Realism Requires That S. Korea Support the US

[Japher]

That's because they all want that land.

[Drake Tungsten]

North Korea has more or less stated, "No America? No negotiations!"

I believe the South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese don't see much point in multilateral negotiations without North Korea's attendance.

God forbid someone in the region grows a sack and calls the North Korean's bluff...

[nationalist]

No surprise.

Realism also dicates that France, Germany, Russia, and China oppose the U.S. I can't believe how many iditios are fooled into thinking that the decisions of the anti-coalition countries are based on some higher calling for "peace and harmony in the world". Countries either support or don't support the war out of their own reasons. France, Russia, Germany, and China want to cut the U.S. down a peg to increase their power on the world sage, then use the U.N. to justify their motives. I don't blame them. If France wanted to do something despite the Security Council it would, and the U.S. would hide its opposition behind the U.N. That's just how politics works. I'm not surprised. I'm not fooled, either.

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by DanS
Our Asian allies, including Australia,

The state of geography education in America......

[DanS]

Australia is an Asian power.

[Getao321]

An asian power in its own Australian continent controlled by white settlers

[Ned]

I didn't know about Bush cutting off negotiations with NK without informing SK. What negotiations?

As to the SK forces reporting into a US commander, how else to you think things should work in Korea? The US reporting into a SK general? Two independent commands?

The mere fact that US forces are there dictates that a unified command structure. We are technically still at war with NK.

From what I saw of the statement by Bush, he did apologize on behalf of the United States. However, I can seen some easing of the rules in time of "peace" concerning trials of US soldiers where a Korean is a victim.

Axis of evil: Kim certainly fits that bill, doesn't he? Now, as to any use of force against NK - currently Bush wants to solve the crisis diplomatically. There is no guarantee that a Bush successor will not want to use force. That is what Clinton wanted to do, remember? Regarding a 180 - when did Bush ever advocate the use of force? He simply does not want to rule it out because if you do, you lose all leverage during negotiations.

The fact that SK does not support the coalition efforts in Iraq is remarkable given the history of SK and its continuing need to rely on the US for security. If you are not willing to help us, why in the world should we be willing to help you? Public opinion is a two-way street. The US public opinion may be highly negative on future support for SK if SK is perceived to be in the anti-US camp.

Finally, insulting an american president regardless of party is certain to alienate half of the american people, the people who voted for that president. In actual fact, however, it will probably alienate a lot more than 50% of the US. France, for example, is now disliked by around 80% of the american people, IIRC.

[Q Classic]

what he means is more "asia-pacific". korea, japan, china and australia all belong to a more asia-pacific rim power region, as opposed to "southeast asia", "south asia", "central asia", and "middle east/west asia".

If this is true, then why have the South Koreans been so unreceptive to Bush's efforts to solve the North Korean problem in a multilateral fashion? Bush is offering South Korea a place at the big table, but they don't seem to want it. I have a feeling that they would rather see America continue to bear the costs of placating North Korea while they sit back and play the good neighbor...

multiple reasons. one is because in the past, and even now, the way the us has treated skorea in negotiations has been in a patronizing manner; in fact, in resolving the korean war, the united states did not offer south korea a place at the negotiation table, while its counter part, the soviet union, had the grace to bring north korea to the table. while this may have allowed the talks to much smoother than they could have, slights like that are remembered. bush has also made clear what he expects from the region in their behavior towards nkorea. instead of allowing a more constructive discussion forum for peace talks, bush has stated he expects skorea, japan, and china to all come down hard on the crazy man of the region. were this crazy man to go completely nuts, america would be the one with the least at stake.
furthermore, i would like to point out that although the united states did fund a good portion of the aid to nkorea, skorea, japan, and china all had extremely large shares as well. so this entire business about america bearing the costs is a rhetorical fallacy.

granted, the nkorean emphasis that the talks must be with the us and only with the us doesn't help either~

[Q Classic]

I didn't know about Bush cutting off negotiations with NK without informing SK. What negotiations?

i never said negotiations. i said talks. that, believe it or not, is a big difference. the us and nkorea were finally opening up to each other and there was a marked thaw in the relationship towards the end of the clinton administration. those were talks.

As to the SK forces reporting into a US commander, how else to you think things should work in Korea? The US reporting into a SK general? Two independent commands?

a 600k skorean active military reporting to a us commander who only really has control over 37k active troops? how could that NOT feel like a slight to a nation that has had image troubles for a century?
i myself would prefer two independent commands that are joined by an allied command. it wouldn't be that much different, truth be told, to the current situation, but it's for appearances--and appearances count.

The mere fact that US forces are there dictates that a unified command structure. We are technically still at war with NK.
From what I saw of the statement by Bush, he did apologize on behalf of the United States. However, I can seen some easing of the rules in time of "peace" concerning trials of US soldiers where a Korean is a victim.

easing of what rules? there was no "easing of rules". the simple truth is that american soldiers accused of crimes committed in skorea have never been, nor will ever be, with the current agreement, subject to skorean law. that too gets a lot of citizens' goats.

Axis of evil: Kim certainly fits that bill, doesn't he?

oh, please. did i ever say that he wasn't an evil person? he, his father, mao, and stalin are all to blame for the ****hole that's nkorea since 1953.

Now, as to any use of force against NK - currently Bush wants to solve the crisis diplomatically. There is no guarantee that a Bush successor will not want to use force. That is what Clinton wanted to do, remember? Regarding a 180 - when did Bush ever advocate the use of force? He simply does not want to rule it out because if you do, you lose all leverage during negotiations.

bush never advocated the use of force. nor did clinton. at least not publicly. clinton, in fact, wanted to take a much harsher line with nkorea in response to the 1994 crisis, but it was the wag-the-dog syndrome coupled with carter's entry into the arena that led to the agreed framework, and later, a slight thaw in relations. bush didn't continue to allow such a thaw to occur; and so the president of skorea at the time, KIM daejung, was left high and dry with his sunshine policy, which clinton had questioned but acceeded to.
besides, advocating the use of force on the korean peninsula will result in two things: one, nkorea will feel even more backed into a corner, which isn't good for anybody in the region; two, erode much of the trust and faith in a good situation between the us, japan, and skorea.

The fact that SK does not support the coalition efforts in Iraq is remarkable given the history of SK and its continuing need to rely on the US for security. If you are not willing to help us, why in the world should we be willing to help you? Public opinion is a two-way street. The US public opinion may be highly negative on future support for SK if SK is perceived to be in the anti-US camp.

ned, have you actually read the article in question above? have you actually consulted the list of nations included in the "coalition of the willing"?
skorea's government has always supported action in iraq.
the populace's unrest is not so much directed against the us because of iraq, but because of the us' seeming disinterest with the situation in nkorea. that's what scares the **** out of most of the skoreans, the fact that bush's action in iraq just might be contagious--and lead to action in nkorea, which is what nobody in their right minds wants.

Finally, insulting an american president regardless of party is certain to alienate half of the american people, the people who voted for that president. In actual fact, however, it will probably alienate a lot more than 50% of the US. France, for example, is now disliked by around 80% of the american people, IIRC.

the skorean government has never insulted bush. in fact, the only major policy disagreement the two nations have is regarding--surprise, surprise!--NKOREA.
the populace of skorea is again, split. you do have many coming out and supporting the us, and just as many against it--it is no different than here, where you have many of the more extreme anti-war movements bashing bush as often as they can.

so ned, before you condemn an entire nation, actually try and see that skorea, being a viable democracy, indeed actually has a more fractious public than the united states. not all of them are against bush. the government itself has always supported most of bush's foreign policies.

[Ned]

Q Cubed. It would have been nice if SK contributed even a brigade of its elite troops. After all, Korea helped us in a major way during the Vietnam war when the merits of the war were far less clear than the war against Saddam Hussein.

As to the joint command issue, you still have to realize that the US is not committing only 37,000 troops. It is committing its entire military might to the defense of South Korea. This is not like NATO when each country commits a few units and there is a joint command structure. When the day comes that Korea is reunited, we will withdraw and Korea will truly be "independent."

Of course, we could withdraw now if South Korea asks. But, as the title of this thread shows, the government of South Korea thinks that is not in South Korea's best interests.

As to the anti-American students and war protesters, in one aspect this shows that democracy is really working in South Korea. But on the other hand, it would be nice if pro-American students or workers also demostrated as well. Otherwise, we get an impression here that the whole of South Korea is anti-American, even if it is not true.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by DanS
Australia is an Asian power.

It's not Asian and it's not a power.

[Q Classic]

i agree about the elite troops bit. it would be nice. but with a situation as hotly debated as this, especially with a political climate that is quite tenuous, anybody suggesting that would no doubt find his political career in serious jeopardy. furthermore, korea knows now that its troops are well trained and modernized, which was one of the major reasons why it sent two divisions into vietnam-- it was a test, of sorts.
besides, the merits of that war were far more clear to korea than it might seem--it, being an asian "democracy" (at the time) saved by america, naturally it would want to help another asian "democracy" not fall to a communist regime.

honestly, i have a hard time believing that the us would withdraw once korea unified. the united states' next major "strategic competitor", or, as realism says, rival, is china. to give up such a prime location would be foolish.
there's no reason, per se, for us to have troops in japan, in other words. yet they're there. it's less for japan's defense and more to keep pressure on china.

the pro-american people do demonstrate. in the printed version of the nytimes a several weeks ago, there was a photo depicting one such event. however, i cannot find it in the online nytimes, and had i known i'd need that picture, i wouldn't have recycled the paper.

[Gatekeeper]

What are the odds that everyone could sign back on to the 1994 Agreed Framework (quietly, if necessary, to save face), and NK could resign the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and let the U.N. inspectors back? I ask this because, frankly, I think that's the only doable thing; anything else, especially if it involves further concessions from the 1994 deal, would come across as a victory for the tactics employed by NK, and might encourage them to pull yet another stunt a few years down the road (or sooner).

Gatekeeper