Over at the Diplomat, Zachary Keck writes about some of the issues currently plaguing the Korea—US alliance.
To sum up, we’re talking about missiles, nuclear issues and Japan.
In other words, at a time when the region is undergoing sweeping changes, the U.S. is increasingly less confident that South Korea will continue to rely on Washington for its security indefinitely. Indeed, there are already a number of signs that Seoul is seeking greater autonomy. These come at a time when the U.S. will need South Korea more than ever in order to properly rebalance its forces in the region.
I’ve made my views on these issues well-known—I think the missile agreement needs to go, I’d like to see South Korea go nuclear and I’d love to see closer security cooperation between Korea and Japan.
Still, I’m afraid we may be viewing what is the high point of Korea—US relations. Sure, missiles and nukes are important, but they’re not what really concerns me. What concerns me is that President Lee’s term is almost over, and if the opposition wins the next presidential election, it could very well mean a return to all the bullshit that plagued Korea—US relations under Roh Moo-hyun. In case anyone has forgotten what that entailed, it included differing views over North Korea, China, Japan and the very meaning of the Korea—US alliance. When that happens, disagreements over missiles and nuclear reprocessing will seem like a welcome respite.
(HT to Infidelworld)
{ 36 comments… read them below or add one }
. . . but the “opposition” will not win, therefore most of these concerns are moot. I only hope there will be fewer bad evangelicals in government positions since that has been a really bad phenomena during the current administration.
1. Post-Roh Mu-Hyun, Moon Jae-In, is only supported or seen to be supported by those Jongbuks or Jeollado residents – no way he can succeed his campaign, not a big threat
2. Ahn Chul-Soo is a celebrity or decoy, he has done nothing. No one knows exactly what he thinks. As well as he has never undergone any kind of political check. Plus, he recently shows himself he has some flaws or hypocritical aspects. This mook is nothing but a celebrity who needs to earn some populuarity i.e. why people keep focusing on his stock values?
3. Park Guen-Hye… I knew really nothing about her but I guess she’s anyhow better than those two? She definitely lives in her father’s credit, I am not sure she’s hiding something to prevent tackles from those leftists or she is really incapable to be the president. It looks like I don’t have a choice
And we all know that How terrible Kim Dae-Joong and Roh Moo-Hyuns were, we have seen what the outcomes are.
And remember how Saenoori party won the parliamentary election in last April despite the opposition party was to win…
@#2:
It’s about what the bureaucrats want, and, until the Progressives win a whole lot of elections, the ministries will be conservative bastions.
If force rebalancing is the issue, it would appear that Korea is exactly what the US does NOT need, since withdrawing US military resources from Korea would seem to provide the US with infinitely greater flexibility than keeping them in Korea and subject o ROKGOV’s apparent beleif that it should have a de facto veto over when and where else those forces may be dispatched. Korea would likely be a more tractable partner if they had an incentive to make sure that the US would COME to their aid if necessary instead of being able to assume that boots on the ground (and the casualties it entails) will guarantee them US protection regardless how badly they behave
Lee’s mishandling of the Japan relationship at the worst possible time, effectively if unwittingly working in tandem with the PRC, is probably more significant in the short- to medium-term scheme of things, as a complicating factor in the US rebalancing. With that cheap, Third World stunt on Dokdo, Lee has dented his reputation as a statesman and sensible leader in the world capitals that matter most for Korea. The PRC, and probably North Korea, will capitalize on this myopia and confusion in Seoul. We are already seeing Chinese state media calling on Korea to be a “balancer”. It will be fun to see what cards North Korea will play to entice the South into sending cash to Pyongyang again and how the DPRK will work to tip the December election in its favor.
Agree. Agree. Agree.
I would handicap the field v. PGH as around 55:45 right now. PGH needs some dramatic shake-up to win.
Read. The. Newspapers.
Right. He did not publish a book called “The Thoughts of Ahn Cheol-Soo.”
Delivered Korea from a near-fatal economic crisis, liberalized Korean economy further, pushed for human rights, hosted major world events, all the while overseeing the transition from mid-tier economy to a country that produces cutting-edge technology. Yeah, the 10 year of progressive rule was really terrible. Just horrible.
Listen, troublemaker of East Asia, to recover partnership with other Asian nations and not to unnecessarily increase tension between the strategic enemies, Japan has to give up the “cheap, Third World stunt” colonial ideology that insults her neighbor countries.
“I would handicap the field v. PGH as around 55:45 right now.”
TK, you’re probably basing that on the survey of Seoul for the people in their 40′s, who were asked to pick their choice of Park Geun Hye and Ahn Cheol Soo. If Ahn Cheol Soo (who I think is just ridiculous) doesn’t run, the poll in Seoul for people in their 40′s is much closer.
“Yeah, the 10 year of progressive rule was really terrible. Just horrible.”
You just took the words right out of my mouth.
I can tell you this much: ACS is running. And unless something changes dramatically between now and November (which is, of course, always a possibility in Korean politics,) ACS is going to win easily. Even MJI has a 50-50 shot against PGH at this point.
TK, just one question. How much value do you put in Korea-US alliance? It seems to me, not much, when you support a party that tries its best to undermine it.
@9 — Of the several handfuls of people who made ill-advised, crassly nationalistic visits to disputed islands, only one was an elected national leader. Such great company LMB has put himself in there.
Why bother asking any question when you already made up your mind about me? In your mind, I am an American hating communist who is hell bent on handing South Korea over to Kim Jong-Un. No matter what I tell you, you will continue to think and say that. Get lost.
Oooo… saucy and slurry ajoshis going at it in #’s 13 and 15. What a treat! Don’t get to it it play out much in the English language.
@16 I think The Korean is under 30 — is that an ajoshi? I imagine this generational divide will be a driver of the voting in December.
FT has the right point:
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/497f8d14-ec43-11e1-a91c-00144feab49a.html?ftcamp=published_links%2Frss%2Fcomment_columnists_clivecrook%2Ffeed%2F%2Fproduct#axzz24OXEBLIT
Google search “Japan, China and their ‘history problem’” in Financial Times, then you can read it.
I see TK is yet again spearheading his campaign for civilised debate at the Hole.
“No matter what I tell you, you will continue to think and say that. Get lost.”
It would be too flattering to you if I called you communist.
31 now, thank you very much. With a battalion of 20-something underlings working for me, I think I am now firmly entrenched in the ajeossi territory.
I really don’t get what analysts like Keck see in the alliance. It’s expensive for the USA, it justifies NK’s military-first policy (in their minds), and most South Koreans hardly appreciate it at all. This is in addition to the fact that SK is quite capable of defending itself. A withdrawal of US forces would be the face-saving “victory” that might get NK to dismantle its nuclear programme and allow inspectors. Why not give it a try? US forces can always come back in the event of major hostilities.
YBS,
I usually like your posts but this one is not well thought out.
“It’s expensive for the USA.”
It is expensive for the US, I agree wholeheartedly.
“”, it justifies NK’s military-first policy (in their minds), and most South Koreans hardly appreciate it at all.”
The norks use that for external and internal consumption but the rulling elite doesn’t believe it ala high level defectors Hwang Jang Yup (deceased last year). I’m not sure that most SKs hardly appreciate it. They appreciate it but want unrealistic standards for conduct.
“This is in addition to the fact that SK is quite capable of defending itself.”
True but not the real point if the norks feel otherwise. Also the loss of all that on demand US firepower will prolong a conflict significantly adding to the death and damage count in the South. In addition see below:
“A withdrawal of US forces would be the face-saving “victory” that might get NK to dismantle its nuclear programme and allow inspectors.”
There is no reliable evidence that North Korea intends to ever give up it’s nuclear program, this falls into wishfull thinking. Even without the US the norks will use those evil ROKs to the South as justification, or the Japanese or the Americans with their ICBMs etc etc etc.
I think a withdrawl of US forces will lead to a nuclear weaponized South with delivery systems that can reach all of NK and most of China, not sure if we want all that baggage.
“Why not give it a try? US forces can always come back in the event of major hostilities.”
Yes, and the intell, ADA and counterfire ground assets will arrive about 45 days after Seoul and every other major city in South Korea are Scud and LRA pincushions.
The nork coercive diplomacy will be greatly strengthened and ROK-US cooperation during conflict will be hard to rebuild.
You have to practice these things you know.
Hamilton, I quite agree that NK would likely find other reasons to maintain its stance; however, I think you’re exaggerating the extent to which SK would need US support in the event of major hostilities, which would be very unlikely to happen even without the presence of US forces.
Even with an expanded US military presence in SK the norks could pound Seoul and Incheon with conventional and bio-chemical weapons for a long enough period to inflict grievous damage. The 28,000-member (on paper) US forces won’t be able to do that much more than the 600,000+ ROK forces can’t. Why not just hand the weapons over to the ROK and park another aircraft carrier off Japan – that would give the “alliance” even more firepower while finally eliminating NK’s “slaves of the US” argument, while saving the US a lot of money in the long term and preventing the inevitable bad press from US servicepeople inevitably being naughty in SK.
YBS,
I’m actually for a pull out. Korea needs to pony up the money for C4I, ADA and counterfire assets. We really don’t have the money and SK is capable of funding their own defense.
I never suggested that the US presence would eliminate the threat to Seoul and Incheon, just that the damage would significantly less severe and the length of the conflict significantly shorter. That’s no exaggeration. We may only have 28,000 on peninsula but they are integrated which enables rapid response, and what is on pen is pretty impressive between the Patriot ADA systems, F16s, MLRS and ISR systems. South Korea has a lot of infantry, a good number or tube artillery and a bit of tanks. Its air force is sufficient for defense but not the whack a mole numbers you need to take down the Nork IADS or LRA.
As for parking another aircraft carrier off Japan, there aren’t any extras left in the inventory(or the group of ships they need for protection), they are very expensive to run vice an airfield and there is no place to base one that actually wants us in the neighborhood.
“We may only have 28,000 on peninsula but they are integrated which enables rapid response”
SK has more soldiers than it needs right now. There’s no reason SK couldn’t purchase (or the US donate) the weaponry and train 28,000 soldiers and airmen to do what the US forces are doing. As for carriers, the US has what, ten or eleven supercarriers? I find it hard to believe they couldn’t spare one.
“There’s no reason SK couldn’t purchase (or the US donate) the weaponry.”
That’s what I already said. It will take time to build capacity.
“As for carriers, the US has what, ten or eleven supercarriers? I find it hard to believe they couldn’t spare one.”
Actually we can’t, and 11 is the correct number. We already have one nearby and they do need to be refit every couple of years. The US fleet isn’t what it used to be. We are decomissioning slightly faster than we are building them.
YBS, my last thought on the subject.
IF a SK progressive wins the presidential election then the ROK will not be buying the weaponry they need to stand it alone. So we either cut bait and abandon our ally or continue as it is.
I always found it facinating that NMH wanted the US out of Korea but wasn’t willing to pay for it. Then again the guy did fail at everything he tried.
IF a SK conservative wins the presidential election then the defense budget is likely to rise but not enough to cover the deficit, they do not want a disengagement with the US.
There is no Korea.
Koreans are either pro-Japan like PGH or pro-China(=pro-NK) like AnChulsoo.
So, the country could go ape-s*** any time. Civil war between SKs are very likely, especially if PGH wins.
It is prudent for the US to stay away. Otherwise, it will be another VietNam.
I just hope and pray AnChulSoo or Moon JaeIn wins. At least, they will keep the country together. And, they learn quickly to be ultra pro-America. I mean crazy pro-America.
To stay away from upcoming China-Japan war.
But, Alas, Koreans do not have “21th century mind”. With PGH, they are regressing to 1960s. That is VietNam mentality.
I think the US forces stayed in Korea this long because the Japanese politicians have paid for it.
But, now, the Chinese are paying the US politicians. And, they are paying more every day. Sooner or later, the US congress will make the decision to pull out,if they have not done it already secretly.
The US public will not care. It is my assertion that 90% of the US population do not know about USFK. Or, care.
The European beggars and the US trailer park beggars have good incentive to DE-STABLIZE this region. And, induce a war between China and Japan, not that they need any inducing.
The war is coming.
“I think the US forces stayed in Korea this long because the Japanese politicians have paid for it. ”
Er, what?
I certainly haven’t heard anything about the Japanese government paying (either paying for or paying off) the U.S. to have troops stationed in South Korea… I mean, why the hell would they want to do that? There’s enough people in Japan complaining about the money the Japanese government dishes out for the U.S. troops stationed in Japan, I have no idea how in the world they could even come close to convincing the voters that it would be a great idea to pay the U.S. to have troops stationed in South Korea.
Your post sounds waaaay too much like some silly conspiracy theory to me…
Veritas: welcome to the blog. Look back over some of RolyPoly’s comments, and you will see that this is true to form.
slim,
TheKorean and I had samgyupsal and soju around last Christmas to affirm and confirm our ajoshiness.
Veritas,
Somethings are never written in the paper.
Japan has been “buying” U.S. politicians from 1960s. Mostly on Republican side.
I think they wanted 2 things.
1) Open the US market for their products, mainly cars and electronics.
2) Keep USFK, so that the Chinese cannot attack them.
@Hamilton
Sorry for the late entry.
I mostly agree with you but with a few differences.
First is that the ROK’s could easily destroy the DPRK military. The DPRK’s military is a hollow force, lots of man power but not an advanced Logistic / Intel / C4I infrastructure to support it. The ROK’s have most of this already though they do like to use the toys the USA brings to the table. In a force on force conflict between the ROK and DPRK it’d be no contest for the ROK to win. They would take casualty’s and there would be some damage to citys’, but not nearly as much as people think. City’s are made of concrete now, concrete is extremely resistant to damage. There would be greater psychological damage then actual damage in the event of a prolonged shelling.
Second is the purpose of the US forces in East Asia. We’re not here to defend South Korea from North Korea. We’re here to prevent China from becoming the next USSR and starting another cold war or very possibly World War III. Japan and SK could easily fight off the DPRK, they couldn’t fight off China. The only two military’s in the world that could actually fight China are Russia and the USA. Russia is currently being converted into a dictatorship, they were never very friendly and tended to like to conquer their neighbors, I don’t think they’ll help the situation any. That leave the USA as the only entity with a strong enough military to prevent the Chinese from getting ideas of imperial conquest.
As for “why Korea”, the same reason that Japan is the naval / airbase. Korea is ideally positioned for ground power, surrounded on three sides with water, has an infrastructure already built to support ground units, and it’s land border faces the guys you want to fight off anyway. It’s ideally positions to support supplying a naval force operating out of the Yellow Sea. Korean’s are yet again victim of their own prime geological location, wouldn’t it be so great if they were located in a spot nobody wants, like Vietnam.
As for the nukes idea, my educated opinion has always been HELL NO. Solves no problems and makes everyone else life harder. Their advanced enough that they could develop them quickly should there ever really be a need, same with Japan. Here’s a hint, if you can design and build a nuclear power plant, you can design and build a functioning nuclear bomb.
You must log in to post a comment.