Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: William B. Kohn who wrote (65759)	1/13/2003 1:49:09 AM
From: greenspirit	Respond to of 281500

An interesting editorial from today's Korean Herald. koreaherald.co.kr With North Korea making the final bet in its desperate nuclear gamble, South Korea and the United States find themselves engaged in an annoying war of nerves. Relations between the once stalwart allies are crackling with a noise that has not been heard before. This is indeed an excruciating turn of events when security on the peninsula is taken hostage by Pyongyang playing a seemingly suicidal brinkmanship against Washington, which is adamantly refusing to reward the North for this unwelcome repetition of the 1993-94 crisis. Tension keeps intensifying between Seoul and Washington, with U.S. news media growing increasingly cranky about "anti-American sentiment" among the South Korean public. Some influential American newspapers and broadcasting networks have fiercely denounced South Korean "ingrates" and called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops. A New York Times columnist contended that, "because the U.S. is not an imperial power, its troops do not belong where a democratic nation decides America is unwanted." Washington has been expressing its uneasy feelings since last month's presidential election here. Roh Moo-hyun's victory further deepened anxieties in the U.S. capital as the liberal candidate called for "a more equal partnership with America." He also promised to inherit President Kim Dae-jung's policy of engaging North Korea. Another columnist of the Washington Post complained that Kim proved to be the most anti-American president in the republic's history and Roh has gone well beyond his patron in "pulling Uncle Sam's whiskers." There may be no need to overreact to the media interpretation of the state of affairs at this time of transition, especially relations between the two nations. President-elect Roh is currently building up core policies for his incoming administration based on his campaign platform. He must be looking for ways to cope with the suspicious Americans and the inscrutable North Koreans, among other immediate matters of foreign policy. Quelling doubts in the United States will be crucial, though not easy. No doubt there is a certain truth in the position of Americans infuriated over the "ungrateful Koreans who bite the hand feeding them." There is no denying that the South Korea-U.S. alliance based on the bilateral defense treaty of 1953 has provided the security base for the nation's democratic and economic progress over the past half century. But it is crucial that Americans realize a wrathful reprimand in the "how dare you" tone will not help amend the strained Korea-U.S. relations that are now at a historic watershed. Instead, the Americans would do much better to look into the genuine causes of anti-Americanism - because Koreans who are critical of the United States are not all simply "naive and emotional." Many people are asking for solutions to problems that they believe have been derived from U.S.-related issues, be they criminal offenses committed by GIs or unhealed wounds from traumatic wartime experiences. Or, some may find President Bush's attitude toward North Korea to be too hostile to help the two Koreas move closer to reconciliation. Reminiscing the history of U.S.-Korea relations since 1882, there have been three important incidents that led to tragic experiences for the Korean people. The Taft-Katsura agreement of 1905 effected a trade-off of Korea and the Philippines between the United States and Japan; the 1945 partitioning of the peninsula along the 38th parallel between the United States and the Soviet Union resulted in a prolonged national division; and Washington's suspected role in the bloody suppression of the 1980 democracy movement in Gwangju is related to U.S. support of the successive military governments in Seoul. These incidents must probably represent the unpleasant downsides of the generally amicable and constructive relations between Korea and the United States. But to those who wish to learn from history, these events may indicate the United States did not always act in the interests of the Korean people. Whoever regards South Koreans as reacting with excessive sensitivity to President Bush's North Korea policy could get a message from the historical implications of these unhappy events in Korea-U.S. relations. For individuals or nations, it is not desirable to be guided by preoccupations or complexes from the past. The two allies must speak to each other earnestly and frankly to review their relations under duress, so ties can be refashioned for mutual benefit. Leaders from both nations are urged to discuss all aspects of their alliance - the nature of their partnership under the changing security environment in the region, the size and duties of U.S. troops, the mission of the Korean military for peace on the peninsula, and the balance of power in the Northeast Asia in the 21st century. Both nations need a future-oriented outlook to redefine their vital allegiance. Neither can benefit from instant and emotional reactions to each other's stance but need wiser and more mature approaches.