By Here is something I don’t see happening any time soon:
Korean and U.S. scholars say that Korea and the United States should turn their decades-old alliance into one that carries out multiple missions related to such issues as energy, climate change and counterterrorism.
Professor John Ikenberry of Princeton University, Moon Chung-in of Yonsei University and three other geopolitics experts made the remark during a security forum in Seoul on Monday, arguing that recent changes in international politics require changes in the Korea-U.S. alliance.
Pointing out that the bilateral alliance has been focused too much on the narrow notion of jointly dealing with a common enemy, the scholars said the alliance should develop into one that conducts multiple missions for world security and universal values. [KBS Global]
Korea is not even willing to send soldiers to conduct an anti-terrorism mission to save their own citizens kidnapped from the Taliban, which makes me wonder what makes these scholars think that Korea would send soldiers any where else to fight terrorism? Then sending soldiers to combat global warming? I won’t even comment on that.
Also according to Yonhap this group also says that Korea should aid the US with the rise of China and that the US should maintain a 25,000 soldier presence on the peninsula. I don’t see the Korean government ever agreeing to anything that would put them at odds with China. The Korean government has to much too lose with any potential conflict with China. It would be foolish to adjust the nature of the US-ROK Alliance as part of a containment strategy of China.
The best idea I have seen for expanding the US-ROK alliance is the expansion of ROK Naval power into the Indian Ocean to help combat piracy and keep critical sea lanes secure. This is a realistic option of expanding the alliance that Korea can adequately carry out and is in the interest of both countries. Another realistic option for expanding the alliance would be drawing up plans for joint disaster relief operations between the US and Korea if another major disaster such as the Asian Tsunami were to happen again. Korea is also interested in expanding their peacekeeping operations which could be another area to expand the alliance by conducting joint peacekeeping operations with the US if such a thing is needed.
However, any expansion of the alliance shouldn’t take away from what should be the main focus of the alliance and that is North Korea. The alliance should always be mainly focused on deterring North Korean aggression along with being prepared to stabilize North Korea if it should ever implode which is a task the US-ROK alliance is currently ill prepared to do.
12:53 am on February 19th, 2008 1
In the short time I've been in Corea, I have not found Coreans anything less than argumentative and corrupt. I'm sure this is more than a first impression as others I've talked with are anything but impressed with Korean's business practices and ethics. I am even less impressed with the measures the Qorean government takes to punish corrupt government officials and business officials. The reputation of Horea, in my opinion, is changing from third world to clepto-cracy I'm sure the rest of the world isn't blind either.
1:45 am on February 19th, 2008 2
Just a note on the site design…
….it is all looking pretty good to me using Firefox.
The only slight criticism I have at the moment is with the top banner. I like the minimalist approach in part. But, I also liked the mix of photos from different items in Korea that you had on the old site.
Maybe you could do something like One Free Korea did about that when he changed his look: he took the photos that made up the bigger banner and put them in a smaller version off to the right above the columns there…
3:50 am on February 19th, 2008 3
I plan on working on the site more once I have time because I'm not totally happy with the design as well. I think I have figured out why the site kept crashing before which will allow me to play with the CSS code more to optimize the site.
I plan on changing the link and header colors because I don't like the red color and I also plan on working on the banner more as well but this theme doesn't have the rotating banner option built in so I have to figure out how to do it myself.
I am going to keep this theme though because it is designed for maximum search engine optimization and currently my site stats are the highest it has ever been since I installed this theme with many first time user finding the site through Google.
12:44 am on February 20th, 2008 4
The US should leave Korea, plain and simple. Koreans don't want the US here so why not leave?
1:34 am on February 20th, 2008 5
There hasn't been one opinion poll that I have seen that shows that Koreans want the US to leave. In fact if anything with the election of Lee Myung-bak it reaffirms that Koreans want USFK to stay in Korea. Plus the Lee government is doing everything possible to scale back the wartime control handover as well as US troops cuts.
The US does not remain in a country that the government does not want it. The Phillippines did not want US military personnel any longer and the US left the achipelago with no questions asked. It would be the same with Korea. If the Korean parliament voted for the removal of USFK, the US would pull troops off the peninsula with no questions asked as well.
The question the US government is asking itself is if it is in America's interest to remain in Korea? The answer to that is that USFK is having increasingly less relevance and thus the efforts to transfer war time control to the ROKs along with downsizing and relocating USFK units on the peninsula.
6:30 am on February 20th, 2008 6
I love it!
"Korean and U.S. scholars say that Korea and the United States should turn their decades-old alliance into one that carries out multiple missions related to such issues as energy, climate change and counterterrorism."
…in other words…
Korea can be "with us or against us" as the American government expands its sphere of influence through military action… which is better to be seen as the work of an alliance, or coalition, in issues such as…
Energy: You might have it but we want first dibs on it when it goes up for sale… and there is no way you will use it as a weapon against us because we have just enough domestic supply to support a whole fleet of bombers to make sure NOBODY gets it until you get on the program.
Climate Change: The development of your country is destroying the Global Environment through resource over-consumption and pollution… and must be stopped to protect the one world we all share. We are perfectly willing to pollute a bit of depleted uranium to stop you from cutting all those trees and burning all that coal in your quest for an American-quality standard of living and a positive sense of global efficacy. O.K., sure, we had to do it to develop… but that was years ago. This is a new world. You won't be doing it… so, suck it, Third-worlder.
Counterterrorism: Oh, don't like the expansionist policy of the world's only hyperpower infringing on your culture, tradition and lifestyle? Not possessing a tank, do you feel that engaging in asymmetrical warfare is the only way to stop it? Into the camp, terrorist. Protesting on the street? That's a beating, terrorist. Speaking out against it? On the List with you, terrorist. American citizen complaining publicly in America about the trend toward fascism? No flying for you, possible homegrown terrorist.
And to think! Korea is being invited into this club!
So… as…
Korea would prefer to use limited global energy itself rather than let Chindia hog it or developing countries squander it…
and… Korea is past the heavy pollution stage in its development curve and can afford to be a little green…
and… Korea can use its public commitment against "terrorism" in a partnership with America to insure "terrorists" don't disrupt a smooth flow of resources…
…as well as anti-terrorism will be a great excuse for heavy-handed tactics to solve looming social problems (from unassimilated children of low-level foreigners to a possible tide of North Korean refugees)…
…it sounds like a FANTASTIC program to support.
Rather than sitting around waiting for North Korea to invade, South Korea is now offered energy, resources, security, an assured spot in the ranks of developed countries, no more of that "Where's Korea?" and a partnership with the Largest Name in Global Domination…
…and all for the cost of a few conscripts and a bit of land.
A bargain!
And I mean that.
4:05 am on March 14th, 2008 7
[...] any time soon. Any other words not likely. General Bell is actually just reiterating what some scholars recommended last month about upgrading the alliance to conduct other missions outside of it current North Korea focus such [...]