[KS] Re: Still Invaded Economically and Culturally

[kushibo]

Rüdiger Frank wrote:
> At 16:08 27.07.00 -0700, you wrote:
>>Facts #3 and #4 (see below) seem more opinion than fact.  The U.S.
>>dominates the region's politics more than Japan, China, or Russia.  It is
>>the strongest military power and has had the most direct influence over
>>past South Korean political developments.  It is far from some distant,
>>neutral party.  Therefore, it is not an obvious fact to me that a unified
>>Korea would want to maintain any close formal alliance with the U.S. (as
>>opposed to peaceful relations) much less encourage or desire a continuing
>>U.S. military presence.
>
> ...and the neighbors would hardly accept a continued US military presence
> in a unified Korea. Especially the PRC would be challenged, a risk that for
> my own life's sake I hope nobody will take.

Is this the same PRC that doesn't take kindly to the USA's stance on Taiwan?
The same PRC that is growing increasingly reliant on US markets? The US
remaining in Korea, reunification or not, is a maintenance of the status
quo. Moving bases into North Korea, I imagine, would be something China
might take offense to, but keeping Yongsan, Osan, Kunsan, and Chinhae open
wouldn't be much of a big deal. They might state their objections, but I
doubt they will do anything other than talk.

> On the other hand, when the
> Americans retreat, Japan would have to rearm since in that case it looses
> its forward-defense by the US troops on the Korean PI. Imagine what the
> rest of Asia will think about this

Precisely. China, a victim of not-terribly-distant Japanese militarism, may
see the US military's presence as a necessary evil.

> and how it will affect the image of
> Japanes products... After all, at least under the present conditions (which
> might change) there must be kind of a stabilizing factor in the peninsula.
> On the other hand, the USA will not be acceptable to many,

The USA is already not acceptable to many, yet they remain. The USA has a
nasty habit of not letting other countries dictate its military policy.

> and I doubt that
> Korea would like to have a continued foreign troop presence after
> unification at all.

I totally disagree. From Kim Daejung to generals-turned-president, every
South Korean leader has expressed an interest in having the US maintain its
military presence *after* reunification.

> I don't see any solution, and so my conclusion is that
> there is no unification in sight.

Reunification being held up by the US military? You're not a college student
who's been neglecting his studies at Yonsei, by any chance, are you?  :)

> If there is no question, no answer is
> needed. We have a nice little balance in North East Asia, everybody is
> quite comfortable with it, except the Koreans (?),

I don't think the Japanese with North Korean missiles flying over their
territory are happy with it. I don't think US citizens in Alaska and Hawaii
(where those missiles may reach) are happy with it, I don't think the US
gov't in general (which doesn't want a cash-desperate NK selling said
missiles to Mideast states) is quite comfortable with it, either.

> so none of the regional
> powers will be stupid enough to let any destabilizing and risky change
> happen. I don't say I like it, but this is like the whole matter looks to me.

North Korea's cash-hungry status has made them do things that are
destabilizing the comfortable little arrangement. Reunification dominated by
an economic-oriented (as opposed to military-oriented) south becomes
preferable to the status quo. Ergo, no need to hold it up (if some one or
some ones have been holding it up).

K U S H I B O


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%