Jung Rhee
03-20-2005, 09:38 AM
How the U.S. Secretary of State Views Korea
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503200036.html
Rice Says N.K. Nuke Dispute Can't Go on Forever
U.S. Asks Korea to Lift Beef Import Ban
New U.S. East Asia Vision Puts Japan First
What Does Rumsfeld Mean?
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a visit to Korea, said it was best for North Korea to get the respect and assistance it wants from the international community through six-party nuclear disarmament talks. She also said she exchanged views with the Korean side concerning USFK redeployments and the modernization of the Korean military and that her country supports Japan’s permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council.
Nothing here is new. But even if her comments do not appear related to one another, we must seriously consider the background to such clear positions on three interconnected points of international contention in which Korea has a stake.
First, the North Korean nuclear issue. Rice drew a clear line against Seoul’s position that Washington should be more flexible, saying her government had no intention of making any more offers. Take away her comment that the U.S. recognized North Korea was a sovereign state, and her message was closer to a notification that North Korea can be assured of a future only through participation in the six-party talks.
Secondly, the issue of USFK redeployments. Rice’s comments, taken with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s comments from Friday that the USFK would move away from Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to naval and air hubs, could be read as meaning that in the long-term the U.S. intends to discuss withdrawing its ground forces. This would seem to be its response to Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s doctrine of opposing the deployment of USFK to other hot zones in East Asia should conflicts arise.
Thirdly, the issue of Japan joining the U.N. Security Council. As tensions resurface between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo issue, the Korean government regards withholding support for Japan’s bid for permanent membership in the council as an important means to apply diplomatic pressure on Tokyo. A sensitive issue all round, then -- and one where Rice has come down plainly on the side of Japan. Time was the U.S. used to work in the background when serious disputes arose between Korea and Japan, thus allowing Seoul to save face.
Rice’s statements about the three pending issues appear to be a reflection of the fact that the U.S. has been seriously reconsidering the meaning of its alliance with Korea over the mid and long term from at least the time when differences over a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue and USFK role were first exposed, and possibly since the start of the Roh Moo-hyun administration. The changes in the way Korea is being viewed are palpable above all in the fact that Rice made such explicit comments on matters that, considering the sensitive juncture, might have called for diplomatic vagueness.
Recently, of America's two strategic pillars in East Asia, the U.S.-Korea and U.S.-Japan alliances, the U.S. has been placing much more importance on its relationship with Japan, as Rice’s remarks confirm. In the six-party talks, the U.S. has been more in step with Japan than with Korea, with some in America believing that South Korea stands alongside China in North Korea’s corner. This is the result of differences in position between the Korean government, which wants aid to Pyongyang even before it abandons its nuclear program, and the U.S. and Japan, which say it must be the other way round.
The same goes for the USFK redeployment. It was clear to anyone that if Korea clearly opposed the USFK’s transformation into a regional expeditionary force, the U.S. would respond with additional withdrawals from Korea. That is what they worried about when President Roh came out against the plan. Some, this newspaper among them, said then it would have been wiser to have been diplomatically vague rather than sharply expose differences with an allied nation.
The contrast is glaring, too in the matter of Japanese membership on the Security Council, where the U.S. believes the addition of Japan could help contain China.
Our government wanted to reorganize its relationship with Washington, and these new developments are what many predicted would happen if it did. The Korean government made its choice, and the Korea-U.S. relationship has changed. Now it must present strategic alternatives that can guarantee the security of the Republic of Korea.
Korea faces a major choice. Rather than criticize what is done, leaders from all walks of life need to advise the government how it may move in the right direction. The project before us is not simply a matter of the likes and dislikes of a particular political party or administration. It is a challenge to protect the nation and its people.
http://english.chosun.com/w21data/html/news/200503/200503200036.html
Rice Says N.K. Nuke Dispute Can't Go on Forever
U.S. Asks Korea to Lift Beef Import Ban
New U.S. East Asia Vision Puts Japan First
What Does Rumsfeld Mean?
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on a visit to Korea, said it was best for North Korea to get the respect and assistance it wants from the international community through six-party nuclear disarmament talks. She also said she exchanged views with the Korean side concerning USFK redeployments and the modernization of the Korean military and that her country supports Japan’s permanent membership of the U.N. Security Council.
Nothing here is new. But even if her comments do not appear related to one another, we must seriously consider the background to such clear positions on three interconnected points of international contention in which Korea has a stake.
First, the North Korean nuclear issue. Rice drew a clear line against Seoul’s position that Washington should be more flexible, saying her government had no intention of making any more offers. Take away her comment that the U.S. recognized North Korea was a sovereign state, and her message was closer to a notification that North Korea can be assured of a future only through participation in the six-party talks.
Secondly, the issue of USFK redeployments. Rice’s comments, taken with U.S. Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld’s comments from Friday that the USFK would move away from Seoul and the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) to naval and air hubs, could be read as meaning that in the long-term the U.S. intends to discuss withdrawing its ground forces. This would seem to be its response to Korean President Roh Moo-hyun’s doctrine of opposing the deployment of USFK to other hot zones in East Asia should conflicts arise.
Thirdly, the issue of Japan joining the U.N. Security Council. As tensions resurface between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo issue, the Korean government regards withholding support for Japan’s bid for permanent membership in the council as an important means to apply diplomatic pressure on Tokyo. A sensitive issue all round, then -- and one where Rice has come down plainly on the side of Japan. Time was the U.S. used to work in the background when serious disputes arose between Korea and Japan, thus allowing Seoul to save face.
Rice’s statements about the three pending issues appear to be a reflection of the fact that the U.S. has been seriously reconsidering the meaning of its alliance with Korea over the mid and long term from at least the time when differences over a resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue and USFK role were first exposed, and possibly since the start of the Roh Moo-hyun administration. The changes in the way Korea is being viewed are palpable above all in the fact that Rice made such explicit comments on matters that, considering the sensitive juncture, might have called for diplomatic vagueness.
Recently, of America's two strategic pillars in East Asia, the U.S.-Korea and U.S.-Japan alliances, the U.S. has been placing much more importance on its relationship with Japan, as Rice’s remarks confirm. In the six-party talks, the U.S. has been more in step with Japan than with Korea, with some in America believing that South Korea stands alongside China in North Korea’s corner. This is the result of differences in position between the Korean government, which wants aid to Pyongyang even before it abandons its nuclear program, and the U.S. and Japan, which say it must be the other way round.
The same goes for the USFK redeployment. It was clear to anyone that if Korea clearly opposed the USFK’s transformation into a regional expeditionary force, the U.S. would respond with additional withdrawals from Korea. That is what they worried about when President Roh came out against the plan. Some, this newspaper among them, said then it would have been wiser to have been diplomatically vague rather than sharply expose differences with an allied nation.
The contrast is glaring, too in the matter of Japanese membership on the Security Council, where the U.S. believes the addition of Japan could help contain China.
Our government wanted to reorganize its relationship with Washington, and these new developments are what many predicted would happen if it did. The Korean government made its choice, and the Korea-U.S. relationship has changed. Now it must present strategic alternatives that can guarantee the security of the Republic of Korea.
Korea faces a major choice. Rather than criticize what is done, leaders from all walks of life need to advise the government how it may move in the right direction. The project before us is not simply a matter of the likes and dislikes of a particular political party or administration. It is a challenge to protect the nation and its people.