The following is the last in a series of contributions by scholars on the Korea-U.S. alliance. - Ed.
There are several signs of friction in the half-century long U.S.-South Korea alliance.
The U.S. plan to reduce its forces in Korea, and yet at the same time broaden the role of these forces, is only the most recent example. South Korea has also been delaying its promised deployment of troops to support the American intervention in Iraq. Trade and investment issues are never far from the surface. But perhaps most fundamentally, the United States and South Korea seem to be working from different playbooks when it comes to North Korea.
Disagreements between allies are certainly nothing new - they are as natural as squabbles in a marriage or a family. Truly mature alliances can survive principled disagreement. The United States and the French have been bickering about their respective roles in Europe and the world at least as far back as the presidency of Charles de Gaulle in the 1960s, and they continue to snipe at each other today about the war in Iraq. Yet seeing George Bush in France on the 60th anniversary of D-Day, few doubt the fundamental solidity of the alliance.
But it is important to analyze the causes of friction in the U.S.-Korea alliance so that current disagreements do not lead to broader misunderstanding. Conservatives in both the United States and Korea point to a rising tide of anti-Americanism among Korean youth, but that is really more an effect than the original cause.
The "anti-American" Koreans were basically right about the war in Iraq. It has been an unmitigated disaster. Even if the United States can somehow temporarily stabilize the situation before the U.S. election in November, the original reasons given for the war have proven to be false. The toll of human suffering that has ensued cannot be justified, not even by the ouster of the brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. And, most important, in the long run many times more angry Islamic terrorists have been created by the U.S. occupation of an Arab nation than have been rooted out by the intervention.
U.S. and Korean conservatives believe that Korea has an obligation to support the American fiasco in Iraq. They argue that because Americans died defending South Korea. South Korea now must be willing to put Korean blood on the line to support its friend in time of need. But a real friend does not blindly support a friend who is taking foolish risks. A true friend has the responsibility to point out to an imprudent friend the error of his ways. If anything, a real friend has an obligation take a principled stance and not to contribute to a friend's destructive behavior, hoping to help the foolish friend wise up.
Similarly, the "anti-American" Koreans have been right about the Bush administration's "axis of evil" policy of isolation and punishment of North Korea. North Korea today is much closer to being an effective nuclear weapons power than it was when Bill Clinton left office. South Korea has stood up to U.S. pressure and continued to doggedly pursue the difficult path of engaging the admittedly obstinate regime in North Korea.
By patiently lobbying the Bush administration to negotiate, South Korea eventually smoothed the way for reopened dialogue with the North through the six-party talks. Perhaps South Koreans have grown too comfortable with the North's dangerous and destabilizing pursuit of nuclear weapons, as former Defense Secretary William Perry recently warned.
But the strategy of the South in continuing to demonstrate the benefits that could accrue if the North gave up its nuclear weapons will have more positive impact on the North's decision making than the Bush administration's insistence that the North must first disarm and then depend on the goodwill of the United States.
It is not so much that young Koreans are anti-American, but rather, like many thoughtful Americans and Europeans, many of them are anti-Bush foreign policy. Korea is not the only ally experiencing rising discontent with the Bush administration's adventurism. The unilateralism of Bush's foreign policy has jeopardized America's relations with all its allies and friends around the world.
Conservatives in the United States and Korea have also fumbled the ball on changes in the structure of U.S. forces in Korea. The Pentagon under Donald Rumsfeld has been so single-mindedly pursuing the transformation of the U.S. military into a leaner, meaner, more mobile force that they have proceeded without adequate consultation and input from allies. Similarly, Gen. Campbell's impolitic remarks revealing intentions to expand the role of U.S. Forces Korea beyond the Korean Peninsula were totally insensitive to the fact that any redefinition of roles requires the consent of the Koreans.
But the reaction of conservatives in Korea, who claim to want a strong alliance, has made a bad situation worse. Their "the sky is falling" rhetoric in response to U.S. plans reveals a seeming lack of faith in the United States as a partner. Either Korean conservatives do not really believe in the depth of the U.S. commitment to South Korea, or they are cynically trying to score political points domestically.
The U.S.-Korea alliance will survive the strains it is currently undergoing. Both countries need each other too much. South Korea needs insurance against potential conflict with the North. The U.S. knows the alliance helps the U.S. retain its pre-eminent position in the Northeast Asian region. No U.S. president would dare abandon the alliance with South Korea before a stable peace regime on the peninsula is established.
Former Secretary of State Dean Acheson and President Truman are still excoriated half a century later because it is believed Acheson's omission of Korea on a list of U.S. vital interests in the Pacific encouraged the North to attack the South. No American president could bear the risk of withdrawing U.S. forces from South Korea if there is the remotest chance a second Korean War would then break out. So, despite the growing friction, the United States and South Korea will remain bound together for some time to come.
However, the adjustments the alliance is now facing are small compared to the changes it will have to undergo if a peace regime finally emerges on the Korean Peninsula. A durable peace regime will require guarantees from all the major powers in the region - China, Russia, and Japan as well as the United States - to be truly stable. If South Korea clings too tightly to the U.S. apron strings, other powers may be disinclined to enter such a multilateral security framework.
A stable peace regime will also require the United States to lessen and eventually terminate the threat it poses to North Korea. The United States will have to accept a greater role for China and other regional powers on the Korean Peninsula. Ultimately, as Selig Harrison suggests in his book Korean Endgame, the best outcome for both a reconciled Korea and the U.S. might be a neutralized Korea. A reunifying Korea might take Switzerland as its model, a nation friendly with all the larger powers around it but aligned with none, and thus a threat to none.
But, whatever the final outcome, the U.S.-Korea alliance will certainly face ever greater challenges in dismantling the Cold War structure on the Korean Peninsula. The alliance should be able to withstand these pressures. But it will require greater maturity, reason and vision - something that has too often been lacking in recent years.
The writer teaches at the Hanyang University Graduate School of International Studies. - Ed.
South Korea seeks military interaction with northern foe
Pullout of U.S. troops, dispatch to Iraq seen causing concern over security on peninsula
2004-06-12 / Associated Press / South Korea sought cooperation yesterday from its former battlefield foe North Korea on how to implement an accord aimed at easing hostilities along their border, in talks that have gained urgency for the South following U.S. plans to curtail American troops here.
Washington said earlier this week that it wanted to withdraw one-third of the 37,000 American troops in South Korea by the end of next year, and has entered inconclusive discussions with Seoul about pulling the remaining troops away from the border - the world's most heavily fortified.
U.S. troops have stayed here since the 1950-53 Korean War, buttressing South Korea's defense against the communist North. A U.S. troop cut would force Seoul to expand its military budget and - many South Koreans fear - could leave the Korean Peninsula a less stable place should the North Korean army attempt border skirmishes, as it did in 1999 and 2002.
Adding to the equation are Seoul's plans to dispatch about 3,000 South Korean troops to the northern Iraqi city of Irbil by August to help the U.S.-led coalition in peacekeeping and reconstruction. They will be joined in Irbil by about 600 South Korean soldiers already serving in southern Iraq.
The Defense Ministry announced the mission's planned timeline yesterday, but it still needs final approval by the National Security Council, which is set to meet next week.
"We inevitably have to seek inter-Korean military cooperation, given changes taking place in the security situation on the Korean Peninsula," South Korean Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun said.
At Kaesong, a North Korean town just north of the western border, colonels of the two countries' militaries met yesterday for a second day of discussions to flesh out details of an accord struck last week in the first face-to-face meeting of generals from the North and South since the Korean War.
Last week, the two sides agreed to adopt a standard radio frequency and signaling system for their navies to avoid confusion that could lead to clashes at sea.
They also agreed to end propaganda along their land border. Loudspeaker broadcasts will be stopped, and signboards will be dismantled, beginning next week.
Navy boats from the two sides clashed in 1999 and 2002 and another such confrontation could complicate international negotiations aimed at ending the North's nuclear weapons program.
Both Koreas want to avoid deadly naval clashes during the current crab-catching season, when fishing boats from the two countries operate along their poorly defined western maritime border.
The talks were continuing yesterday, as the sides tried to narrow differences, a Defense Ministry spokeswoman said. No further details were available.
The inter-Korean military talks have coincided with discussions between Seoul and its key ally Washington on realigning U.S. troops stationed in the South to meet American goals of reducing its forces abroad and making them more flexible.
The United States promised to keep its main ground combat unit - the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Infantry Division - in South Korea even after the troop cut, Kim Sook, a senior South Korean Foreign Ministry official, said in an interview with Seoul's PBC Radio Thursday. The division's 2nd Brigade, consisting of 3,600 ground troops, is scheduled to move to Iraq this summer.
The United States, the two Koreas, China, Japan and Russia are expected to meet this month in Beijing to discuss easing tensions over the North's nuclear programs, South Korean officials have said.
North and South Korea often accuse each other of violating their shared border. The South recognizes a maritime border demarcated by the United Nations after the end of the Korean War, but the North claims a boundary further south.
The Korean War ended in a truce, but the two sides have yet to sign a peace treaty.
Roh promises comprehensive assistance to North after nuclear settlement
By Seo Hyun-jin
North Korean leader Kim Jong-il expressed his commitment to enhancing inter-Korean relations, and President Roh Moo-hyun promised comprehensive economic assistance to the North once Pyongyang's nuclear standoff is settled, a presidential spokesman said yesterday.
The two leaders indirectly exchanged the pledges as the Korean Peninsula marked the fourth anniversary of its historic bilateral summit. The amicable mood came ahead of multilateral talks next week on the protracted North Korean nuclear issue.
North Korean chief delegate Ri Jong-hyuk speaks at a global forum marking the fourth anniversary of the June 15 summit declaration between South and North Korea in a Seoul hotel yesterday. South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun and former President Kim Dae-jung look on. [The Korea Herald] "Kim said the two Koreas should greatly improve South-North relations by moving forward the ongoing good tides," Ri Jong-hyuk, a vice president of the North's Asia-Pacific Peace Committee, told Roh at a brief meeting before the opening of an international forum in Seoul. Ri said the North Korean leader directed him to convey the message, as well as his best regards to Roh, according to presidential spokesman Yoon Tai-young.
Ri is one of seven North Korean officials on a four-day visit to the South to attend the forum commemorating the inter-Korean summit on June 15, 2000 between former South Korean President Kim Dae-jung and the North's Kim.
It is the first time that the North's leader has delivered a message to Roh since the South Korean president took office in February last year.
Roh thanked him for the message and stressed the need for the two sides to maintain confidence and their promises to implement the June 15 Joint Declaration, which laid the groundwork for inter-Korean reconciliation, Yoon said.
Roh continued his goodwill gesture to the North as he delivered a congratulatory speech at the forum, which was jointly organized by the South's Yonsei University, the Korea Institute for National Unification and the North's Institute on Unification.
"Inter-Korean cooperation will be accelerated if the North Korean nuclear issue is resolved, and we are preparing comprehensive and concrete plans for that," Roh said at the forum in the Grand Hilton Hotel in Seoul.
The president added the South would actively cooperate for the North to establish an infrastructure and enhance its industrial productivity, which would lead to epoch-making economic development of the impoverished country.
Presidential officials said Roh was reaffirming the government's intention to speed up economic cooperation with the North, which would span energy, transport, communications and modernization of production facilities.
The South will also help the North obtain international aid by normalizing relations with foreign countries and affiliating with international organizations, the officials said.
"Roh's proposal is 'comprehensive' in that it supposes cooperation covering all industries for North Korea's economic development, and it is 'specific' in that it details economic exchanges according to stages and areas in the process of resolving the nuclear issue," the presidential spokesman said.
The pledge drew particular attention because of its possible positive impact on North Korea's stance when it attends the third round of nuclear talks with South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia scheduled to take place in Beijing June 23-26.
Washington has so far insisted Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear weapons-related programs in a complete, verifiable and irreversible manner. Pyongyang says it will abandon nuclear weapons development in return for economic assistance and security assurances.
Former President Kim urged the two countries to end the dispute, which erupted in October 2002, and engage in direct negotiations.
"North Korea should make a decision which is acceptable to the world and the United States should guarantee the security of North Korea and open the way for it to advance into the international community," Kim said.
He also called on the North Korean leader to keep his promise that he would visit Seoul "at an appropriate time."
"The people in the South will warmly welcome (North Korea's National Defense Chairman) Kim to Seoul," said Kim Dae-jung, who won the 2000 Nobel Peace Prize for his contribution to inter-Korean reconciliation.
"Our people want to see the leaders of the two Koreas sit together again and discuss the cooperation, prosperity and unification of the Koreas," Kim said.
North Korean official Ri stressed that South Korea should put more weight on its relations with the North than on the half-century alliance with the United States. "The alliance is important, but the South-North relationship is more important. There is cooperation with an ally, but national cooperation is fundamental," Ri said.
During the seminar, renowned international experts pooled their wisdom on bringing about peace on the peninsula, which remains the world's last Cold War frontier.
Former U.S. Ambassador to South Korea Donald Gregg also called for direct U.S. talks with North Korea on the nuclear issue.
"The longer the U.S. refuses to enter into negotiations, the higher the price becomes for transition into this new era, while the dangerous prospect of North Korea becoming a permanent nuclear power also steadily increases," he said.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
