Asia Times: GUEST COMMENT:In answer to ''The what-if question''


	April 6, 2000	atimes.com

The Koreas

GUEST COMMENT
In answer to 'The what-if question'
By Hwal-woong Lee

Bradley Martin's article ''PYONGYANG WATCH: The what-if question'' [March 15, 2000] represents a typical pro-USFSK (US Forces in South Korea) theory which presupposes the following: 1) North Korea is a rogue regime and its leaders are villains; 2) once US troops are pulled out, the North will quickly attack the South; and 3) if attacked by the North, the South will succumb.

For an equitable assessment of what North Korea and its leaders are about, a brief account of how Korea was divided and why the North initiated the Korean War may be in order. During the 35 years following the colonization by Japan in 1910, some Koreans collaborated with the Japanese. But most Koreans refused the Japanese rule and tried to overthrow it in one way or another. These patriotic movements were split into two factions: one resorted to armed resistance and the other favored diplomatic approach. The former group, with the help of Chinese and Soviet communists, kept fighting strenuously against the Japanese until the end of World War II, whereas the latter, with some minor exceptions, gradually succumbed to, and even collaborated with, the Japanese.

With the end of World War II, the US divided the peninsula and proclaimed an anticommunist military government in the southern half. It then helped the coalition of right-wing elements and pro-Japanese collaborators to establish the Seoul government. Unable to secure a political foothold in Seoul, the left-wing elements, many of them by then sworn communists, set up the Pyongyang government with Soviet blessing. Thus, one Korea became two Koreas: one formed by anti-Japanese and the other by pro-Japanese forces.

To North Korean leaders who had fought fiercely against the Japanese, their revolution was not over until the pro-Japanese collaborators in the Seoul government were eliminated. The Korean civil war thus erupted in 1950. To call North Korean leaders villains or thugs because they initiated the Korean War is, therefore, historically inapt. They surely are enforcing dictatorship and harsh rules on their people. They certainly are engaged in weapons of mass destruction (WMD) projects while their people are starving. But how could they do otherwise if they are to defend themselves from the continuous menace of the US, the world's strongest country that had once invaded their soil with the clear purpose of exterminating them? Under such circumstances, how long could they survive if they adopted a Western-style democracy?

Will North Korea attack the South as soon as the USFSK pulls out? And will South Korea inexorably collapse when attacked by the North if the USFSK is not there? I don't think so. But I know that there are people who think so, including some negatively brainwashed South Koreans. I, therefore, admit that it is important to devise some adequate means to ease such fear in order to bring about an actual withdrawal of the USFSK.

My proposal is two pronged. The first is that the withdrawal of the USFSK should be carried out simultaneously and in line with the mutual non- aggression pledges by the two Koreas and the US, accompanied by substantial and verifiable arms reductions in the Korean peninsula, including North Korea's renunciation of its WMD projects. This will preclude the possibility of both the recurrence of conflicts on the peninsula and the escalation of an arms race between the North and South. The second is that peace and security in the post-USFSK Korean peninsula should be safeguarded and guaranteed by a regional security organization. Such an organization should be composed of the two Koreas, the US, China, Japan and Russia, with a mission to oversee and guarantee, in a multilateral setting, the peace and security not only of the Korean peninsula but also in the region as a whole.

It is fallacious to think that peace is maintained on the Korean peninsula thanks to the presence of USFSK. The truth is rather the opposite. Most of all, the presence of USFSK is very much a factor contributing to the plight of the North Korean people. It also serves as the hotbed for South Korea's political turmoil, social injustice and general corruption. Furthermore, it is the decisive factor that obstructs the opportunities for the Korean people to explore the possibility of peaceful reunification. The mere likelihood of US military intervention in case of China's use of force has been effectively discouraging the chance of talks between Beijing and Taiwan. Needless to say, the actual US military presence in the Korean peninsula could in no way act as a contributing factor to Korean reunification.

It is unrealistic to expect a sustainable peace in Korea without realizing the reunification of the country. And it is impossible to envision a permanent peace in East Asia without a sustainable peace in Korea. The US policy to serve as a guarantor of peace in East Asia, therefore, should not be implemented in a fashion counter to the cause of Koreans' long-held aspiration for reunification. A planned and phased pull-out of USFSK, accompanied by simultaneous and verifiable non-aggression pledges and arms reductions, will open the way for ''Koreans themselves to traverse to the road of peace and reunification'', as former Secretary of State James A Baker once put it. This will not necessarily deprive the US of its opportunity to play a role of guarantor of peace in East Asia. By sponsoring a regional conference of peace and security, the US will be able to secure appropriate means of re-deploying its forces as a guarantor of regional security in some parts of Asia, including Korea, with the consent of the countries concerned.

back to the top

©2000 Asia Times Online Co., Ltd.

Asia Times Online is designed and produced by Multimedia Asia Co., Ltd.

Korea Asian Sex News | Asian Sex Gazette