[KS] Re: Korean U.S. Alliance

[Michael Goodwin]

Rupert Atkinson wrote:

> <snip>the best way to maintain the alliance would be to maintain the
> threat not a good prospect for progress, but maybe a rational choice for
> 'some' policy makers...

My sense is that Rupert correctly condenses the (tacit) U.S. position -past and
present!

According to Oberdorfer, for instance, no one in the White House/Pentagon/State
Department would take calls from Jimmy Carter when he returned from Pyongyang in
1994. (Were they irritated that the President had dissolved the threatening
conditions? Of course they were.)
What's more, real progress on reunification would seem necessarily to lead to even
further dissolution of the "threat" and that could spell "O-U-T" for the U.S.

Yet even if some normalcy is achieved between the PDRK and the ROK, then the State
Department will still have their ol' standby concept "stability". "Instead of
demobilizing after the end of the Cold War," writes Chalmers Johnson in his new
book, "the United States imprudently committed itself to maintaining a global
empire." Why? WEll, officially, "stability"!

But regional stability -and trade interests- are just two of the more prominent
points on an infinite sliding scale of possible justifications for the continuing
military presence in East Asia. Others are the guarantee of weapons exports markets,
the means to directly influence sovereign foreign governments, opportunities for
live weapons testing, and the lack of interest in --or distaste for-- confronting
history characteristic of "official" public memory in the U.S. since at least 1899.

> Besides all that, President Kim Dae-jung has done pretty well - with no outside
> help - and should be congratulated.

No outside help? No outside help?

> Indeed, the fact that no outside (foreign) help was required could be interpreted
> as - none was necessary, and 'any' would have been a hinderance.  Perhaps Korea
> will be able to solve her own problems

Of course Korea can manage it's own affairs! The very fact that a "perhaps" could
ever have crept into thinking on this matter is itself extremely disturbing. To use
a metaphor --one that may strike some as a bit paternalistic but is, I think,
nonetheless illustrative: Korea may be a somewhat dysfunctional student
--economically, juridically, etc.-- but who has been their primary teacher in the
modern era? Under whom have they apprenticed --willingly or not? While some Koreans
--though certainly not all-- have been struggling in the modern era to preserve
elements of their past ways they feel are truly worthy of being saved who have they
most sought to emulate? Not China, not Japan certainly! Dysfunctional teachers will
have an impact on their students.

> ... But how long will KDJ remain on the scene? The personality factor could be
> almost as strong in the South as it is in the North.  I predict that as long as
> he is around, the ball will continue to roll ... but after that is anyone's
> guess.

I would like to hear what others think on this issue. Do you really think it is
primarily a matter of personality? What about KDJ's actual intentions? Can you
envision, for example, Lee Hoi Chang genuinely pursuing inter-Korean peace as a
primary goal? Or am I naive to think this was even KDJ's intention.

Mike Goodwin
(Toronto, CA & Greenville, NC)

N.B. Last week my spouse accepted a new position at Texas A&M University in College
Station, Texas. If anyone has any experience or knowledge about Texas A&M --or the
town- I'd enjoy hearing from you. Thanks.



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