By General Bell is making more headlines this week, but this time in regards to the future of the US-ROK Alliance:
U.S. Forces Korea Commander Gen. Burwell Bell on Tuesday said it was “time for Washington to reexamine its Defense Treaty with Seoul.” The U.S. should “look beyond the narrow scope of the DMZ threat (from North Korea) and solidify the alliance as a pillar of stability and cooperation that will be an example for all the nations of Northeast Asia and the world.” Bell made the remarks in a hearing at the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee.
“As an example, after the fall of the former Soviet Union many believed that (NATO) would become obsolete due to the perception that it existed only to deter Soviet aggression during the Cold War,” he said. But instead of disbanding after the fall of communism, “NATO has evolved into a multi-dimensional alliance whose members share the fundamental values of democratic principles, individual freedom, and free market enterprise.” [Chosun Ilbo]
Any significant upgrade of the US-ROK Alliance in my opinion is about as likely as seeing command sponsored tours in USFK 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 as being used to secure energy, anti-terrorism, and even to combat global warming.
I will just reiterate here what I said then, but Korea is not going to greatly expand the alliance in any real meaningful way. Think about it, Korea is not even willing to send soldiers to conduct an anti-terrorism mission to save their own citizens kidnapped by the Taliban; what makes anyone think that Korea would send soldiers any where else to fight terrorism?
General Bell didn’t say it but the scholars believed Korea should be used as part of a containment strategy of China. Korea will never agree to any changes in the alliance that would put Korea in conflict with China. Korea isn’t willing to do anything to stop the sexual slavery of Korean women in China, once again what makes people think they would do anything else that would put them odds with China, especially over the Taiwan issue? US planners can pretty much scratch that idea from the get to.
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.
You can read more over at the Marmot’s Hole.
9:14 am on March 14th, 2008 1
Perhaps there’s another way of thinking of the “upgrade.” It might actually be a request for a “downgrade.” Remember that the Mutual Defense Treaty was only signed to ascede to Syngman Rhee (Yi Syng-man)in order to keep him from blocking the Armistice. When the UN pulled out in 1973 after the ROK said it could go it alone (with the help from its friend the USA), the Mutual Defense Pact became the backbone of the ROK-US alliance.
It is however NOT an automatic pact like NATO. The US must have Congressional approval — leftover from the days of distrust with Syngman Rhee. Also it stipulates that if the ROK initiates actions with its neighbors leading to war, it is on its own. This is why the US has a hands-off policy on Tokdo-Liancourt Rocks-Takeshima and the MDL episodes.
The question now is what does Gen Bell envision as being included in the new Pact to strictly define and limit the US participation in future conflicts? How will it impact on the potential US involvement in a conflict with not only the DPRK, but also Japan and China and even Russia?
Reply
4:19 pm on March 14th, 2008 2
I’m just saying — I’m JUST saying… General Douglas MacArthur gave an outstanding explication of where America’s strategic interests and destiny lay in his Farewell Address to Congress that remains relevant to this discussion:
“Any predatory attack from Asia must be an amphibious effort. No amphibious force can be successful without control of the sea lanes and the air over those lanes in its avenue of advance. With naval and air supremacy and modest ground elements to defend bases, any major attack from continental Asia toward us or our friends in the Pacific would be doomed to failure.
Under such conditions, the Pacific no longer represents menacing avenues of approach for a prospective invader. It assumes, instead, the friendly aspect of a peaceful lake. Our line of defense is a natural one and can be maintained with a minimum of military effort and expense. It envisions no attack against anyone, nor does it provide the bastions essential for offensive operations, but properly maintained, would be an invincible defense against aggression. The holding of this littoral defense line in the western Pacific is entirely dependent upon holding all segments thereof; for any major breach of that line by an unfriendly power would render vulnerable to determined attack every other major segment.
This is a military estimate as to which I have yet to find a military leader who will take exception. For that reason, I have strongly recommended in the past, as a matter of military urgency, that under no circumstances must Formosa fall under Communist control. Such an eventuality would at once threaten the freedom of the Philippines and the loss of Japan and might well force our western frontier back to the coast of California, Oregon and Washington.”
Although you’re absolutely right in how you characterize ROK’s willingness to develop the alliance, it seems important that we do as much as we can to hold the line for as long as we can without sacrificing too much in honor by doing business with the Rohs of the world.
Reply
5:02 pm on March 14th, 2008 3
Kalani,
I really don’t expect much of an upgrade or even a downgrade to happen in the alliance. I expect Lee to keep saying the right things and maybe do something like expand ROK naval power into the Indian Ocean but I think his ultimate goal is get USFK back to business as usual. Business as usual also appears to be the route Washington is willing to go now as well despite all the strong lobbying from General Bell.
Reply
5:15 pm on March 14th, 2008 4
Admiral,
Thanks for commenting. I think no matter what we do Taiwan in some shape or form is going to integrated into China in the next 20-30 years just like Hong Kong.
I do not believe in a full withdrawal of USFK because the US military provides a balancing effect in northeast Asia between the great powers there. However, the current status quo of USFK needs to change. The USFK transformation needs to happen and the Korean government is doing everything possible delay it.
If the delay games continue some serious threats of withdrawing the 2ID should be considered. When General Trexler threatened to withdraw the Air Force from Korea just a few days later he was given his bombing range he had demanded from the ROK government.
Also the US frontier will never be pushed back to the US west coast because of Hawaii along with Guam and other important territories that serve as important US military bases in the Pacific.
US forces in Korea and Japan are nothing more then a balancing force in northeast Asia that has been able to keep the peace for 55 years now in an area of the world that has had much conflict in recent centuries.
Reply
6:32 am on March 15th, 2008 5
I disagree. I think the alliance, force structure (in terms of both mission and capabilities), and the general way USFK conducts business in this part of the world are all going to change drastically in the coming years. Actually, if you look closely a lot of this change is taking place right now.
Reply