
jude747,
Thank you for the insightful post. However, I have to disagree with you on two points.
1) Korean people will not go “pro-Chinese”. Some will but some won’t. Koreans will split into two opposing groups and fight endlessly, till they get swallowed by China.
2) The US will distance itself from Japan. There are lots of Chinese money in Washington. And, the US has so much to gain if China fights Japan. Sell stuffs not only to Japan but to China as well. Americans are very smart when it comes to money. After all, the Chinese and the Japanese cannot stand each other. Why not let them go at each other? Why should the US get involved in this kiddie fight?
The US should become closer to China. It would be ideal if the two became allies.
The Chinese military could take over the US military’s role here in Korea thus free up more US military personnel and equipement for the War on Terror.
Chinese troops instead of US troops in Korea would probably be better for Korea. It’s what they deserve.
There is a similarity between the present situation and WWII.
China is the Germany, mobilizing and waiting for a right moment to strike Japan.
Japan is like England, getting ready to resist the attack. Or, even own China once again.
Korea is like France or Italy. Ready to be victimized or be the loser.
In my opinion, neither side is going to win. The war will last less than six month, but casualities, especially stupid Korean casualities, will be extremely high. Some tactical nuclear weapons will be used by both sides.
When enough people have died and the war goes into stalemate situation, the US will play the peacemaker, bringing these two children to a negotiation table.
Fools die.
When China-Korea-Japan destroy one another’s industries, the US will regain its supremacy in all industries, electronic, automobile, general manufacturing, cell phones, communication,etc.
The US is not a bad country. It just got tired of being the peacemaker between these two losers. People who are still stuck at 1920s - that is what the Japanese are. The Chinese? Pre-historic.
They should grow up. After this horrendous war, both countries will realize they are fools. But not before.
USA all the way!!!
“And how does the presence of the US military in Korea (or even Japan) prevent China from unilaterally exercising its claims in the South China Sea and Straits of Malacca?”
Seventh fleet and naval presence in Yokohama and Kadena airbase in Okinawa would do.Along with the MSDF fleet capability in the west pacific.
“yet they are unable to establish a regional monetary fund without US backing? And how is this possible? ”
Because China also blocked Japan centered institution and Korea took money from Japan but didn’t really support Tokyo like ASEAN nations.
“Japan is more than welcome to rid itself of meddling Uncle Sam by taking full responsibility for its own defense.”
Japan is in full responisibility for it’s own defense except nuclear umbrella,for there were not a single American soldiers in Hokkaido,the frontline of the defense from the Soviets during the cold war.
Japan’s role in the American grand strategy were to block three international straits(Tsusima,Tsugaru,La Pérouse)and keep Russian navy in Sea of Japan,being watch tower for Korea and Taiwan and logistic base for American acitivities from far East to Middle East.
USFJ is basically here to deploy to other theaters from Korea to Iraq,remaining in host nation isn’t there mission unlike USFK.So there is a fundamental difference in the nature of the alliance and it’s not fair to compare.
Ground troop presence in Korea which basically end it’s historical role since Seoul’s attitude toward Pyongyang(and it’s ability to deter the North)had dramatically changed.Anyway I don’t think USFK can help to ease regional tention since they can’t even ease bilateral tention between Seoul and Washington,or rather becoming the source of that.
“the Chinese and the Japanese cannot stand each other. Why not let them go at each other? Why should the US get involved in this kiddie fight?”
Is it only me to say that Kyopo is one of the destabilizing factors in East Asia for them spreading the worst case senario and false informations on internet all day?
Anyway,Japanese MSDF vessel is arriving Chinese port for the first time in the history tommorow with rescue equipments for Shichuan earthquake relief.I also believe final draft for the East China Sea gas mine deal will be announced sometime this week.
China is a concern.But they are basically more reliable than Seoul or Pyongyang when it comes to keeping promises made through the negotiation.
@baduk
Maybe you haven’t been watching the news lately, but China-Japan relations are much better, if not great. Economically, the two countries are a compatible match and frankly, it’s a win-win situation. Check out recent GDP figures for Japan, and you’ll know China is behind this. In the meantime, US-Japan relations are ever strong. Sorry to say, but Japan is pretty much stable.
#51…The US should become closer to China. It would be ideal if the two became allies.
I think the term used is ’strategic partnership’, and that is the way it should stay. Interests overlap between the two in mainly non-traditional areas, i.e. maritime security, piracy, terrorism, environment and human security, but in the traditional sphere the differences are too large to overcome, for example Taiwan, force projection, the RMA etc.
“The US should become closer to China”
Throughout human history, the two biggest kids on the block generally don’t become friends. They don’t always war against each other (often they do) but they do find ways to co-exist (uncomfortably).
Is some pissant internet blogspatting really powerful enough to start WW3? Do you people really think THAT highly of yourselves?
For those who are commenting about the inability of the Northeast Asia countries to create any kind of organization:
Before I came back to Korea I was working in Seattle for one of my professors. He was attempting to create a multi-lateral energy framework for NE Asia (Japan, SK, NK, China, Russia, the US). His theory was that energy (the lack of it) was the main reason NK was such a trouble-maker. He also rightfully pointed out that SK and Japan have to import almost 100% of their energy needs while China is getting thirstier every day. And wouldn’t you know it, Russia is swimming in oil, particularly in Siberia. Pipelines could easily be constructed to bring it in NK, SK, China, and Japan.
So, he started working with academics and gov. officials from these countries to create a new framework. It is called the Northeast Asia Cooperative Energy Group. So far it has been fairly successful, 3 international conferences have been held so far. In theory, the HQ of the organization would be in Seoul. My professor (rightly) points out that the EU started with the European Coal and Steel Community in 1950. The idea behind that was to get France and Germany to trust each other because many of the war-making industries would be shared between them.
So there are serious attempts being made to create organizations in this part of the world, because trust me they desparately need them. With the exception of Europe, NE Asia has been the most violent place in the last century. The Russo-Japanese War, WWII, Korean War, all big and brutal wars.
For those who think that the US should not be included in any ASIAN multilateral organization, let me ask you this: how can you create an organization that is designed to bring stability to the region, and then leave out the largest military power in the region? Face it people, the US is an Asian power based on its military projection capabilites and its economy.
Re #59
The European Coal and Steel Community was in effect forced on the prostrate Europeans by the victorious US in the aftermath of WW2, with former civilian honcho of the State/war?Navy coordinating Committee and High commissioner in Germany John J. Mccloy acting as midwife. Nothing remotely resembling the same conditions exist now in NE Asia, nor does the US have any compelling reason to so extend itself.
What determines if relations between countries are “good”?
The really sad part for me, personally, is knowing that after all the years of US involement in the lives of the Korean people that ANY of them would think that we would willfully and with malice, infect their people with BSE.
“how can you create an organization that is designed to bring stability to the region, and then leave out the largest military power in the region? Face it people, the US is an Asian power based on its military projection capabilites and its economy.”
Example,Shanghai Cooperation Oraganization,ASEAN plus 3.
The U.S can be an Asian power based on it’s military projection capabilities ONLY IF they maintain military base in East Asia.
“how can you create an organization that is designed to bring stability to the region, and then leave out the largest military power in the region? Face it people, the US is an Asian power based on its military projection capabilites and its economy.”
Example,Shanghai Cooperation Oraganization,ASEAN plus 3.
The U.S can be an Asian power based on it’s military projection capabilities ONLY IF they maintain military base in East Asia.
#59 nachoinkorea
It all sounds good. But, in reality, it does not work that well. Look at what happened to the Sakhalin-II project. Look at what happened to Russia and Belarus.
Russia could say “Hey, do what I tell you to, otherwise I’ll close the pipeline”. And Russia, so far, has earned such a bad reputation.
Really??
This is one of the reason why USA will continue to keep their military base in SK and Japan and seek military bases in Iraq and everywhere possible. Military equals to immediate power equals to immediate influence.
Of course the US doesn’t want to see EA destroyed. However, it does want to keep EA from working together to reach their full potential where they can might challenge the US economically, militarily and politically in the international field.
THis is one of the main reason why US forced Japan to kill off AMF and EAEC proposals which could have bettered the economic and political sphere in asia.
Sperwer: some Americans had a hand in the negotiations to create the ECSC, but it was the brainchild of French foreign minister Robert Schuman. To say it was forced on the Europeans would be, in my academic opinion, wrong.
Aceface: you’re right, the US is not offically members of the SCO or ASEAN, but if you think the US doesn’t send members to the meetings you would be wrong. The US regularly sends military representatives to the SCO, as the US is building a larger military presence in Central Asia. ASEAN of course is much large than the SCO, and the US routinely sends high-level diplomats to attend its meetings. There was a big stink earlier this year because Condi Rice skipped it. Also, while ASEAN at least provides a forum to air grivances, in reality it is one of the weakest multilateral organizations in the world. It has no power to enfore anything, and it is even part of the charter that it will not discuss internal problems within other member-states. The African Union is stronger than ASEAN.
Toru: you’re right, there is always the problem that the Russians could just turn off the pump. Of course, if the South Koreans and Japanese plan to invest the billions that the Russians are hoping they will invest in Siberia, they may think twice about it.
As for NK and its lack of energy, this is the main problem for NK today. Today, NK is simply in survival mode. Their days of trying to take over the peninsula and military adventurism are gone, at least that is the opinion of most Korea-focused academics. I tend to agree with them. And for them to survive they need energy. Look at the all the nuclear negotiations with the North over the years, what is the one thing the North always wants? Fuel and electricity, in other words energy. If they have a stable supply of energy, the theory is their behavior will improve. This is debatable, but it is worth a shot.
I will be writing about Korean racism for the Korea Herald next week and how it is making news in many publications.
If anyone would like to chime in you can contact me through my site.
http://idlewordship.com
or
idlewordship@gmail.com
Thanks,
Bobby
I asked you before to explain how the US can force Japan, its second-largest trading partner and major banker as a purchaser of US treasury bonds, to do anything against Japan’s own interests:
““yet they are unable to establish a regional monetary fund without US backing? And how is this possible? ”
Aceface had an honest response, which acknowledged that regional cooperation is hindered by China’s and Korea’s mistrust of Japan:
The Japan That Can Say No was written two decades ago. The US cannot stop economic powerhouses Japan, Korea, and China from cooperating. The real obstacles are internal, not external, as Aceface noted.
I think the US has a big influence to ask Japan what to do to some extent. And, at the same time, Japan has enough strength to resist irrational demand from the US to some extent.
US has a big influence because:
1) Just like day4night said, “the US tolerate a trade deficit”. Yeah, like Japanese saying “Customer is God”
2)US provides Japan a Nuclear umbrella and all that world police thingy.
And “The Japan That Can Say No was written two decades ago” only shows how difficult for Japan to say No.
More than the 7th Fleet, China’s green water navy limits its ability to forcefully exercise and sustain its hold of the SCS claim - it makes no claim on the SOM, other than the right of peaceful passage, which UNCLOS provides. But I’m sure the presence of the 7th Fleet encourages restrainst of action by some - and excess of words by others.
If China were to act too early it would likely encourage some of the ASEAN states to relook closer defense ties with the US, so the status quo of the SCS suits China for the time being.
Once China has a blue water force that can mount and sustain air and naval supremacy over the ASEAN states in the SCS I believe it will act more forcefully in the region. China will have more aircraft carriers in the region than the US and its submarine fleet is substantial.
America’s loss of the Philippine bases and the fact that no allied ASEAN state comes close to matching the defense capabilities of Japan or Korea leaves the SCS open for the taking.
Looking to the future I’d prefer the US re-establish a presence in SE Asia - Thailand or the Philippines - over keeping its forces in East Asia, where Korea and Japan have the technology, people, and treasure to maintain their respective defense.
Sonagi,
Dominating influences. Read up on how EU get African states to sign up on trade deals even when some of those states don’t want to.
You made the claim, Netsk. You back it up. You’re comparing undeveloped, war-torn Africa with Japan? LMAO. Explain very clearly with relevant information how the US forces Japan to abandon regional cooperation schemes.
Sonagi, Netsk has BDS from living in France too long…
Asking Netsk to produce thoughts that originated outside of Pyongyang might overtax precious resources…
Basically Japan wants to be the “Britain of Asia”,not France.
And the leadership in Tokyo rightly think there will be no real guarantee in any pan-regional institution without the U.S backups.
Like toru had said all we can say to the U.S is basically something like “we don’t buy any beef from you”.
Sonagi:
“The real obstacles are internal, not external, as Aceface noted.”
I’d like to say the same thing about linkaging trade deficit and alliances,for that isn’t the best practice to solve two issues.They are basically two different things by nature.
Seouldout:
“Looking to the future I’d prefer the US re-establish a presence in SE Asia ”
The Phillipines is reluctant to have large scale of U.S troops stationing there permanently.In case you’ve forgot,but they have their own identity politics with Americans.
Thailand rejected the Washington’s offer to establish POMCUS”Prepositioning Of Material Configured in Unit Sets” for the fear of attrating the suspicion of Beijing.
Anyway,these two nations democracies are easily destabilized by either mass rally or coup.Stationing in S.Korea is better for at least there’s no fear of the latter.
Kadena air base in Okinawa,by far the largest airbase in Asia, is strategically locates in the crossroad of the South East Asia and North East Asia.Yokosuka Naval dockyard and Sasebo dock yard are the only dockyards in western pacific that are capable of improving the U.S aircraft career.You can’t really replace these facilities in other places,esecially Japan pays huge chunk of cash in the name of host nation support and the cost is much more cheaper than stationing in the states.