[KS] Re: Response to Serk-bae Suh's Comments

[Steven Park]

Mr. Serk-bae Suh,
Hello.  My name is Steve Park.  I'm a grad student at UC Berkeley.  I 
read your comments and fell compelled to make a response.

The U.S. government is not aggressive against North Korea because it 
has little alternative... North Korea holds South Korea hostage.  Any 
military action prompted by the U.S. could potentially escalate to 
full-scale war on the peninsula.  In this case, yes, the U.S. would 
feel the pain (as it did in 1950).  But, the real "loser" in this 
scenario would be South Korea.  Hence, the South Korean government's 
strong efforts to lobby the U.S. government to forego a military option 
against North Korea.  The U.S. government understands this.  Perhaps 
more now than in 1994.

I cannot (in good faith) defend the actions or the foreign policy of 
the U.S. government in all cases, but I would like to mention that the 
U.S. government, like all others, conducts itself along mostly realist 
lines, that is, along lines of national self-interest (with the 
exception of certain exceptional presidents like Woodrow Wilson).  
However, there are more than a few cases when the national interests of 
the U.S. happen to coincide with other countries in particular, or the 
rest of mankind in general.  The elimination of terrorism and the 
establishment of liberal democracies will not only make it safer for 
the U.S., but for all 191 countries.  Certainly, South Korea didn't 
have any oil when the U.S. (or should I say U.N.) defended her in 1950. 
  God's benevolence didn't save her from war then.  No... it was 
containing or rolling back communism then (Korea, Vietnam, Cuba), and 
now, it's stopping terrorism (Afghanistan, Iraq).

And remember, South Korea's foreign policy isn't any nobler or 
grander... their foreign policy is based as much on the national 
interest.  Take for example the U.S. economic sanctions imposed on 
Libya (because they had been state sponsors of terrorism).  To take 
advantage of the economic vacuum, South Korea actively conducts 
business with that state (to the chagrin of the U.S. government).

At the end of the day, it's the U.S. vision for a safer democracy that 
compels the U.S. to reform Iraq into a liberal democracy.  While the 
vision may have taken an authoritarian detour for some four decades in 
South Korea, there too, liberal democracy has sprung up to the 
betterment of its citizens (who now have a GNP per capita that is about 
16 times greater).  Could that have been possible without a 
"belligerent" U.S.?  And, I see that you are studying (or studied) at 
UCLA.  Not too many students from North Korea get to leave the country 
to study...

To close, the U.S. will continue to work with South Korea (who I feel 
is a strong ally), along with other member nations in the region, in 
defusing the current nuclear crisis.  But, I'd ask you to remember that 
the sole reason why the military option is not feasible there is 
because it would be so horrible to South Korea and her citizens.

Thank you for hearing me out and I look forward to your response.

Regards,
Steve Park

--------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 26 Sep 2003 23:54:48 -0700
> From: Serk-Bae Suh <serk at ucla.edu>
> Subject: Re: [KS] Jong-il Personality Cult
> To: Korean Studies Discussion List <Koreanstudies at koreaweb.ws>
> Message-ID: <5.2.0.9.2.20030926224804.00b534c8 at mail.ucla.edu>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> Mr. Brwon
>
> Let me thank you for your illuminating explanation.
> I appreciate it.
>
> I also would like to agree with you to the degree that the "you" 
> (since you
> address the U.S. government as yours) have been less bellicose with 
> North
> Korea since 1953 compared to "your" aggression against other countries
> challenging "you" such as Cuba, Vietnam, Iran, Iraq, Panama, and so on.
>
> I am just wondering whether it is because North Korea has been armed 
> with
> military capability to retaliate or because it does not have oil or any
> other valuable natural resources.
>
> If the former is the case, then it seems that "you" have been 
> rewarding the
> country for its military capability by tolerating it despite its 
> hostility
> while punishing those without the same degree of military prowess. 
> Then who
> can blame Kim Jongil for developing nuclear weapons?
>
> If the latter is the case, I thank God who saves the peninsular from
> another war by having created it as non-oil-producing land although 
> you,
> sir do not appear to be happy with it.
>
> sincerely,
>
> serk-bae suh
>