|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
 Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:32 pm Post subject: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
 |
|
While the United States, Japan and Australia are forming a security network, so are China, Russia and Central Asia.
In trying to be a "balancer" (a strategy which worked out so well for Queen Min), Korea may find itself the odd man out, all alone with no allies.
http://english.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2007090764258
| Quote: |
Has Korea Lost Its Way?
�Trains heading for different destinations are moving quicker than expected. If they start their engines slowly, passengers can decide which ones to take after finding out where they are heading for. But if they leave right away, passengers who did not decide where to go will be at a loss,� said an expert from a Washington-based think tank on Thursday, drawing an analogy to describe Korea�s current situation regarding the changing Asia-Pacific security landscape.
As so-called �maritime vs. continental� competing forces have been formed in a short period of time, Korea has to make a difficult decision. While the United States, Japan and Australia are forming a security cooperation network, China, Russia and Central Asia are strengthening their military cooperation ties as well.
Critics point out that if South Korea thinks within the framework of the �balancer� Northeast Asia promoted by South Korea�s president Roh Moo-hyun in March 2005, it will be unable to respond actively to the changing situation.
Maritime vs. continental forces-
U.S. president George W. Bush, a big fan of biking, rode a bike on Thursday when he visited Sydney to attend the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Summit. Australian Prime Minister John Howard rode a bike with him side by side. The two heads of state enjoyed a cruise in the port of Sydney and had dinner together.
While they showed their special friendship all day long, President Bush promised that the U.S. would provide cutting-edge weapons technology to Australia. In response, Prime Minister Howard proposed that Australia would offer supply bases for rescue aid and human resources in the Asian region to the U.S.
On Saturday, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will attend his nation�s first three-way security talks. They are expected to talk about how to solidify security relations with each other. The Japanese government will propose to hold the three-way talks regularly.
Along with India and Singapore, the three countries have begun a joint naval exercise in the Indian Ocean since Tuesday. This is the largest-ever scale exercise in the region, including three airplane carriers, 25 warships, and 100 fighters.
In response to the move, China and Russia began a joint military exercise with four Central Asian countries at the Ural Mountains, Russia from August 9 through 17, 2007.
Where is Korea?�
Several diplomatic sources said on Thursday, �During the preparation for the joint naval exercise, the U.S. and Japan did not ask Korea about participation.� They also added that in the process of forming their three-way security alliance, they did not ask Korea to join.
The official purpose of the naval exercise is to stop the activities of pirate ships and block access to weapons of mass destruction in the Strait of Malacca, which accounts for 30 percent of world trade, and one quarter of the world�s oil trade. Experts say that Korea had a reason to join the exercise because its economy is heavily dependent on safety in the Malacca Straits.
A Korean government official said, �(The absence of a request to join the alliance) is not because Korea�s relations with the U.S. and Japan are strained, but because solidifying the three-way alliance is the most important task at the moment. So they are not considering drawing in other countries such as Korea or Canada.�
Another official said that South Korea�s basic stance is to �wait and see.�
Within the Korean government, many people believe that the U.S. is the only solution to the survival of Korea, considering China�s undemocratic nature and its historical track record of serving as a regional superpower. However, it is not easy to express such an opinion publicly.
This is largely because South Korean President Roh�s �balancer of Northeast Asia� theory is still taking hold. Some people strongly argue that joining the security alliance against China does not bring any real benefit to Korea.
Peter Brooks, Senior Fellow at the Heritage Foundation, said on his report on Thursday that since China�s moves are totally unpredictable, it is quite natural for other democratic countries to create a new security order by cooperating on a variety of issues ranging from politics to economy and security.
Aside from the question of its righteousness, the point is that the realignment of the security alliances in the region is proceeding much faster than expectations.
A Korean government official said, �Until the beginning of this year, we expected that fortifying the three-way alliance would take some time and that India�s involvement would be very low. We thought we could just welcome the move, but things are changing rapidly.� |
https://www.koreaherald.co.kr/SITE/data/html_dir/2007/09/05/200709050067.asp
| Quote: |
U.S., Japan, Australia push triangular alliance
As the United States, Japan and Australia are expediting moves to build a trilateral military alliance, South Korean experts are concerned that Seoul may be getting sidelined in an evolving security partnership in the Pacific.
The leaders of the three countries are scheduled to attend a security summit this Saturday on the sidelines of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard on Sunday said that his summit with U.S. President George W. Bush and Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will deal with common security issues. He called the meeting "an expression of the commonality of interests that the three Pacific democracies have."
They are also expected to discuss North Korea's nuclear disarmament and China's growing military power, reports said.
"Washington is seeking to construct a trilateral strategic security relationship in the Asia-Pacific region among the economically developed countries of the United States, Japan and Australia, which share common values of freedom, democracy and market economies," said professor Yun Duk-min of the Institute for Foreign Affairs and National Security.
After the 9/11 terrorist attacks, the trio have strengthened their joint responsibility in regard to international security through such operations as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Since last March, the U.S., Japanese and Australian foreign ministers have held a series of strategic talks.
The three countries have no formal three-way alliance arrangement yet, but are working on expanding their bilateral security agreements to encompass trilateral mandates.
In line with the moves, Japan and Australia recently made the Japan-Australia Joint Security Declaration, which essentially embodies comprehensive cooperation on security matters, such as measures regarding terrorism, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, and humanitarian aid.
The United States and Australia will also reportedly outline a new security agreement later this week to allow the Australian military more access to secret U.S. weapons technology.
U.S. Ambassador to Australia Robert McCallum said the development would allow U.S. and Australian forces to cooperate more closely on military operations from the Middle East to the Pacific.
The strengthened trilateral security cooperation between those three countries has the purpose of checking China and jointly tackling the spread of terrorism and WMDs, experts say.
"The biggest reason is the rise of China. With the world's greatest population reaching 1.4 billion, China's rise as an economic and military superpower is the greatest change to East Asia's regional order," Yun said.
China has long worried that the triangular alliance is targeted to frustrate its ambitions, and has sought enhanced military ties with Russia and Central Asian countries.
Last week, the Beijing government expressed uneasiness over the planned three-way meeting this week of the leaders of Washington, Tokyo and Canberra, saying the meeting's agenda was not sufficiently transparent.
However, Prime Minister Howard said the three-way security talks are not aimed at China.
"It's not directed at anybody. It's certainly not directed at the Chinese," Howard said at a news conference.
The three allies are also seeking to expand their alliance to include India as a fourth axis covering the India Ocean.
Last month, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe proposed forming a coalition of democracies, including the United States, Japan, Australia and India. The proposal appears to be a countermeasure against the rapid emergence of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, an alliance of China, Russia and Central Asian countries, analysts said.
South Korea's stake
Such a U.S. alliance plan deepens Seoul's concerns that it is losing ground in Washington's strategy in the Asia-Pacific.
"Mainly due to its strategic rifts with Seoul, Washington would have decided to further intensify its alliance with Tokyo to make Japan its number one partner in the Northeast Asian region. The United States has already made a beginning move into a Washington-Tokyo-Canberra triangular alliance for security in the West Pacific, excluding South Korea," said Kim Jong-ha, a defense strategy professor at Hannam University.
But there are other factors to consider. In the 2006 U.S. Quadrennial Defense Review, the United States designated four strategic regions in the world where it should deter conflicts: Northeast Asia, the East Asian littoral region (which refers to Pacific shore nations and maritime defense), the Middle East, and Europe. The mandate for Northeast Asia was allotted to U.S. forces in South Korea and Japan.
Meanwhile, for the East Asian littoral region, Washington is pursuing a triangular alliance with Japan and Australia.
Cho Seong-ryoul, director of the Institute for National Security Strategy, affiliated to the National Intelligence Service, said South Korea's exclusion is not because of rifts or a weakening of the Seoul-Washington alliance.
Cho said South Korea's exclusion is mainly because it is located too far from the East Asian littoral region. In addition, he cited South Korea's lack of sufficient naval capabilities to cover the region.
Currently, South Korea is looking to enhance its stake in East Asian littoral security.
South Korea's plan to build a blue-water (deep sea) navy is part of its efforts to play a role in the littoral region. To extend the radius of its operations, the South Korean Navy is planning to build a strategic mobile fleet, and construct a naval base on the southern island of Jeju.
"The United States, Japan and Australia are requesting the participation of nations that share common values of freedom, democracy and market economies. (The United States) is in the middle of seeking South Korea's and India's cooperation," said professor Yun Duk-min of the IFANS.
"Whether or not South Korea will be able to participate in the security cooperation among East Asian countries that share its values will depend on whether or not we are able to form a consensus for a future East Asian security framework with these nations," Yun said.
Korea-U.S.-Japan alliance
Experts say Washington may want to build a trilateral alliance with Seoul and Tokyo for its Northeast Asian strategy, which is seen as an optimal framework for the trio to maintain regional security.
But most experts rebutted the idea as unfeasible, citing strained relations between South Korea and Japan.
"A triangular alliance among South Korea, the United States and Japan won't be feasible in Northeast Asia. Seoul and Tokyo will maintain only limited security cooperation due to numerous practical constraints," said Lee Sang-hyun, director of Security Studies at the Sejong Institute, a civilian think tank.
"A NATO-like collective alliance system is far from emerging in this region," he said.
Differing views on China will also impede the triangular military ties, experts said. The United States and Japan are wary of the rise of China, but South Korea can't help but to at least partly accept China's emergence due to its geographic location and China's influence on North Korea, they said.
During President Bush's first term, the Bush administration planned to upgrade its alliance with Japan to cover the "arc of instability" region ranging from Central Asia and the Middle East to the Indian Ocean. Under the plan, a U.S. Army UEY (Unit of Employment Y) would be located in Japan to lead UEXs (Unit of Employment X) in South Korea and other Pacific region locations.
As a result, South Korea's UEX would join the main U.S.-Japan alliance as an affiliate.
The United States and Japan have been strengthening their almost half-century alliance, in conjunction with a U.S. troop realignment in Japan. The U.S. Forces Japan plans to reshuffle the presence of its 50,000 troops to cope with new security challenges in the East Asian region. The USFJ transformation is also intertwined with its move toward establishing a more united command structure with Japan's Self-Defense Forces, which will become the "axis of the U.S. power projection in East Asia to maintain regional stability and security," according to a document from a U.S. consulate office.
Experts say the U.S. plan was designed with Taiwan and North Korea in mind, and was also the basis of U.S. strategy to contain China's rise.
The United States aimed to encircle China through alliances with China's neighbors under the containment policy. The U.S. military is already deployed in Central Asia, west of China, in the nations of Afghanistan and Kazakhstan. The United States also sought to enhance military cooperation with India, Vietnam and Mongolia for this strategic goal, according to the experts.
However, the United States scrapped the plan in the face of opposition from Seoul and Tokyo. The Seoul government was concerned about the South Korea-U.S. alliance's subordination to the U.S.-Japan alliance. It also refused to accept the U.S. strategy to contain China.
Meanwhile, Tokyo protested, citing the so-called "Far East" clause that limits the mandate of the U.S.-Japan alliance to Japan and its waters.
"Thus, the second-term Bush administration ameliorated its hostility a bit in dealing with China," Cho Seong-ryoul said.
The United States also changed its plan for locating a UEY in Japan, he said. Instead, it decided to transform the 8th Army headquarters stationed in South Korea into a UEY to cover the Pacific region, according to Cho.
The U.S. military currently has six field army units worldwide. In accordance with the Global (Defense) Posture Review, it now plans to reorganize them into five regional army headquarters that will cover the U.S. mainland, the Pacific, the Middle East, the Americas and Africa.
The U.S. military has not yet decided whether to relocate the 8th Army headquarters, but Daegu or Hawaii are being considered as possible locations for the unit.
"In the new plan, the United States appears to have restored South Korea's position in its regional strategy. The decision has partly addressed Seoul's concerns that an upgraded U.S.-Japan alliance would subordinate the Korea-U.S. alliance," Cho said.
Meanwhile, South Korea needs to expand its military cooperation, although a formal military alliance is impossible, experts say.
They note the organic connection between U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Japan under the U.S. defense commitment to the Korean Peninsula. If hostility breaks out on the peninsula, the current joint war scenario of Seoul and Washington requires mobilization of U.S. troops in Japan and logistical support from USFJ forces.
The U.S. military maintains the 8th Army and 7th Air Force in South Korea, and operates the U.S. 5th Air Force, the 7th Fleet and the III Marine Expeditionary Force in Japan.
Currently, the United Nations Command in Korea links U.S. troop operations in South Korea and Japan. The UNC, a 16-member unified command structure for the multinational military forces supporting South Korea, maintains seven rear bases in Japan. In case of fighting on the peninsula, the UNC is to operate as a "force provider" for the defense of Korea by using the forces of member nations.
The rear bases are located on Honshu (Camp Zama, Yokota Air Base, and Yokosuka Naval Base), Kyushu (Sasebo Naval Base), and Okinawa (Kadena Air Base, Futenma Marine Corps Air Station, White Beach Naval Facility). The use of the UNC bases is governed by a status of forces agreement between the UNC and the Japanese government.
However, if a peace system is established on the Korean Peninsula, the UNC would be disbanded.
"Discussion about the creation of a peace system is expected to loom given the recent developments in the six-party nuclear talks. If the UNC is disbanded, the United States will lose a strategic loop that connects the U.S. Forces Korea and U.S. Forces Japan," said Cho Seong-ryoul.
"The deployment of USFJ forces to South Korea in case of contingencies will be hampered with the loss of the UNC," Cho said.
Cha Du-hyeon of the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses also agreed that Seoul should quickly fasten ties with Washington, ahead of future dismantlement of the UNC.
He also stressed that Seoul and Tokyo need to appropriately coordinate their bilateral security cooperation.
By Jin Dae-woong
([email protected])
2007.09.05 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
hubba bubba
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:41 pm Post subject: Re: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
|
|
I think the Korean dogs have aligned themselves with the Taliban, right?
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
This is largely because South Korean President Roh�s �balancer of Northeast Asia� theory is still taking hold. Some people strongly argue that joining the security alliance against China does not bring any real benefit to Korea.
|
Uhh, say what? Don't they know China would roll in here quicker than you could say "Tibet"? Such ungrateful, shallow and short sighted "allies". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mercury
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Pusan
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Actually korea is making its own triangle with the following powers:
CEBU
DOKDO Island
SOUTH KOREA
It will be known as the ' Sparkling triangle of Asia'. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
IncognitoHFX
Joined: 06 May 2007
Location: Yeongtong, Suwon
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:03 pm Post subject: Re: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| U.S., Japan, Australia push triangular alliance |
Well, look at the picture. If South Korea were included it'd be a really disportionate triangle. Its imperative that the triangular alliance looks like a very sturdy, reliable triangle, not a flimsy mishapen one. Hence South Korea not being included. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Troll_Bait
Joined: 04 Jan 2006
Location: [T]eaching experience doesn't matter much. -Lee Young-chan (pictured)
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
|
|
| hubba bubba wrote: |
I think the Korean dogs have aligned themselves with the Taliban, right?
| The Dong-A Ilbo wrote: |
This is largely because South Korean President Roh�s �balancer of Northeast Asia� theory is still taking hold. Some people strongly argue that joining the security alliance against China does not bring any real benefit to Korea.
|
Uhh, say what? Don't they know China would roll in here quicker than you could say "Tibet"? Such ungrateful, shallow and short sighted "allies". |
On the one hand, I can sympathize with Korea not wanting to poke a growing dragon with a sharp stick.
On the other hand, the last time they tried to be a "balancer of Northeast Asia," their queen was assassinated and they got colonized by Japan. No allies means no one you can run to when somebody starts kicking you around. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Matt_22
Joined: 22 Nov 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:23 pm Post subject: Re: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| U.S., Japan, Australia push triangular alliance |
awesome. perhaps my three favorite countries.
group hug! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morton
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Looks to me like the US are dealing with the big boys first. I'm sure they'll get around to Korea eventually but just now they need to rope in some real muscle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
hubba bubba
Joined: 24 Oct 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Japan has no offensive capability, right? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
reactionary
Joined: 22 Oct 2006
Location: korreia
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Japan was in the news recently building some new big ships...They might be trying to get a military going. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
laogaiguk
Joined: 06 Dec 2005
Location: somewhere in Korea
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| hubba bubba wrote: |
| Japan has no offensive capability, right? |
It does. It just can't use them due to the constitution, which could be ammended  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
shifdog
Joined: 20 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Maybe Korea is re instituting it's policy of paying tribute (starting with the Taliban). In that case it's not necessary to join the alliance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
indiercj
Joined: 30 Jan 2003
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:33 pm Post subject: Re: Will Korea be the odd man out with no allies? |
|
|
| Troll_Bait wrote: |
| On the other hand, the last time they tried to be a "balancer of Northeast Asia," their queen was assassinated and they got colonized by Japan. No allies means no one you can run to when somebody starts kicking you around. |
And it is 1907.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Unposter
Joined: 04 Jun 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Do you think that it would be in the U.S.'s interest to isolate South Korea or to let it be taken over by the Chinese, regardless of how "ungrateful" the South Koreans seem?
No.
There is an American - South Korean alliance and the U.S. has promised to defend South Korea if attacked.
Just because South Korea is not part of an alliance with Japan (Hmm...Hmm) and Australia does not mean they don't have agreements with the U.S.
If anything South Korea has the U.S. just where they want them, the U.S. more worried about South Korea than South Korea is worried about the U.S. South Korea gets almost everything it wants from the U.S. and the U.S. is getting less and less from South Korea.
Who is the fool?
But, it has to do with strategy. South Korea now believes that the U.S. needs its bases in South Korea more than South Korea needs U.S. bases in South Korea.
No matter how arrogent South Korea is to the U.S., the U.S. won't let the Chinese get their hands on it. South Korea knows it and is playing this card well. People keep saying Roh Moo-hyun is a fool. I say he is so far ahead of everyone, they can't keep up with what he is thinking. And, he ain't spill'n the beans either about his plans.
Being the policeman of the world is only going to keep giving America more and more problems, though I'd rather have the U.S. do it than any other country in the world.
Anyway, this article is just some conservative fantasy that has little to do with the reality of South Korean politics. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Morton
Joined: 06 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 06, 2007 11:04 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Unposter: you made alot of good points. But is America not looking to downsize it's presence in South Korea? Maybe thats due to the fact, which you pointed out, that the US is getting less and less from South Korea.
The US military presence has saved Korea alot of money so i can see why you asked "Who is the fool?"
The US will hold on to South Korea for as long as it can, but in a war South Korea is fucked. Japan and Australia are islands. A major benefit in wars that happened in the past (look at the UK). But Korea is stuck in the middle. History might have a funny way of repeating itself regarding Korea.
After all Korea is the little man stuck in the middle. The US can only protect him so much. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mercury
Joined: 05 Dec 2004
Location: Pusan
|
| Posted: Fri Sep 07, 2007 2:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Morton wrote: |
Unposter: you made alot of good points. But is America not looking to downsize it's presence in South Korea? Maybe thats due to the fact, which you pointed out, that the US is getting less and less from South Korea.
The US military presence has saved Korea alot of money so i can see why you asked "Who is the fool?"
The US will hold on to South Korea for as long as it can, but in a war South Korea is *beep*. Japan and Australia are islands. A major benefit in wars that happened in the past (look at the UK). But Korea is stuck in the middle. History might have a funny way of repeating itself regarding Korea.
After all Korea is the little man stuck in the middle. The US can only protect him so much. |
I bet that if I got into a time machine, made a trip to seoul in the year 2107, I would see all the signs written in Chinese. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
