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

Serk-Bae Suh serk at ucla.edu
Sun Sep 28 03:52:01 EDT 2003


Dear Mr. Park

Thank you for sharing your thoughts on my comments.

I absolutely agree with you that the South Korean government's foreign 
policy is not noble and grand.
Just one example is that it is now contemplating sending combat troops to 
Iraq for its "national interest."

Concerning the U.S. hesitation in starting a new war against North Korea, I 
guess you are partly right but also it's geographical and political 
closeness to Soviet Russia and China might explain the U.S.'s reluctance to 
start another war during the cold war era in addition to "its sincere 
consideration of the safety of South Korea."

After the fall of the Soviet Block, it seems to me that whether the target 
country has oil or not is one of the main factors to condition the U.S. 
foreign policy.

About my studying in the U.S. as a South Korean national, I am not sure 
whether you suggest that I should be grateful for all the U.S. government's 
aggressive interventions over the world or just for its intervention in the 
Korean peninsular.  If the first is your suggestion, I would rather choose 
to forgo the privilege of studying in the U.S. than follow your advice.

If the second is what you meant, I still don't have to grovel to express my 
gratitude to the U.S. government for saving South Korea from Communism. 
For, as you wrote, the U.S. sets its foreign policy for its own 
self-interest (it is quite doubtful that the U.S. government's aggressive 
interventions can serve people of the United States though). If the U.S.'s 
intervention in the peninsular 53 years ago was a result of its cunning 
calculation for its self-interest, why should I thank it?

Thank you

serk-bae suh


At 10:51 AM 9/27/2003 -0700, you wrote:
>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
>





More information about the Koreanstudies mailing list