KOREAN PROTESTS: 2003 IMPACTS ON USFK -- AMERICAN VIEWPOINT -- PRO-US SENTIMENT

Pro-American Demonstrations or really Anti-Sunshine Policy Demonstration?

Protest against North Korea and the Sunshine Policy (14 Nov 2002)
(From Tongil News )

Pro-American Demonstrations Start at Osan: According to a Choson Ilboarticle, on 8 Jan some "900 members of veterans, civic, and Christian groups held an "Anti-North Korean Nuclear Weapons, Opposition to USFK Withdrawal March" in Pyeongtek, Gyeonggi Province, in front of Osan US Air Force Base, Wednesday. The leaders of the march said that serious consequences would be brought about by a USFK withdrawal, and that North Korea should abandon its nuclear weapons program immediately to ensure peace on the the Korean peninsula. Min Se-gi, who organized the march said that he was worried that the recent candlelight demonstrations had been seen as anti-American protests."

On 9 Jan a pro-USFK rally was held near Osan AB with more than 400 attendees. The Osan rally was theatrical with the blood on the sign imitating the anti-American NGO group minister who protested in front of the White House with his bloody lettered fan. Though this was extreme, the other elements of flag-burning (North Korean) and burning effigies/images are standard for these POLITICAL rallies. This rally would have been part of the nationwide effort to support the USFK presence in South Korea prior to the North-South cabinet level meetings scheduled for 20-24 Jan.

S. Koreans hold pro-USFK rally near Osan base: More than 400 South Koreans gathered outside this American air base Wednesday to support the U.S. military and call for an end to North Korea's nuclear-arms development...

One man jumped on stage toward the end of the rally and told the audience he was so angry that he wanted to write a message in his own blood.

Chong Jin-mo knelt on stage and bit the end of his finger, drawing blood. While another man held a sheet of paper, Chong squeezed blood from the wound and wrote, "Oppose the withdrawal of USKF," in smeared red Korean letters. The crowd chanted his name, and he held the paper triumphantly above his head.

As the rally ended, leaders burned a huge sign depicting North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, clutching a nuclear missile. Two former South Korean marines also burned a North Korean flag.

January 11 Pro-American Demonstration: The rallies on Jan 8-9 near Osan AB were very small. However, the pro-American demonstration on Jan 11 consisted of 30,000 people and significant in size. This rally was timed to precede the North-South cabinet-level meetings scheduled for 20-24 Jan. It was organized by the General Association of Christian Organizations, a major Christian umbrella group, and was prompted by rising international tension over North Korea's withdrawal from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. The rally was in contrast with a recent series of highly publicized anti-American street demonstrations that were actually much smaller in size.

However, the question everyone asked was "Why was it NOT Reported in the Korean press?" Despite the large numbers, Kay Cho, who attended the rally, stated that "she was surprised the massive rally received almost no attention on South Korean television."

Pro-American Forces in Seoul (January 11)
Click on Photo to Enlarge
(Source: Korea Media Watch)

The reason it was not reported more widely was probably for two reasons: (1). Seoul was undergoing ministerial level talks the next week and did not want any ANTI-NORTH KOREA rallies in the press; and (2). The rally resembled a televangelical meeting with prayers to God which most reporters would not want to touch.

This rally was specifically targeted at the visiting North Koreans who were to open discussions in Seoul the next week. A number of low-level North-South meetings were being held (Jan 13-17) to lead up to the cabinet-level discussions between North-South Korean ministers (Jan 20-24). The anti-North Korea nature of this rally would prove to be a government embarrassment. In addition, the Kim Dae-jung/Roh Moo-hyun teams were busy trying to defuse a scandal dealing with Kim Dae-jung giving funds to North Korea secretly -- and claimed that it was so he could have a summit. (See Dilemma for Sunshine Policy for details on scandal.) This rally also targeted this scandal as well.

The administration did NOT need this type of ANTI-NORTH KOREA in the press at this time. This demonstration was NOT the type of demonstration that the Kim Dae-jung administration nor the Roh Moo-hyun transition team wanted around as it flew in the face of their "sunshine policy." As the biased Korean press and TV media support this sunshine policy approach to North Korea, coverage of these demonstrations would have been easy to suppress with a simple suggestion.

But what about the foreign press who had spent so much time covering the anti-American rallies? Were they intimidated as well? Many of these "foreign journalists" are in reality Korean nationals who are fluent in English it is possible that they were intimidated, but not likely. The reason is much more obvious. Look at the picture below and you'll see why the journalists shied away from reporting this rally.

Pro-American or Televangelism? (Jan 11)

A better insight into why foreign correspondents did NOT wish to report on this event is provided by an article carried on Kimsoft. The event comes across as a televangelistic event. First, it was composed primarily of only ONE church group (80% of the crowd belonged to the True Revival Church); and second, the rally itself smacked of televangelism with the event coming across as a crowd of crazed religious fanatics. The OhMy News article stated there were 80,000 people, but the other articles put it at 30,000.

According to OhMyNews, about 80,000 Christians held a prayer meeting in Seoul yesterday in front of th Seoul City Hall. They prayed for the continued presence of the US military in Korea.

The Christians most women in their 40s and 50s, waved Korean flags and the Star and Strife and were driven by their evangelical ministers into a frenzy of loud wailing and screaming in 'strange tongues.'

The scene reminded one of the televangelism, Praise the Lord, of Tammy and Jim Bakker in the mid-1980's. Their 'revival' meeting was heralded by the organizers as a "prayer meeting for our nation, people, and peace." The crowd waved placards of "We oppose US troop withdrawal", "The US is our ally", and other pro-US slogans.

Minister Kim Hong Do, one of the organizers, prayed: "Dear God, I pray Thou shall inspire President Bush and the US Congress not to pull out US troops from Korea." About 80% of the crowd belonged to the True Revival Church and they were organized by their church affiliation - Ching-ro 2nd Church, Yongsan 4th Church. The meeting was aired live and the crowd was told to adhere to the meeting agenda, which consisted of national reconciliation, growth in economy, opposition to US troop pullout, opposition to North Korea's nukes, peaceful unification, and cooperation of all Korean churches.

Minister Choe Hae Il offered the convocation. He said in his prayer: "We thank thee, Oh God, for protecting our land from the invaders by sending armies from 16 UN nations during the Korean War," and continued, "Please, Dear God, help us overcome the sinners among us who advocate anti-US movements; these sinners do not grasp what security means and fail to see the gravity of the situation." Rev. Choe was followed by Minister Cho Yong Ki of the True Revival Church. The crowd greeted Rev. Cho with shouts of Hallelujah and Amen and waved their flags. Rev. Cho intoned that "North Korea threatens South Korea and the World with bombs and nukes but we have forgotten the sufferings of the Korean War," and said, "Dear God, please allow us to live."

Rev. Cho was followed by Rev. Ji Duk. Ji warned: "Foreign consumers are wary of the Korean situation. The labor- management conflicts have led to a low esteem of Korean companies and Korean products are hard to find in the United States. We face a major economic crisis at a time we have not completely recovered from the IMF crisis." Rev. Kim Hong Do followed Cho and prayed for continued presence of US troops in Korea. He said: "The Communists invaded as far south as Pusan during the Korean War, but, thanks to Our Lord, the Almighty, the invaders failed to united Korea under Communism," and said, "We thank thee, Dear God, for keeping us free by sending UN and US troops." Rev. Kim prayed: "We pray that Kim Jong Il, who is an infidel and who persecutes Christians, will be toppled and Korea be united. We pray in Jesus' name - amen." One minister quoted from Rhee Syngman: "United we stand, divided we fall."

At the end of the prayers, the crowd simultaneously released 10,000 green balloons. The meeting was charged with high-octane emotions. The crowd repeated amen to every word said by the evangelics and waved their hands over their heads, weeping and screaming.

The main objective of this meeting was to counter the candlelight marches in protest of the murder of two Korean girls and for general rewriting of SOFA. The prayer meeting organizers plan to hold prayer meetings regularly in the future.

There were only two mentions of this demonstration in English that we could find. One was an Australian news site SMH.com stated on 12 Jan:

An estimated crowd of 30,000 filled the streets in front of the City Hall, praying for a peaceful solution to the nuclear crisis to be found through dialogue. Scores of rightwing activists burned North Korean flags. Thousands of yellow ballons were floated into the sky as the crowd waved banners and flags of the United States and South Korea.

"North Korea, stop developing nuke weapons," one banner read.

"We support US troops stationing here," another proclaimed.

The rally, organised by conservatives, was considered a counter to a series of near-daily candlelight protests that began in November to mourn the deaths of two schoolgirls run over by a US army vehicle.

The other article that mentioned the rally was in WorldNetDaily.com. Unfortunately, the tone was not complimentary. The writing made the demonstration seem to be a bunch of religious nuts chanting "praise to God and pass the ammunition" type rally.

Not all Koreans hate U.S.
Pro-American demonstrations have been growing

Posted: January 13, 2003
1:00 a.m. Eastern
© 2003 WorldNetDaily.com

The anti-American protests in South Korea have received most of the media attention, but demonstrations in support of U.S. troops are growing.

On Saturday, some 30,000 mostly Christian South Koreans pleaded to God for peace on the divided Korean Peninsula and in support of the U.S. military presence.

"Lord, we need U.S. troops," chanted the crowd, predominantly Protestant churchgoers, at the plaza before Seoul City Hall. "God, please help North Korea repent and stop developing nuclear weapons." Participants waved small South Korean flags and let loose thousands of green balloons into the overcast winter sky, shouting "Hallelujah!" Some held U.S. flags.

During a prayer blaring from loudspeakers, pastor Kil Ja-yeon asked God to keep U.S. troops in South Korea to deter communist North Korea, and thousands of followers jumped up and down chanting fervently, "My Lord, My Lord."

The pro-U.S. street demonstration, described by the Associated Press as "unusual," was really not so unusual, say South Korean participants. It was organized by the General Association of Christian Organizations, a major Christian umbrella group, and was prompted by rising international tension over North Korea's withdrawal Friday from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, a global nuclear arms control pact.

"We all prayed for the peace of ROK (Republic of Korea) and the world and announced to the north to stop what they are doing now," said Kay Cho, who attended the rally. "People are holding U.S. and Korean flag together and it seems all of them are hoping for the same thing – that we can get along with the U.S. and keep the U.S. Army in this country. This was really the biggest demonstration I've ever seen, but still very peaceful. It seems like the whole city of Seoul was covered with God's love."

But she said she was surprised the massive rally received almost no attention on South Korean television.

Communist North Korea shocked the global community in December by deciding to restart nuclear facilities that were frozen under a deal with the United States in 1994.

Organizers of Saturday's demonstration warned that widespread anti-American sentiment in South Korea might lead to the withdrawal of U.S. troops and endanger the country's security.

Moon Jong-won, 55, who participated in Saturday's rally, worried that young South Koreans failed to understand the North Korean threat. "This is not a time for anti-American protests, but a time for an anti-North Korea and pro-peace movement," he told the AP.

Demonstrators held signs reading: "We oppose the anti-American movement" or "Lord, give North Korea real political change."

The rally was in contrast with a recent series of highly publicized anti-U.S. street demonstrations that were actually much smaller than Saturday's pro-American rally.

"We should not do things that hurt Americans' sentiment, especially at times like this," said Chung Jin-kyong, 34.

About 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea, a legacy of the 1950-53 Korean War.

Though the rally was actually an "Anti-North Korea" demonstration, the label was changed to a "Pro-American" demonstration label. The Pro-US label of the rally was a spin-doctoring coup by the Roh transition team as it supported Roh's remarks that 76 percent of the Koreans wanted the USFK to stay. At the same time eliminated the sharp stick that would have jabbed the North Koreans during the negotiations. The negotiations ultimately failed to provide a hoped for breakthrough in the nuclear crisis and ended up as a slap in the face for Roh.

Supposedly 75-80% of the Christians in attendance were members of what is billed as the world's largest church, the Yoido Full Gospel Church in Seoul. The Yoido Full Gospel Church is part of the United Methodist movement and was founded by Pastor David Yonggi Cho in 1976. The rally was organized by the General Association of Christian Organizations, a major Christian umbrella group. However, the Korean National Council of Churches, which has led pro-democracy struggles under past military-backed governments, stayed away from what was largely considered a pro-US rally.

Kunsan AB Pro-American Demonstration for Jobs: At Kunsan, 350 demonstrators demonstrated in support of the continued presence of the USFK in Korea on Jan 14. Ironically, the Pro-American demonstration at Kunsan consisted of the American-Town Bar Owners Association, Foreign Organization Employee Union and the Korean contractors at Kunsan. It was NOT "stay in Korea to protect my country," but "stay in Korea to protect my paycheck." Though it also protested the North Korean nuclear program that threatened the peace on the peninsula, the primary focus was on jobs. Han Ki-Hong of the Kunsan Employees Union stated, "This is a matter of our own lives. We are dependent of the base for our jobs." (See Wolfpack Warrior.)

The prayer meetings spread to local areas as well. On 16 Feb, 3,000 gathered in front of Busan Station and another 3,000 in front of Seomun Church in Daegu to pray for the country and the people. Other meetings of a similar nature are also being prepared in cities such as Wonju. The Christian Council of Korea held a prayer meeting in Yeoido on February 28 in the same manner as the mass prayer meetings in front of City Hall 11 & 19 Jan.

March 1 People's Rally: The 'March 1 People's Rally' was labeled an "Anti-nuclear, Anti-Kim, Free Unification" rally by the organizing committee. However, we question whether it is truely "Pro-US" or is it simply a rally where the Korean people wish the U.S. to remain as a "tripwire" on the DMZ. The U.S. is not viewed as a savior, but rather a "tool" to "balance" the military equation.

The "Anti-Nuclear, Anti-Kim Jong-il National Rally for Freedom and Unification" will be held on 1 March at noon in front of Seoul City Hall Plaza, with various religious groups and civil organizations participating. The participants in the event, "National 1 March Rally Against Nukes and Kim Jong-il," brought together members from 114 conservative bodies including the National Council for Freedom and Democracy. The groups demanded an end to North Korea's nuclear program and opposed the withdrawal of US forces. An estimated 100,000 people attended the rally -- though low-end estimates in newspapers state 30,000. Judging from the birds-eye view shot of the rally, we would lean towards the high end estimate.

A group of GNP lawmakers opposing to the withdrawl of US troops from the country also took part in the rally. Participants of the rally said in a declaration, "North Korea's nuclear development has caused the entire Korean people to tremble with fear," calling for the government to strengthen its alliance with the United States. With the flags of the two countries in hands, they kept chanting, "We love America," while national anthems of the two allies were played.

The committee for this rally included former Prime Minister Kang Young-hun, Korea-United States Friendship Association chairman Park Keun, and Korean Veterans' Association chairman Lee Sang-hoon. Again a large percentage of the religious element in the crowd belonged to the True Revival Church. Amongst the demonstrators were former prime minister Chung Won-shik, former Sogang University president Park Hong, former Yonsei University professor Kim Dong-gill and National Council for Freedom and Democracy chairman Lee Chul-seung. In addition, 83 lawmakers and Norbert Vollertsen, a German doctor who has helped North Korean defectors find asylum in the South, took part in the rally.

The Committee held the view that Kim Dae-jung gave Kim Jong Il billions of dollars in secret funds for the price of the North-South summit meetings, but the money was probably used exclusively to develop nuclear weapons. They also stated that "Extreme anti-US sentiments have led to talks of withdrawing the US Forces Korea. We fear for this situation. The Kim Jong Il administration in North Korea have taken the 70 million Koreans on this peninsula hostage and are developing nuclear weapons, but those who follow him protect nuclear development and stir up anti-US emotions. They are trying to break up the alliance between Korea and the US," claimed Bong Du-wan, chairman of the Catholic Association to Aid the Korean Nation.

Pro-American Forces in Seoul (March 1)
Click on Photo to Enlarge
(Source: Tongil News and OhMy News)

A Reuters News article on 1 Mar is as follows:

S.Koreans protest nuke drive

By Kim Yeon-hee

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun has vowed to work for a swift end to the North Korean nuclear crisis, as thousands of people rallied in central Seoul calling for a tough stance against the communist state.

The rare anti-North Korea and pro-U.S. rally in the heart of the capital on Saturday came three months after much larger crowds staged angry protests against the United States in a groundswell that helped the dovish Roh win a close presidential election.

Roh told his country of 48 million he "firmly opposed" the suspected drive to build nuclear weapons by the South's poorer but more heavily armed neighbour that has steadily ramped up tensions on the divided peninsula since last October.

"North Korea's nuclear issue is the task we should resolve immediately," he said in a speech marking Independence Movement Day which commemorates resistance to Japanese occupation of the Korean peninsula in the early 20th century.

Roh stressed, however, that he would seek a peaceful resolution, saying keeping South Koreans safe was the biggest duty of his government, inaugurated on Tuesday.

"If peace on the Korean peninsula is broken, we cannot afford the huge disaster it would trigger," he said.

On the plaza outside Seoul's city hall, however, about 20,000 mostly elderly and conservative protesters said South Korea must seek peace through strength and firm up its military alliance with the United States.

"The best way to secure peace is to be prepared for war," said a placard carried by a South Korean military veteran at a rally organised by groups of veterans, Christians and Buddhists.

"Calls for a pull-out of U.S. troops are a communist unification plot," said another poster in a retort at the core policy aim of North Korea and rallying cry of many younger South Koreans at dozens of large protests last year.

AGAINST KIM JONG-IL

Several protesters burned a North Korean flag, a portrait of the North's leader, Kim Jong-il, and a mock missile. The bulk of the crowd waved South Korean and U.S. flags at a programme that included Christian hymns and speeches denouncing Pyongyang.

"The rally is against North Korea's nuclear programme, for the South Korea-U.S. alliance and anti-Kim Jong-il," said Jun Ho-jin, a Christian pastor.

"We are not against Roh Moo-hyun, but we want him to listen to conservative views as well as so-called progressive ones," said a Korean War veteran, who gave only his surname, Ahn.

But one protest placard said "Drive out the leftist forces who are coddling a nuclear North Korea."

Roh, 56, has said he supports South Korea's alliance with the United States but wants to retool the security relationship under which 37,000 American troops remain in the South five decades after the end of the 1950-53 Korean War.

But the liberal new president has been at odds with the United States over how to cope with a four-month-old crisis which North Korea has escalated step by step while Washington is trying to focus its attention on disarming and possible attacking Iraq.

NORTH STEPS UP PRESSURE

Roh wants to avoid using military force against Pyongyang and has said the North's collapse would devastate the South. The United States says it has no plans to invade North Korea, but adds that prudence requires keeping all options open.

On Friday, Roh told his security ministers to investigate the North's reported firing up of a nuclear reactor, part of a complex seen capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium, and ordered them to prepare unspecified countermeasures.

In Washington, U.S. officials and congressional sources said Pyongyang was continuing to ready a plutonium reprocessing plant at the Yongbyon complex north of the capital and could have it operating as a source of weapons-grade material within a month.

A Japanese newspaper reported on Friday that U.S. satellite photographs and other intelligence indicated that North Korea had tested a rocket booster in January for a Taepodong ballistic missile capable of hitting Tokyo.

The nuclear crisis began in October, when U.S. officials said North Korea had admitted pursuing a covert weapons programme. Later, the North expelled United Nations inspectors from Yongbyon and pulled out of the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Not to be outdone, a massive anti-War rally was held at night on 1 March in Seoul. Led by Rev. Moon from Kunsan, it bore definite anti-American overtones. Unlike the daytime rally, the riot police were visibly present.

Anti-North Korea/Pro-U.S. Rally (21 Jun): According to the Joongang Ilbo on 21 Jun, about 100,000 people were to hold a rally in the City Hall plaza to protest North Korea's nuclear ambitions. The demonstration was to protest Kim Jong-il's rule and call for a strengthened alliance between South Korea and United States.

The rally filled Seoul Plaza with people in excess of 110,000 people. The rally included a memorial service for the naval personnel killed in the Yellow Sea naval battle with North Korea in June 2002 -- as a counterpoint to the 13 Jun memorial to the deaths of the two girls. The protesters included Kang Young-hoon, former prime minister, Chung Ki-seung, former justice of the Supreme Court, and Song Bok, a professor at Yonsei University. The Christian Council of Korea, the Korea Freedom League, and the Veterans Association were sponsors of the rally. The groups previously held an assembly on March 1 protesting the North's nuclear program and supporting reunification based on liberal democracy.

In Tongil News and OhMy News there were photos of the rally showing an overflow crowd in Seoul Plaza. In addition, there was an item in Tongil News about a group of Buddhist monks who protested separately about the sending on monies to North Korea.

Anti North Korea/Pro-U.S. Demonstration (21 Jun)

The rally was peaceful except for the period the riot police had to interrupt the burning of the North Korean flag. A minor tussle ensued as the police moved in. The burning of any national flag is against the law, but North Korea is considered a "non-country" by Korean law. The NGO group claim the police allowed the NGO groups to burn American flags, but stopped them. In actuality, the difference between these anti-North groups and the anti-USFK NGO groups is methodology. The anti-American NGO groups burn the U.S. flag in the midst of the crowd thus using the crowd as its buffer zone. To put out the fire, the riot police would have to fight its way through the crowd to get to the area -- touching off a major riot. The anti-North group, on the other hand, burn their flags, banners and effigies next to the stage area in front of the crowds -- but also in front of the riot police ranks as well.

The following is from the Korea Times (Police Stop NK Flag Burning, Triggers Controversy, Na Jeong-ju, 22 Jun) over the mini-controversy about the burning of the North Korean flag.

Controversy is growing after police Saturday blocked a move by anti-North Korea activists to burn the North's flag during a street rally in front of City Hall in central Seoul. Police put out a burning North Korean flag with an extinguisher set by the activists during a rally condemning Pyongyang's nuclear ambitions and calling for strengthening the country's alliance with the United States. Many activists who participated in the rally criticized police for making an about-face from its stance during anti-U.S. rallies last year, where it didn't attempt to take any action when protestors burned American flags. The activists said it is an indication the police are becoming left-wing in their policies, and ignoring South Korea's ties with the United States, a long-time ally of South Korea. Burning a flag of a foreign country is in violation of the laws preventing the defamation of the symbols of foreign countries, but burning a North Korean flag is an exception because current laws define North Korea as non-foreign country. But the police claim burning anything during a rally is illegal, citing laws defining protests and demonstrations. ``The problem is they are setting fire to something. Burning a North Korean flag is not the issue,'' a police officer said. Last year, police also blocked protesters from burning the North Korean flag and portraits of its leader Kim Jong-il during protests during the Pusan Asian Games where Pyongyang sent hundreds of its athletes.

Riot police attempting to extinguish the North Korean flag burning (21 Jun)

There was a strong ROK veteran presence. Unlike the young student radicals, the veteran elements are strong supporters of the U.S. presence in Korea as a deterent. As in the 11 Mar rally, the veteran groups provide a visible presence with their military regalia and ultra-patriotic rhetoric.

Veteran Groups at anti-North Korea/Pro-US Rally (21 Jun)

What we find strange is that the the official government-news agency, Yonhap News on 21 Jun made NO mention of the rally, though a Yonhap News news item did cover the 5,000 teachers from the National Teachers Union holding a mass rally. As of 23 Jun, there was no reference to the event. In addition, there was NO coverage on the television news as well. It was almost as though this event was viewed as a non-event by the media -- though a 100,000 people participated in it.

This resembles the lack of coverage that was given the 11 Jan pro-USFK/anti-North rally where 30,000 people showed up, but not a world was heard in the local press or TV. The coverage was only picked up in one Australian newspaper. At that time it appeared the Kim Dae-jung administration was deliberately clamping a lid on anything anti-North Korean as ministerial-level meetings were scheduled for the following week. The same scenario applied in June as North Korea appeared to be looking to the South as an exit from the isolation it has been pushed into as the result of its confrontation with the U.S. According to the Unification Ministry, Pyongyang pushed for a wide range of joint projects with Seoul, including the Mt. Kumgang tourism project, inter-Korean family reunions and construction of the Kaesong industrial park. A ministerial-level meeting is also scheduled for July, while Pyongyang was expected to allow civic groups to visit the North. The Roh administration does NOT want anything upsetting the apple cart. It is rather strange -- but does smack of government censorship.

However, the event has been reported abroad -- though with some misinformation. A news blurp on CBS TV 47 on 21 Jun stated, "About 40-thousand people gathered in Seoul on Saturday, burning North Korean flags and calling for the death of the North's president. Banners proclaimed support for the U-S military presence in South Korea." This same news blurp appeared on other CBS affliliate TV newscasts.

The Chosun Ilbo ran an article on 22 Jun covering the rally. We find it significant that the rally was referred to as an anti-North Korea rally, but the newspaper chose NOT to make any reference to it as pro-USFK.

110,000 Rally Against Kim Jong Il

by Kim Seung-bum (sbkim@chosun.com)

More than 100,000 people from scores of civic groups rallied in front of Seoul's City Hall on Saturday evening in opposition to North Korean leader Kim Jong Il and his regime's nuclear development program.

A former top general of the South Korean Army, Paik Sun-yup, gave the opening speech, and the crowd, estimated at 110,000 people, waved the South Korean and U.S. flags throughout the rally.

Another speaker, Lee Sang-hun, president of the Korean Veterans Association, said the country's younger generation had a deluded image of the North's Kim Jong Il regime, and said the nation's defense situation was more dangerous than it was during the Korean War.

Lee Sang-jin, president of a civic group called the Korean Principles Association, said that the teachers in the left-wing student's union, Jeongyojo, were imposing "imbalanced ideologies" upon their students.

A leader of another civic group, Bong Tae-hong, voiced support for the South Korea-U.S. alliance, saying that if the U.S. Forces in Korea withdrew from the peninsula foreign investors would stop investing here and the economy would collapse. The government should strengthen the alliance, he said.

Parents of sailors killed during last year's North-South naval clash in the West Sea also participated in the rally.

Hwang Eun-tae, father of the late Hwang Do-hyun, said, "My father was killed in the war by a bullet from a North Korean soldier, and now my son has also been killed by the North. The public commemorates the death of the two middle-school girls killed by a U.S. Army vehicle, but they do not remember the people killed by the North."

At 6 p.m., the participants tried to burn a 3x1 meter North Korean flag, but the police stepped in and quickly put out the flames. A brief tussle ensued.

Osan Retailers Form Defense Squads for GIs An article in the Korea Times on 2 May showed a different perspective on pro-US support -- it dealt with the reality that the GIs brought a profit to the retailers and the student protestors were driving business away. The article stated:

Retailers Set Up Squad to Defend US Soldiers

By Na Jeong-ju
Staff Reporter

Retailers doing business in front of the Osan Air Base, south of Seoul, plan to organize a squad to defend U.S. soldiers from anti-American protesters.

``Quite a number of people have agreed to form a group to fight against radicals who often stage rallies in front of the base,’’ Songtan Chamber of Commerce chairman Lee Kyong-chu told The Korea Times. ``The move is aimed at providing our customers with a safe environment. This is also for our own interests. Most stores here have seen a drop in sales because of the protesters, who often stage violent demonstrations.’’

Lee explained some of the owners of 500 stores in the area are willing to join the group because about 95 percent of their profits come from American soldiers in the air base and their families. ``We can’t sit idle while our interests are being threatened by the radicals,’’ he said.

Student activists have staged rallies in front of the base almost every week since last year’s court martial acquittal of two American soldiers whose armored vehicle accidentally killed two Korean schoolgirls in Uijongbu, north of Seoul.

The protests have caused American soldiers and their families shy away from the district, damaging the businesses in the area, Lee said.

Street brawls have often broken out between student activists and local merchants trying to prohibit them from holding rallies, he said.

``Some left-wing parties are using the armored vehicle incident to increase their political clout,’’ Lee said, adding that most U.S. soldiers and their families are decent and valuable customers.

Their action comes as business prospects are looking up in Osan, Pyongtaek and Songtan after reports that South Korea and the U.S. agreed to relocate bases in Seoul and north of Seoul to the areas. Since then, apartment prices in the three areas have soared while an increasing number of retailers have moved from Uijongbu and Tongduchon to these areas, according to the National Statistics Office.

Civic activists, who have been demanding South Korean courts be given jurisdiction over U.S. soldiers committing crimes while on duty, criticized the retailers of starting a movement that ``could eventually harm the national pride and interests.’’

``It could effectively increase their profits in the short-term,’’ Movement for Prevention of Crimes by U.S. Soldiers spokesperson Hong Min-young said. ``I want them to listen to voices from students who have been trying to restore independence from U.S. military protection. Also, they don’t have the right to prevent the rallies that are staged in accordance with laws.’’

US Politicians Views on Korea

by Ju Yong-jung (midway@chosun.com)

WASHINGTON - Following North Korea's admissions on nuclear development and some anti-American sentiment displayed in South Korea, the peninsula has come under increasing scrutiny from the United States Senate and Congress it was reported Friday. Lawmakers from both parties have expressed a variety of views on the pending issues and the following are excerpts from their comments:

Anti-American Sentiment

Congressman Henry Hyde (R. Illinois) The house is bipartisan that Pyongyang should not be allowed to accelerate breakup of Korea-US ties, our devotion for the defense of South Korea is still solid, and close US-Korea alliance is as rightful as the unification of the two Koreas.

Congressman James Leach (R. Iowa) We should pay attention to increasing negative attitudes towards the US in South Korea. While the anti-American sentiment could be a passing phase, it could be a challenge to the stability of the East Asian region. Washington and Seoul should immediately establish a comprehensive strategy to enhance a mature alliance based on mutual respect and interest. Even if anti-American sentiment from the last presidential election is uncomfortable, the US should respect South Korea's democratic process.

Congressman Eni Faleomavaega (D. American Samoa) The latest elected leader of the South seems not to want the USFK presence, as well as many South Koreans considering the series of protests. It is time that the US reconsiders its policy on Korean Peninsula. The People's Army is advanced near the Truce Line, and 37,000 US troops look like scapegoats waiting for death. If Koreans don't want it, the USFK should leave.

Congressman Ed Royce (R. California) Anti-American demonstrations in the South have existed for the last 50 years, partly stimulated by North Korea's active propaganda. While I believe the US-Korea alliance can overcome such a challenge, Seoul needs to assume a larger responsibility for its own safety. Only then, the two countries could lessen unavoidable tension. German Doctor Nobert Vollertsen once told me South Korean students are wasting time and energy criticizing USFK instead of Kim Jong Il, and what foreigners are not aware of is that Korean student movement is greatly influenced by North Korea's propaganda.

Congressman Gary Ackerman (D. New York) We can't tell Koreans that we are angry about candlelight vigils and the South should follow us because we fought for Korea fifty years ago. The US needs to look back on why we are called arrogant.

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R. California) If Koreans don't want the presence of US forces, we would gladly pull out and use the budget for something else. My father risked his life fighting in the Korean War. I am very afraid Koreans are using the tragic accident as a reason to be malicious toward the US.

North Korean Nuclear Program

Senator Richard Lugar (R. Indiana) Washington should make clear to American citizens in the State and staying in Korea that it is prepared to, and needs to, use force against North Korea's weapons of mass destruction, and it is pursing all possible diplomatic channels at the same time. If any state allows terrorists with WMD to use its territory, the US is prepared to use diplomatic, economic, and military muscles to contain such a country. The principle also applies to North Korea.

Senator Joseph Byden (D. Delaware) Washington claims the ball is in North Korea's court, and the North says in the US court. But in my opinion, the ball is caught in the net. Pyongyang and Washington should immediately open dialogue.

Senator Russel Feingold (D. Wisconsin) Some remarks from the Bush Administration give an impression that it has already given up on North Korea's nuclear weapons possession.

Senator Barbara Boxer (D. California) President Bush made a crucial mistake of including North Korea in the axis of evil, along with Iraq and Iran, at the state of the union last year. It made the situation worse.

Senator Carl Levin (D. Michigan) We are at a critical juncture where North Korea, the largest missile proliferation state, is about to possess nuclear weapons. Washington is agitating North Korea's paranoia by refusing to talk directly with Pyongyang despite the fact that South Korea wants dialogue. Pyongyang could make an irrevocable, provocative action.

Senator Jack Reed (D. Rhode Island) Unlike Iraq, North Korea has the military strength to make a surprise attack on the US. Also, North Korea is well ahead in nuclear weapons development. Because Washington is concentrating on Iraq, the bigger threat is overlooked.

Senator John Ensign (R. Nevada) History teaches us that tyrannies don't respond to diplomacy. They rarely respond to talks. Only force could make them give in, and they only submit when they are in jeopardy. We should not repeat our mistakes of letting North Korea's despot break promises.

Congressman James Moran (R. Virginia) North Korea wished to talk directly with Washington, but was turned down. The US should reopen dialogue channel as soon as possible.

Senator Sherrod Brown (D. Ohio) It is surprising that North Korea is more actively developing nuclear weapons, and the Bush Administration has done nothing to stop it. The more we refuse to talk, the larger Pyongyang's nuclear stock will grow.

Congressman Gary Ackerman (D. New York) North Korea would not be affected by additional sanctions by the international community. China, the largest sponsor of the North, should do something substantial.

Congressman Ed Royce (R. California) It is naive to think that we could pay a regime with no intention of reform to strengthen it in exchange for stability. North Korean regime's morality should be continuously questioned.

Backlash of Anti-American Demonstrations:

Soldier attacked on jogging trail

By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Monday, December 23, 2002

TAEGU, South Korea — A U.S. soldier stationed in South Korea was attacked Wednesday, one of four violent episodes against U.S. servicemembers on the peninsula in a week.

An Army sergeant major sustained a cut arm when a group of middle-aged South Korean men harassed her along an off-post jogging trail, the U.S. Army reported, declining to identify the victim.

The Army required no medical treatment for the 3-inch cut to her upper arm in the Wednesday morning assault, said Army Maj. Andrew Mutter, spokesman for the 19th Theater Support Command at Camp Henry in Taegu. It is unknown what kind of weapon was used in the attack.

A wave of anti-American sentiment has surged in South Korea since last month's acquittals of two U.S. soldiers who were involved in the June roadside crushing death of two South Korean schoolgirls by an armored vehicle.

Whether Wednesday's attack on the soldier in Taegu was an instance of anti-American hostility stemming from the case is under investigation, Mutter said.

The incident occurred around 6:30 a.m. on a recreational path used by joggers along the Shin Chon River, near Camp Henry. The soldier was trailing her running partner when a group of six South Korean men approached from the opposite direction. When she tried to move off the trail to avoid the group, they split in a way that blocked her intended path, forcing her to pass between them up the middle of the trail. As she went through, one of them struck her on the upper left arm.

Meanwhile, the Army late Friday said the acquittals figured in an episode of verbal and physical abuse against two U.S. soldiers who were on official business in uniform outside Seoul's railroad station Thursday morning/

Soldiers Feel the Wrath of Anti-Americanism: Servicemen especially started to feel this anti-Americanism -- and started to become very disgruntled over the situation of having to put one's life on the line for a people that they perceived as not wanting want them there. Though Koreans truely like Americans, when they see a U.S. soldier, they become like Jekyl and Hyde. To the vast majority of Korean society, the U.S. soldier is a cancer on their society. Many have a deep dislike for U.S. soldiers that borders on hatred. The typical Korean sees the average soldier as an uneducated drunk who is possibly a criminal, rapist and killer. At the same time, the typical Korean is worried about what the North will do when the U.S. leaves. He wants the soldier to leave his country, but not before Korea has finished "using" him. Not a very pretty thought. Sort of like a diseased whore who has a "use" and then can be tossed aside.

Unfortunately the anti-Americanism fervor heaped on the soldiers, spilled over to anyone who looked like an American -- regardless that they were from Canada or other places. Businessmen, workers, housewives and dependents were treated as pariahs simply for the color of their skin. Pent up frustration and emotionalism over-ruled rational thinking. Anti-Americanism turned to blind racism.

The Stars & Stripes on 27 Nov 2002 published the contents of a leaflet handed out by Korean protestors before a fire-bombing incident at a supply warehousing camp in Seoul. It read, "We're claiming that war between Korean people and USFK has begun, the leaflet stated in Korean. The choice is either you leave or we die! This country may have been heaven but from now on, this will be one of the most threatening countries you have ever experienced." ...And people wonder why a soldier would feel the effects of anti-Americanism.

U.S. soldiers in South Korea feel growing anti-Americanism

James Brooke
The New York Times Wednesday, January 8, 2003

SEOUL Lieutenant Colonel Steven Boylan's combat patch comes from flying helicopters in El Salvador, but his parents think his Purple Heart should come from walking the streets of Seoul.

"They started cussing me in English, 'GI get out, GI go home,'" the 41-year-old Wisconsin native said Tuesday of the night last month when he encountered three Korean men on his way home.

"They attacked me," he said. "I made a defensive maneuver. It was only when I made it back to post that I saw I had been stabbed."

The world wonders whether North Korea is making nuclear weapons. Television correspondents do live stand-ups from the Demilitarized Zone, the "last Cold War frontier." But to hear some GIs here, the most potential for violence is on the streets of South Korean cities. There, political leaders have allowed anti-Americanism to run unchecked.

"They are being spat on, they are being cussed at, they are being hit," said Boylan, who has become a one-man clearinghouse for abuse reports, partly because of the stabbing and partly because of his high profile job as an 8th Army public affairs officer. "People are not allowed entry into restaurants. A soldier coming to work had some guys jump out of their car and start beating on her car."

Driving out of the 8th Army headquarters here, soldiers Tuesday checked a brand new "Conditions" sign. For each of the eight major American bases here, two kinds of conditions are updated regularly: "road conditions" and "demonstrations."

The anti-Americanism stems partly from the friction of having 37,000 American troops living cheek by jowl in one of the world's most densely populated nations. Koreans, a highly homogeneous people, freely discriminate among themselves on the basis of regional accent and origin.

Although South Korea's stated goal for this decade is to become the "Hong Kong of Northeast Asia," its ambitions to become an international hub may stumble on what politely could be called provincialism.

"My friends, American, Canadian, British, New Zealander and Australian have all been affected," Sally Milne, a British teacher in Seoul, wrote in a letter printed Tuesday in The Korea Herald. "They have been glared at, spat on, refused seats on the subway and refused service in some stores."

Erasing the good feelings toward foreigners exhibited during the World Soccer Cup, a series of scrapes with the United States culminated in November with the court-martial acquittal of two American soldiers in the deaths of two school girls killed by a military vehicle.

The explosion of anti-Americanism, which appeared to subside after the election of the liberal presidential candidate on Dec. 19, was fueled by a general ignorance of why American soldiers are here. Many young South Koreans sincerely believe what the Communist North Korea has taught for decades: that American troops arrived here in 1950 and split the nation in two. In reality, the Communist North attacked first and almost wiped out South Korea. Without U.S. troops, fighting under the United Nations flag, there would be no South Korea today.

"This is not an imperial occupation army: They ask us to go home, and we go home," Lieutenant Colonel Francis Smith, Jr., 50, a Special Forces officer said at 8th Army headquarters here.

The leaders of South Korea know this and they send their emissaries to international hotels here to tell American reporters soothingly how much they value the alliance. American troops, they say, not only reassure foreign investors in the booming economy here, but they also serve as a human tripwire to draw the United States back in if the North ever crosses the border.

"It remains true that the American troops here are the capstone of our foreign policy," Ben Limb, a spokesman for President-elect Roh Moo Hyun, said on a hotel visit Monday. Looking ahead to the anniversary this summer of the 1953 mutual defense treaty between the United States and South Korea, he said: "We are thinking of having a meaningful series of events to celebrate the 50th."

But when speaking to Korean audiences, politicians rarely use up political capital to explain or defend the presence of U.S. soldiers here. Citing two recent polls that say that 54 to 58 percent of Koreans want a close military alliance with the United States, South Korea's silent politicians act as if a silent majority needs no nurturing.

Indeed, after half a century, the alliance is taken for granted, like a bad but enduring marriage. Last week, the Defense Ministry stated with assurance: "About 690,000 U.S. troops would be dispatched to South Korea if war broke out on the peninsula."

But with the harassment of American soldiers here fostering a fledgling "Boycott Korea" movement in the United States and U.S. Congress members returning from recess Tuesday with complaints from home districts, some people here speculate that the day will come when panicked South Koreans will call for help and the only U.S. military response will come from the air.

"I expect troop reductions, you could cut down to 20,000, you could consolidate bases," said Scott Snyder, Korea representative of The Asia Foundation, a research institute based in San Francisco. "U.S. troops here are hostages preventing any strike on nuclear facilities. But they are also hostage to protesters from liberal universities in Korea, which means every city in Korea."

In an odd twist, some calls for troop withdrawals from South Korea come from American hawks who believe that the United States cannot bomb the North's nuclear laboratories because thousands of Americans would be killed in a Northern counterattack.

Jamie Murray, 32, a civilian employee, at the base said: "I guess they are all grown up and think maybe they don't need big brother around any more."

"A buddy of mine said this place could become another Philippines," he said, recalling the protest movements that led to the closing of American air and naval bases in the Philippines.

Case Returned to Korea for Court Martial Trial: But there are other things going on as well. A curious event is when the USFK brought back a U.S. serviceman to Korea based solely on the testimony of the accuser. Though the NGO groups always howl for USFK blood in infractions, there has not been a peep from them. In fact, the MOJ defender's office waived jurisdiction in October 2002 even though this crime was committed "off-duty." Supposedly it was to spare the "privacy" of the family. A Korean homosexual type event against a Korean soldier is really not a good cause celebre to stir up the masses. Culturally, this would be a bad choice of causes for the NGO groups to champion.

The Yonhap News Agency carried an article on 14 Feb that stated that an American serviceman was found guilty in a U.S. court martial on a charge of sexually assaulting a South Korean soldier in March 2002. Sgt. Leng Sok was charged with assaulting a Korean soldier who is a member of the Korean Augmentation to the United States Army (KATUSA). He was sentenced to 30 years in prison. Sok had pleaded not guilty at Camp Casey in Dongducheon. He was brought back to South Korea to face trial from Fort Lewis, Washington. "He was charged with aggravated assault, indecent acts, sodomy, submission of a false official statement and conspiracy," U.S. Army Col. Samuel Taylor, a USFK spokesman, said. The alleged victim told the U.S. military prosecution that he was attacked at a building at Camp Jackson, north of Seoul, late at night on March 3, 2002. The U.S. military didn`t disclose any personal information of the victim, but it was said that his nationality was Thai. A Yonhap News Agency story on 13 Feb stated:

U.S. Soldier Found Guilty of Sexually Assaulting KATUSA

Seoul, Feb. 13 (Yonhap) -- The U.S. military court has found a former Eighth U.S. Army solider guilty of sexually assaulting a KATUSA (Korean Augmentation Troops to the U.S. Army) soldier, according to the United States Forces Korea (USFK) Thursday.

"The jury consisting of four officers and three non-commissioned officers found Sgt. Leng Sok guilty on five counts like aggravated assault, indecent acts, sodomy, submission of a false official statement and conspiracy," a USFK official said. The U.S. Army sergeant can be sentenced to imprisonment for life without bail.

The three American soldiers were charged by the prosecution with using weapons to threaten the KATUSA. At the time, the Korean soldier was newly assigned to serve with the U.S. Army division after finishing Korean basic training in Nonsan, South Chungcheong Province. The three Americans were attending the U.S. military`s Primary Leadership Development Course. The KATUSA soldier told his family about the incident 40 days later when he came home on leave. The USFK`s Criminal Investigation Division (CID) launched a probe into the case in the middle of April, immediately after his family reported the case, Meyer said.

Despite a probe lasting around 10 months, the investigators could not secure enough evidence and the three GIs denied their charges. But the USFK prosecution indicted the three based on the strength of the victim`s testimony.

Despite earlier reports that the U.S. military Criminal Investigation Division (CID) was unable to secure sufficient evidence because the victim reported the incident 40 days after it took place, the military panel successfully indicted the defendant in a court martial which required two thirds of them to be in agreement for the guilty verdict and three quarters for a sentencing of over 10 years in prison. Supposedly there was a confession, but it has not been officially reported.

We do not have the specifics of the incident, but one wonders how much political factors entered into the decision to pursue this case, but it was certainly considered. This story which ordinarily would not have made the backpages of a foreign media newspaper. However, it was reported as a small note in a 13 Feb Reuters news report: "The U.S. military in South Korea said on Thursday it had put an American soldier on trial for charges including sodomy and aggravated assault against a South Korean soldier, in a case that could reignite anti-American feelings." However, as the accused was found guilty, it is a moot point. What will be interesting is the other two enlisted soldiers who were also involved in this incident. They are currently under investigation by the CID. If the CID finds enough evidence, charges will also be brought against them.

Korean Backlash Heats Up: People started writing their Congressmen and letter writing campaigns were started. In addition, the veteran groups in the U.S. such as the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) were notified of the anti-American flag burnings. Surprisingly, some of these groups were not aware of the depth of the anti-American feelings in Kroea. These ultra-patriotic groups had a lot of heartburn. In addition, Korean-Americans started to be concerned about the racial backlash that might result from these protests and started to fly the American flags outside their homes.

An article in the New York Times on January 5 stated:

Why Keep U.S. Troops in South Korea?

By JAMES DAO

WASHINGTON — The anti-American demonstrations in South Korea have led some to a rather cranky and, perhaps, timely idea. Why not take the South Koreans at their word when they wave placards bearing the slogan "American troops out of Korea!"

In the bowels of the Pentagon and back offices of Capitol Hill, policy makers are once again considering a question that seemed long forgotten: should the United States let South Korea defend itself, and withdraw its 37,000 ground troops?

The arguments go something like this: South Korea has a competent and well-equipped army of its own, with about 600,000 troops, and the American soldiers aren't going to make a difference given North Korea's military, including its million-man army. Thanks to improving air and naval power, the United States can help defend the South from bases in Japan or even Hawaii, making the concept of the American troops as a tripwire against a North Korean invasion an outdated one. But an even more contentious argument for withdrawing the troops is that they have become detrimental to American interests. The Pentagon might be unwilling to launch pre-emptive strikes against North Korea because Americans would be quickly overrun or taken hostage during a North Korean counterattack.

Underlying these deliberations is a touch of dismay with a longtime ally: With North Korea rattling a nuclear sword, how can South Koreans criticize America? When American forces might be better deployed in the Persian Gulf, why should they be tied down in a country that doesn't want them?

"It's like teaching a child how to ride a bike," said one Pentagon official. "We've been running alongside South Korea, holding on to its handlebars for 50 years. At some point you have to let go."

Deciding if now is the time depends on how well the United States is able to project power across the Pacific, as well as on its responsibilities as the globe's presumptive super-cop. Withdrawing forces in Korea would reverberate powerfully in Tokyo, Beijing, Taipei and beyond, raising questions in an already jittery region about Washington's willingness to maintain stability in Asia.

"In the present mood, the Japanese reaction could be quite strong," said Zbigniew Brzezinski, the national security adviser to Jimmy Carter. "And under those circumstances, it's hard to say how the Chinese might respond."

In the 1970's, Mr. Brzezinski took part in the last major debate over reducing American forces in Korea, when President Carter, motivated by post-Vietnam doubts about American power, proposed withdrawing ground forces from the peninsula. He faced resistance from the South Korean government, the Pentagon and the Central Intelligence Agency. The arguments against withdrawal then still apply today, Mr. Brzezinski says. A secure Korea makes Japan more confident, he contends. An American withdrawal from Korea could raise questions about the United States' commitment to the 40,000 troops it has in Japan. And that could drive anxious Japanese leaders into a military buildup that could include nuclear weapons, he argues. "If we did it, we would stampede the Japanese into going nuclear," he said.

Other Asian leaders would be likely to interpret a troop withdrawal as a reduction of American power, no matter how much the United States asserts its commitment to the region. China might take the opportunity to flex its military muscle in the Taiwan Straits and South China Sea. North Korea could feel emboldened to continue its efforts to build nuclear arms.

"Any movement of American forces would almost certainly involve countries and individuals taking the wrong message," said Kurt Campbell, a deputy assistant secretary of defense during the Clinton administration. "The main one would be this: receding American commitment, backing down in the face of irresponsible North Korean behavior. And frankly, the ultimate beneficiary of this would be China in the long term."

"Mind-sets in Asia are profoundly traditional," he said. "They calculate political will by the numbers of soldiers, ships and airplanes that they see in the region."

Even so, the 37,000 Americans in South Korea today are considered too few to stop a North Korean assault. Their role is more symbolic, intended to deter North Korean aggression by placing American lives on the line. Under the Pentagon plan for defending South Korea, known as 5027, those forces are never deployed elsewhere.

And American forces in the region are near their lowest point since World War II. Richard Nixon began withdrawing troops from Korea in the late 1960's, pulling an Army division out of the South in hopes of improving relations with China. Mr. Carter tried to continue that effort, but in the end made only token reductions. The cold war's end brought base closings and troop reductions throughout Asia, including Korea, during the first Bush and Clinton administrations.

A decade ago, Subic Bay Naval Station and Clark Air Base in the Philippines were closed after anti-American demonstrations. There were fears then, too, among Asian governments that the United States would reduce its commitment to the region and create a power vacuum. But the Pentagon managed to reposition most of its forces in other bases around the Pacific, including Singapore and Japan, and those concerns dissipated.

The 40,000 American troops scattered around several bases in Japan still play a broad regional role. These posts include the Seventh Fleet headquarters at Yokosuka, an air base at Kadena, a base for amphibious assault ships at Sasebo and the headquarters of the Third Marine Expeditionary Force in Okinawa.

In addition, the United States is creating a base for four submarines in Guam and has a maintenance and logistics base in Singapore. The United States Pacific Command is headquartered in Hawaii. From those bases, American warplanes could reach South Korea in hours. But it would take days for an armada of warships or troop carriers to arrive from Japan.

Adm. Dennis Blair, now retired, who commanded American forces in the Pacific until last year, argues that even if the threat from North Korea dissipates, the United States should keep forces on the peninsula in case of crises in other parts of Asia. "A soldier, marine or sailor in Korea or Japan was much more useful than one in Hawaii or San Diego, just because of the sailing time it takes to get then across the Pacific," he said.

Of course, American military presence will continue to be controversial, on both sides of the Pacific. Koreans and Japanese have protested for years about criminal behavior by American troops. Those protests could pressure the United States to pull out some of its troops. But they are unlikely to cause a full-scale withdrawal anytime soon, experts say.

"This is like the Carter thing," said Morton Abramowitz, who as a senior Pentagon official helped block President Carter's troop withdrawal plan. "The whole point is to preserve stability. You would take a great risk by pulling out troops."

An article on Korea.com on January 10 stated:

Anti-U.S. barbs drawing blood there

Rising anti-American sentiment in South Korea has begun to create a backlash here and abroad. The American business community asked that the subject be included in a report after an upcoming meeting in Hawaii, and U.S. media and commentators are also weighing in.

In a draft of a joint resolution to be adopted by the Korea-U.S. and U.S.-Korea business councils on Jan. 19, the American business community suggested language saying, "Anti-U.S. sentiment must not be allowed to hinder cooperation to defuse the tension sparked by the North Korea nuclear issue."

"It is unprecedented that American businessmen address anti-American sentiment here as a major concern," said Jeffrey Jones, former president of the American Chamber of Commerce and a long-time business legal consultant here. The situation was aggrevated further when some Seoul media misinterpreted the passage as calling for the suppression of anti-U.S. sentiment.

U.S. media are carrying strong reactions to the "Yankee, go home" sentiment. Ken Adelman, a former U.S. arms control chief and ambassador to the United Nations, said in a Fox News commentary Wednesday, "South Koreans can likewise be reminded that our 37,000 American troops in the DMZ, protecting them from invasion by the North, can be withdrawn should the new Seoul government no longer want them there."

Robert Novak, a conservative syndicated columnist, wrote Monday, "The real problem is South Korea's President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who successfully campaigned on a clearly anti-American platform."

The Korean Chamber of Commerce and Industry in the USA and the Korean business association in New York both issued statements urging Koreans to restrain protests that would damage bilateral trade and economic relations.

Ser Myo-ja myoja@joongang.co.kr

SITE NOTE: In January 2003, my family and I went to Hawaii on vacation. This was right in the middle of the Korean Centennial celebrations for the first Koreans to emigrate to America. In checking around, most of my family in Hawaii was NOT aware of the anti-American demonstrations going on -- though well-read on the nuclear confrontation problems. (The celebrations at the Waikiki Shell with a group of what I consider the best of the Korean singers was aired on MBC on Jan 26 at 5:30pm.)

All the comments towards the Koreans and Korea in the newspapers were positive. It was readily apparent that the "good feeling" of the Korean Centennial had led to editorial decisions to NOT publish any anti-American feelings eminating from Korea. Understandably, many Korean government officials invited to the festivities spoke of the strong ties between America and Korea and all the positive aspects of the relationship.

The meeting of business leaders in Honolulu on Jan 19 mentioned above was lost in the back pages. However, the newspapers did reflect on the business pages around this date a sense of unreality about the current situation in Korea. The Honolulu Star-Bulletin went so far as to published a full-page business poll stating that all the bad things in North Korea would go away if the North would allow in Commercialism. The people would demand consumer goods and Kim Jong-Il would be toppled -- then asking for public input. I did not respond to the public survey as the article was too idiotic for words.

American Groups Campaign for USFK Withdrawal: Following all of the anti-Americanism, the U.S. media has now started to focus more attention on this aspect of the Korean problem. Before there was strictly the focus on the North Korean nuclear situation...and very little on the anti-Americanism in Korea. There is a rumor that 60-Minutes was sending a camera crew to Korea between 21-27 Jan to see what is underlying this situation.

With all of this attention, the Koreans have come to realize that there are TWO factions that want the Americans out of Korea. The first is the anti-American KOREAN faction voicing their opinions in the streets of Seoul and the second is a growing grass-roots AMERICAN faction in the U.S. that wants the U.S. troops removed as well. This movement dates back to the days of Jimmy Carter in the 1970s and was echoed by Ross Perot in his unsuccessful campaign for the Presidency. The movement is still alive and well with many think-tank scholars backing this movement.

There has always been a vocal minority dating back to the Carter Administration in 1970s, but the withdrawal then was based on human rights issues. Now the current movement is based on the fiscal inequities of a G-12 nation that does not want to shoulder its fair-share of its defense support from the U.S. (NOTE: These are the same American voices that are seeking a detachment from the current NATO alliance as well.) For an enlightening 1998 article that covers the equitability of the ROK cost sharing over the years, go to Korea Should Start Paying Their Own Way. South Korea supposedly spends about $12 billion (2000) -- or 3.2% (FY98/99) of their GDP. However, the U.S. spends roughly an equivalent amount on the defense of Korea -- and that is causing a lot of eyebrows to be raised.

By mid-February, the Congress was well-aware of the anti-American sentiment being broadcast in Korea. Paraphrasing the responses of senators, they ranged from "get out if the Koreans don't want us there" to "the anti-Americanism may be a passing phase" to "anti-Americanism by a few should not undermine our solid alliance." (See US Politicians Views on Korea for 14 Feb Choson Ilbo article.)

USFK Forces as a Tripwire: When thinking of our troops in Korea, we must remind ourselves that they are stationed here as a tripwire that is an outmoded in modern warfare. However, there is also a bit of truth that Americans never commit their ground forces unless American blood is in danger or has been spilled. This is a historical fact and the Koreans know this. The USFK forces are there not because we want them there, but because the South Koreans want them there.

Currently our 37,000 USFK troops are being held "hostage" -- as they do not contribute significantly to the defense of the DMZ. The ROK does a fine job of it by themselves. Their only purpose is to die as a "tripwire." Their presence though severely limits George Bush's options dealing with the North. Admittedly, on the regional scene, the removal of the USFK troops could send all kinds of wrong signals to the nations of Asia. So this should be handled diplomatically as a bargaining chip with North Korea in BILATERAL negotiations -- while consulting with South Korea. It is now the time to talk of reductions in any dialogue with the North Koreans...and a bring about a like reduction on their side as well.

Remember that George Bush's new vision of the military calls for troops to NOT be stationed in parts of the world but rather would be highly mobile forces that could be deployed within 24-hours to hot spots. Stationing 37,000 troops in Korea would NOT be necessary once such a force were in place. Support of Korea could be done from Japan -- or Guam if necessary. In fact, the stationing of troops in Korea has led to them becoming "nuclear hostages." The following article appeared in the Wall Street Journal on 9 Jan:

The Folly of Restraint

By DAMIEN MCELROY

Washington has fallen for the myth of the inscrutable oriental in fashioning its response to the Korean threat, when what is really needed to avert disaster is some Crawford-style straight shooting.

U.S. President George W. Bush is often praised as a conservative whose gut instinct is to take all comers as he finds them, regardless of creed, color or race. By not treating Kim Jong Il as robustly as he does Saddam Hussein, President Bush is, however, disavowing that founding principle of his presidency, for no apparent reason other than that the Stalinist state is the strangest place on earth and, unlike Iraq, already has nuclear weapons. But the argument that North Korea can inflict more damage than Iraq on its neighbors, and, therefore, on the world economy, is based largely on a peacenik consensus that has gone unchallenged.

If he were acting true to his gut sense of right and wrong, Mr. Bush would be pulling his troops out of South Korea and ordering the destruction of the nuclear stockpile that went rogue when United Nations inspectors were recently ordered out of North Korea .

Instead, a dangerous folly of restraint is being followed in the belief that the Dear Leader is a capricious megalomaniac with a taste for the ultimate in high-stakes poker. The oriental will play his insane games until confronted with the inevitability of losing to the superior power; then, sweetened by a lavish offer, he will return to the status quo -- a contained, closed dictatorship that inflicts most of its harm on its own citizen slaves.

Only by ending arms sales will Kim be deprived of the resources he uses to buy off the cadre elite with food, automobiles and consumer durables. When that happens true change will be possible in North Korea for this group alone has the capacity to revolt against the Kim dynasty. There is every indication that North Korea's people are too rundown by famine and relentless paranoiac propaganda to rise up against the ruling Worker's Party.

Money and missiles are therefore the x and y of the formula bequeathed to Kim by his father, the Great Leader, to maintain his heretic state. This time, Kim knows that the laboratories and armament factories will ultimately have to be traded for continued infusions of aid but that if he does so his regime has no future without its primary pillars.

Even if there is new aid on offer -- and the Bush administration promises it won't reward bad behavior -- Kim faces a choice between his two favorite things. Kim will ultimately choose to go ballistic.

After visiting North Korea for Britain's Daily Telegraph in May, I gained some small insight into the priorities of the regime when I was banned from ever returning to the country for writing about its predilection for trading weapons with suspicious foreign agents.

I could have written that the country's famine had cost four million lives in the past decade, perhaps even 10 million. I could have written that North Korea has used its starving people to blackmail its "enemies" into providing $1 billion in aid over the last decade. I could even have written about the Dear Leader's purported taste for Swedish nymphettes, fine claret and rare truffles while running the country as a prison camp populated by automatons.

Nothing would have happened. I would be free to go back. But I cannot return because I hit the rawest nerve by exposing the dirty trade in arms that keeps the North Korean regime in power. As a result I was damned by the Korean Central News Agency, the official news agency, as a professional spy, engaged in "slinging mad" at Korea .

Well, here is some more mud. The departure of the U.N. nuclear weapons inspectors leaves a tuck shop of nuclear material unlocked and open to raids by the nastiest bullies in the Third World.

North Korea's surreptitious air corridor to Pakistan and its cargo ships, supposedly trading cement between Asia and Europe, filled with Scud parts have already been unmasked this year. Shipping brokers looking for ultra-cheap charter rates know North Korea still offers the lowest prices as long as latitude for unscheduled stops is understood when the Bill of Lading is drawn up. We must strike now before the cargo ships are loaded and the secret flights to Djibouti and Tehran take off.

The cost will be enormous but the aftermath won't be as horrendous as the detonation of a suitcase nuclear bomb in the sewers of New York. When the Clinton administration drew up plans for a pre- emptive strike in 1994, it forecast that half a million lives would be lost on the peninsula, including almost 50,000 Americans. For Washington the greatest risk is to its 37,000 military personnel based south of the 38th parallel. It is not just from the North that this danger emanates. South Koreans, in a fit of pan-Korean chauvinism, can be expected to rebel against their American protectors.

South Korea is a jewel of capitalism but its presidential election in December was a milestone act of self-determination. We must not be so patronizing as to try to save a free and informed people from themselves.

Having seized their nation's destiny by voting in Roh Moo Hyun as president, South Korea must be allowed to take its own path in dealing with the North.

For that reason America must withdraw its forces to allow it full flexibility to deal with the North Korean threat. By doing so the U.S. will minimize casualties in a showdown, for the North will no longer have a non-Korean target south of the Demilitarized Zone. Instead it would be more likely to concentrate its retaliation on enemies beyond the peninsula, where Pyongyang's notoriously inaccurate long-range missiles are likely to inflict fewer casualties.

Japan will nervously wait to see if the Aegis missiles on the Seventh Fleet can take out the missiles that North Korea is bound to launch in response. In the end the Japanese will have a choice to make. Will it finally shake off the shackles of World War Two by joining Britain, Australia and Israel as reflexive American allies?

Most curiously of all, to those who believe in the inscrutable oriental, China, the lips-and-teeth Communist ally of North Korea , is unlikely to object too loudly to a pre-emptive strike on North Korea . Mr. Bush came to office determined to demolish the Nixon-to- Clinton myth that China was different by its very nature. By calling it as he saw it -- a nasty dictatorship with a compelling economic boom -- Mr. Bush pulled Beijing into line. Recognizing that it no longer bewitches America, China is suddenly a more reliable geopolitical interlocutor than either France or Russia. The same approach to North Korea is the only way of solving the impasse we now face.

Mr. McElroy is the Daily Telegraph's former Beijing correspondent.

Anti-Americanism and the Generation Gap:

South Korea's younger generation increasingly anti-American

By MICHAEL DORGAN
Knight Ridder Newspapers

SEOUL, South Korea - Sipping a latte in Seoul's trendy downtown Myeong-dong district, 20-year-old Park Jin-woo pondered a paradox that has huge implications for South Korea, the United States and all of northeast Asia. It's this: As South Korea's younger generation has grown more Western in recent years in its tastes and lifestyle, it has become increasingly anti-American.

The North Korean nuclear standoff has revealed deep strains within the once rock-solid U.S.-South Korean relationship. Underlying those strains is a generation gap in South Korea that pits a generally pro-American older generation against a younger generation increasingly suspicious of the United States and less worried by North Korea.

"Older people do not understand our clothing and our hair styles," said Park, gesturing toward his own fashionably shaggy henna-dyed locks. "And older people, including my parents, do not believe that North Korea has changed its attitude. But younger people believe that North Korea will gradually - not suddenly, but gradually - change."

Seoul's Myeong-dong district, where 20-year-old Park was having coffee at Starbucks, is full of American fast food restaurants and clothing franchises. Young Koreans on the streets would not look out of place in Chicago or San Francisco. Bookstores and record shops reflect a strong influence, if not dominance, of American culture.

But just a few blocks away at the fenced and fortified U.S. Embassy, which is perpetually surrounded by riot police to fend off protesters, young Koreans gather almost daily to denounce America.

Sometimes their numbers are small, sometimes large. One evening this week, only a few dozen showed up at a demonstration called to protest the acquittal of two U.S. soldiers involved in a road accident last summer that killed two teenage girls. On New Year's Eve, more than 10,000 gathered to demonstrate over the same issue. Many protesters at both events called for the withdrawal of all U.S. troops from South Korea.

The United States has no plans to withdraw its troops because they are crucial to South Korea's security and the stability of northeast Asia, American officials say. But a U.S. official in Seoul, who asked that he not be identified, said Thursday that plans are underway to move the command garrison out of the capital to lower the U.S. military's profile and ease tensions. The "future shape" of the U.S. role in South Korea's security is under study, the official added.

"The United States is a bigger threat to South Korea than North Korea is," said Han In-suk, a 17-year-old high school student who attended one of this week's protests despite orders from her parents not to go.

Han's anti-American sentiments are incomprehensible to Lee Sung-soo, a slim 76-year-old Korean War veteran who ran a small auto parts business before he retired.

"I'm worried about the generation gap," he said. "The young guys are very simple in their thoughts.

They don't know who keeps peace on the Korean peninsula."

According to Lee, peace on the peninsula and prosperity in South Korea are in large part due to the security umbrella provided by the United States.

"If North Korea has nuclear weapons, it will destroy us," he said. "We need U.S. troops in Korea."

The generation gap between Han and Lee is explained partly by the vast difference in life experiences of older and younger South Koreans.

Those over 55 have painful memories of a brutal war in which more than 2 million people died, including 33,000 American soldiers. Those over 40 have vivid recollections of grueling poverty and hardship, as well as terrifying threats from North Korea.

South Koreans in their 20s and 30s have no experience of war. Most have not suffered privation. Rather, they have enjoyed the growing affluence and rising expectations in one of the world's fastest growing economies.

Differences of opinion do not end there. Most older South Koreans still regard the United States as a protector that saved the country from an invasion by North Korea 53 years ago. They want the 37,000 U.S. troops that remain in South Korea to stay as a deterrent to North Korea.

A growing number of younger South Koreans, though, view the United States not as a protector but as a bully impeding unification of the Korean peninsula.

"My parents suffered during the Korean War and they began to believe that South Korea has to depend on the United States," said Park, a computer science major at Ajou University just outside of Seoul. "We were born after the South Korean economy began to develop, and we have begun to think that South Korea can survive on its own."

But the generation gap cannot be blamed entirely on different life experiences. It also is a byproduct of President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine" policy, which for the past five years has promoted eventual reunification of the divided Korean peninsula through a process of aid, investment and dialogue with isolated and bankrupt North Korea.

The policy won President Kim a Nobel Peace Prize but has not produced many tangible results. However, it has led to a decline in the perception that the North is a threat, in large part because North Korea's propaganda machine has re-targeted most of its verbal attacks on Washington and Tokyo rather than Seoul.

The South Korean president, in his push for better relations with North Korea, has dangerously downplayed the military threat from North Korea, his critics say.

He has done so, they say, even though most of North Korea's million-man army remains offensively deployed near the South Korean border and even though North Korea's missiles have grown more numerous and lethal.

"The government is partly to blame for the generation gap," said KyongMann Jeon, an analyst at the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, a government-funded research organization in Seoul.

He and others say that Kim even downplayed the disclosure by the United States last fall that North Korea, by pursuing a secret uranium enrichment program, had violated several international agreements not to develop nuclear weapons.

Jeon said the Kim administration apparently feared that a strong condemnation of North Korea would expose the failure of his approach toward the North and generate a voter backlash in last month's presidential election. Kim backed candidate Roh Moo-hyun, who campaigned on a "sunshine" policy platform.

Roh spoke to the anti-American sentiments held by young voters. He boasted of never having visited the United States and criticized politicians who had for "kowtowing" to the superpower.

It was a winning strategy. Roh, who will take office next month, won the election by winning support from the vast majority of voters in their 20s and 30s.

Security analyst Soon Young-Sun, also with the Korea Institute for Defense Analysis, said the election marked a profound shift in the politics of South Korea and in U.S.-South Korean relations.

Young voters whose thinking has been shaped by the "sunshine" policy "have the energy and power to push policy over the next five years," she said.

On 1 March there were two different types of rallies on one day. In the morning the older generation's Pro-US rally had about 100,000 people or more. (See 1 March Pro-US Demonstration for more info) In the evening, the anti-War/anti-US/anti-SOFA element came out for a candlelight vigil. A newstory on 1 March in the New York Times talked about this generation gap.

Rallies in Seoul Differ on U.S., Highlighting a Generation Gap

By KEITH BRADSHER

SEOUL, South Korea, March 1 — South Koreans took to the streets today for two large demonstrations that underlined a deep generational divide here in attitudes toward North Korea and the United States, as tensions between those countries continued to rise.

A rally at noon in front of Seoul's City Hall turned into the largest pro-American, anti-North Korean gathering in recent memory. Up to 100,000 people, most of whom appeared old enough to remember the Korean War, showed up to hear speeches by prominent conservatives and retired generals and to sing hymns, in an event organized by veterans groups and many of South Korea's influential Christian churches.

Five hours later, thousands of young people took their turn. They marched from the site of an unsuccessful protest against Japanese colonial rule in 1919 — an event commemorated by a holiday today — to a site near the American Embassy.

The younger demonstrators sang anti-American songs and, in interviews, voiced sympathy for North Korea and doubts about American assessments that North Korea is moving swiftly toward the production of nuclear weapons. They also questioned the wisdom of their grandparents and sometimes their parents in continuing to support close ties with the United States — a sign of how much things have changed in an East Asian country where the aged are often still deeply respected.

"Older people have lived in times in which they got a lot of pressure from America and toward Americanism and militarism and obedience," said Park Yong Jun, 27, an office worker who held a sign calling for an end to all wars.

At the pro-American rally, a rare event here, distaste for the politics of young people bubbled out from many of the demonstrators, who waved American and Korean flags.

"All my friends like America — the young ones, they don't know anything," said Lee Dae Yung, a 67-year-old who fought in the Korean War and is now a real estate agent.

South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, warned in a speech today that he "adamantly" opposed steps by North Korea to develop nuclear weapons. He called for a peaceful resolution of the issue.

North Korea's official news agency accused the United States today of conducting spy plane flights infringing on North Korean airspace almost daily since Feb. 21. Stephen M. Oertwig, an American military spokesman here, declined to comment, citing an American policy of not responding to what he described as North Korean propaganda.

Here on the streets of Seoul, young and old demonstrators alike agreed that changes in the schools had contributed to the generational split in attitudes toward North Korea and the United States. The American role in ending Japanese colonial rule in 1945 and in halting the North Korean invasion five years later is barely taught in the schools these days.

Chung Young Sook, a 33-year-old middle school teacher at the demonstration this evening, said North Korea was less of a threat to peace than the United States. "It's not fair that only the U.S. can have nuclear weapons — the U.S. is not the police of the world, it does not represent democracy in the world," she said.

Another article in the Joonang Daily on 3 Mar stated:

Lines of age, beliefs drawn in the street

Kim Yun-su, in his late 40s, said he never before had gone to rallies, not even to the ones during the World Cup soccer games that captured the nation’s attention last summer. But Saturday at noon he was commemorating Korea’s March 1 Independent Movement in 1919 with his wife at City Hall plaza in central Seoul. They were part of a crowd estimated at 70,000 by police, shouting anti-nuclear and anti-North Korean slogans and calling for peaceful reunification.

“I regret that society doesn’t seem to have any regard for what the older generation thinks,” Mr. Kim said. “Conservatives are estranged from the decision-making process; only what the younger people think seems to matter.”

More than 100 conservative groups, including the Korea Freedom League, Korean War Abductees’ Family Union and Christian groups and war veterans associations sponsored the rally. Eighty-three Grand National Party lawmakers who recently issued a statement opposing a withdrawal of U.S. troops attended, as did ministers, Chung Won-shik, a former prime minister, and Park Hong, the former president of Sogang University here.

The participants, mostly middle-aged and older, shouted, “We love the United States,” and waved Korean and U.S. flags. Placards with slogans like “Do away with pro-communists” were hung. Massive Korean, U.S. and United Nations flags were unrolled over the heads of participants, who sang the U.S. and South Korean national anthems. Kim Eun-hye, who came to the rally with her family from Bundang, Gyeonggi province, said she regretted the dearth of young people there. “I guess that is because the younger generation did not experience the war,” she said.

An anti-American rally was held later that afternoon nearby; police estimated that crowd at about 2,200. The bulk of the participants were university students protesting against U.S. war preparations against Iraq. That rally was sponsored by a claimed 250 civic groups, including the Pan-National Committee, which sponsored candlelight demonstrations earlier for two girls crushed by a U.S. armored vehicle last summer.

Those demonstrators called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops and an apology from U.S. president George W. Bush for the deaths of the two girls. They shouted their opposition to Korean support for U.S. war plans against Iraq.

“It is my firm conviction that the U.S. military presence is the source of war, but the older people believe they serve as deterrence against North Korean attacks,” said Kang Mi-gyeong, a senior at Hongik University. “The older people must have terrible memories of the war, but their way of thinking is not following the changing times.”

Rallies tinged with pro- and anti-U.S. sentiment continued in Seoul Saturday evening. One sponsored by the Christian Council of Korea was staged at the Han Riverside Park at Yeouido. Another 100,000 persons, by police count, prayed for better moral values, national development and economic growth, more human rights in the North and refuge here for more North Korean defectors.

A group of 105 North Koreans, including so-called religious leaders there, arrived Saturday to meet representatives of South Korean religious groups. At a prayer meeting at Somang Church in Seoul, Pyeongyang delegates called for the withdrawal of foreign forces in South Korea, attacks that met protests from some of the South Korean Christians attending the service.

by Koh Han-sun (imagin@joongang.co.kr)

If you compare the thinking between the generations, you find the older generation sitting solidly in place knowing that they have the reins of power, while the younger generation in their 20-30s feel that they have the power to change the world with Roh in office. There will be a continuing generation gap problem in Korea as the showdown is fast approaching when Roh will have to face a reality check as to where his real base of support lies -- in the young electorate who put him in office or the old guard who are firmly entrenched in the bureaucracy and seats of power.

Former Activists of the "386" Generation Emerging in Mainstream Politics: The "386 Generation" refers to the supporters of the March 1986 Democracy Movement who fought to establish democracy in Korea after the assassination of Park Chung Hee. Riots throughout the nation culminated in the Massacre in Kwangju. This generation now in their 30s and early 40s still have a strong desire for change.

Roh's appointment to the Blue House (Cheong Wa Dae) of young reformists who once railed against the authoritarian elite and bureaucrats in office may signal a shift in power. Among the 34 appointees to secretarial posts, only two were incumbent government officials. Many of the remainder belong to a group dubbed "Roh's men" because of their relatively progressive ideas and personal ties to the president. The common history is that more than half of the new presidential secretaries are from the "386 Generation."

In a Korea Herald article on 25 Feb, Kim Kwang-ski, a political commentator said, "It is an emergence of a new mainstream group in our society." "We can say they represent the values and ideology held by the 386 generation and former student activists in the 1970s and 1980s, both of whom share the need to drastically restructure and reengineer our society," he said. The "386 generation" refers to those in their 30s or early 40s, who went to college in the 1980s and were born in the 1960s. Its members are known for their strong desire for change and for their key role in bringing Roh to victory. However, it is too early to say that the former student activists are replacing the established class of politicos because Roh's inner circle is still a minority within the established ruling and opposition parties.

The team's composition of mainly working class members reflect the mainstream as an anti-elitist move. But the some expressed concern that it could lead to instability in state affairs, highlighting the staff's lack of sturdy political credentials. Roh defied tradition by not selecting career bureaucrats or leaders and experts in various walks of life for the major Cheong Wa Dae secretarial posts. Prior to his inauguration, there was criticism that Roh's ventures into international politics seemed to be "run by amateurs."

However, the "militant leftist" image is not only applied to him. A concern for the U.S. is the control of mainstream politics by one-time activists who are now legislators in the National Assembly or bureaucrats in the Blue House. Their activist views will be a deciding factor in future dealings with the U.S. The following is an article in the Choson Ilbo on 19 Feb:

Former Activists Dominate Mainstream

by Heo Yong-bum (heo@chosun.com)

Former student activists have emerged as the core members of Cheong Wa Dae, the National Assembly, and political parties. One third of the 31 first to third level Cheong Wa Dae officials have served time in prison, as have 16 percent (43 representatives) of the current National Assembly members for political reason. If labor and poverty activists are included, then over 70 representatives have activist backgrounds. Eight of the ten members of the Grand National Party's "Towards the People" are former student activists who were expelled from university or arrested.

The mainstream political entry of former student activists took place after the "1987 democratization," and in the case of the GNP, after 1990, with the merging of three political parties. Kim Yeong-choon, who raided the headquarters of the conservative Democratic Justice Party in 1984 and Lee Seong-hon, a Yonsei University "student dissident" became part of the GNP then. In 1996, former left-wingers Lee Woo-jae, Lee Jae-oh, and Kim Moon-soo joined the party. Representative Lee Jae-oh spent time in prison on five separate occasions for anti-dictatorship protests and Representative Kim was one of the masterminds of the 1986 May 3 Incheon violent demonstration.

Representatives Lee Bu-young, Kim Boo-kyum, Suh Sang-sup, and Ahn Young-Keun of "Towards the People" participated in the 1997 merger of the former New Korea Party and Millennium Democratic Party. Representative Ahn, who asserted that representatives elected for over five terms should "step down," served time in prison on four occasions. In 2000, the GNP actively "scouted" former student activists who attended university during the 1980s (the so-called 386 generation), and Representatives Won Hui-ryong, Koh Jin-hwa and Jeong Tae-geun joined the party then.

The Millennium Democratic Party brought in distinguished men out of office during all the elections. Representatives Lee Hyup, Lee Hae-chan, Seol Hoon, Bae Ki-woon, and Chang Young-dal joined with Kim Dae-jung in 1987 in founding the Peace and Democracy Party. During the presidential election in 1988, Rep. Lee Sang-soo, who was the attorney in the Bucheon sexual torture cases in 1986, joined the party and in 1992, reps. Shin Geh-ryeun, Lee Ho-woong, and Jo Sung-joon joined forces.

When Kim Dae-jung declared his political return before the 1996 presidential election, reps. Kim Keun-tae, Kim Hee-sun, and Shin Jae-kwon, the last of the former activists, also joined him. Rep. Lee Chang-bok and others entered prior to the 1996 presidential election, during the founding of the MDP. Rep. Lim Jong-seok, who was behind the 1989 Lim Soo-kyung case, and Rep. Kim Tae-hong, who was arrested for conspiracy of rebellion, entered the National Assembly in the 2000 elections. Rep. Chung Dong-young and Lee Mi-kyung got together during the 1996 elections. The "386 generation" activists Huh In-hwe, Lee In-young, and Oh Young-shik also saw the opportunity to join the National Assembly.

Former student activists also joined the central and provincial governments. Minister of Gender Equality Han Myung-sook was sentenced to four years in prison in 1979 for the Christian Academy case. Son Hak-kyu, Governor of Gyeonggi Province, was imprisoned for a year. Of the various former activists, Yoo In-tae is a first generation activist who was sentenced to death with former Rep. Lee Chul in 1974. Chung Chan-yong, secretary in charge of appointments, had also received a 12-year sentence.

NGO Tactic to Boycott American Goods Backfires:

Anti-U.S. mood worries business

Half the American firms in Korea are worried that the recent anti-American sentiment may negatively affect U.S. firms' direct investments in Korea and Korean firms' exports to the United States.

Six out of 10 American companies thought the tension between Korea and the United States is either "very serious" or "serious." Only 7 percent said otherwise. The strain was ignited by the death of two girls and candlelight vigils calling for an amendment of Status of Forces Agreement in Korea governing U.S. servicemen.

A joint survey of 71 U.S. firms operating in Korea by the JoongAng Ilbo and the American Chamber of Commerce in Korea revealed that anti-American sentiments in Korea are a major concern.

The tensions are causing serious consequences for sales and management, a third of the respondents said, while 66 percent said that their local business activities are unaffected.

Half the American firms in Korea said that their U.S. headquarters were anxious about the anti-U.S. mood.

Asked to pick the areas most affected by the worsened relationship between the two countries, 61 percent cited the U.S. perception of Korea; 54 percent chose American direct investment in Korea; 27 percent mentioned Korea's exports to the United States and 24 percent referred to U.S. companies' activities in Korea.

More than half of the American firms said anti-Korean sentiment was not yet spreading in the United States, or that images of Korea were not much different from before. Thirty-eight percent of the respondents answered otherwise.

Asked about ways to improve the relationship of the two countries, one respondent said, "It seems that the U.S. does need to treat its Korean partner on a more equal basis."

Other replies included: "Greater admission by U.S. forces that this was a tragic accident and that significant efforts are being made to safeguard against any future occurrences," and "Continued efforts by current and new Korean administration to calm Korean emotions and promote recognition that U.S. efforts to avoid nuclear escalation in Korea is positive for all Koreans."

by Limb Jae-un

Growing Anti-Korea Business Movement: However, it appears that the action may have been too late. There are news reports that there is a growing "Boycott Korean Products" movement starting in the U.S. It was still at the embryonic stages in January 2003 but there are indications that more and more disgruntled Americans who have witnessed -- or been a target of -- the bigotry and racism involved in the recent anti-American demonstrations have started to write their congressmen, relatives, and local newspapers.

The aim of the movement in America does NOT seem to be aimed at Korean companies established in America (i.e., the Hyundai auto assembly plant in Alabama), but rather at imports from Korea. As of January 2003, this movement is still in its infancy in the letter writing stages with reports that a few people posted signs at dealerships, but nothing organized.

But major Korean corporations are paying attention as the anti-Korean grassroots movement builds -- especially after the 60-Minutes special on Anti-Americanism in Korea aired on 9 Feb -- and the negative impacts of falling confidence in Korean investment due to the North Korean crisis caused the Moody Investor Services rating for Korea to drop into the negative.

On 12 Feb it was announced that the major corporations would join the "roadshow" exhibitions in America to show Korean products in a positive light. "Accompanying Roh on his trip to the United States, the chaebol (conglomerate) leaders will strive to help dissipate negative image of Korea's economy stemming from North Korea's nuclear programs. Moreover, they will attempt to expand U.S. investments in Korea in connection with Roh's vision for Korea as a leading Northeast Asian business hub."

The large-scale roadshows were expected in Korea to significantly help ease U.S. investors' jitters towards the Korean economy and doing business here, particularly in the wake of Moody's Investors Service's latest rating downgrades and the escalating North Korean crisis. However, the truth is that the investors are driven by the Moody and S/P ratings which in turn are driven by the North Korean situation. That the Roh administration continues with the Sunshine Policy in opposition to the U.S. policy of isolating North Korea, there will be considerable skepticism dealing with the South resolving the issue any time soon.

To make matters worse, the grass roots level impacts are starting to surface. It appears that the anti-Americanism is starting to play a role in business relationships with America.

U.S. Businessmen Frowning on Korea

by Song Eui-dal (edsong@chosun.com)

High-level officials of the Commerce Ministry recently visited officials from three U.S. states - Georgia, Tennessee and North Carolina - to talk them out of withdrawing from an economic council of Korea and seven southern U.S. states.

The ministry officials were trying to save the annual Korea-Southeast U.S. Joint Conference, which has been held since 1986, after five of the seven member states had expressed their wish to annul the conference. The conference attracts hundreds of businessmen from both nations.

The dissenting states said they wanted to drop the conference because of tight budgets and the event's "low productivity." But observers said the real reason was the surge in anti-U.S. sentiment in South Korea since last year. An official from North Carolina who usually attends the conference sent an email last year to the ministry expressing disappointment with anti-U.S. demonstrations in Seoul.

With the efforts of Korean government officials, the U.S. side softened its stance, and the two sides decided the conference would be held every other year.

The grimmer problem at hand is that the United States seems to be getting less friendly toward Korea. An official at a large domestic corporation said signs of boycotts of Korean products are being seen in some parts of America. Heads of foreign companies in Korea say U.S. companies are reluctant to invest here now.

The United States is Korea's most important export market and is the largest investor in Korea. The Korean economy needs more systematic and creative efforts to shore up Korea-U.S. relations.

NGO-Initiated Polls Increasing and USFK Poll in response:

57% of Koreans want U.S. forces cut or withdrawn

A poll conducted by the JoongAng Ilbo in early January suggests that Koreans of different ages, regions and political views differ sharply in their attitudes toward the United States.

The poll asked Korean voters about the possible withdrawal or reduction of the United States Forces Korea, about the U.S. government and its people, and about U.S.-Korean relations. The survey was conducted from Jan. 4 to Jan. 13. It polled 1,200 voters and conducted in-depth interviews with 399 opinion leaders -- journalists, doctors, lawyers and business executives.

While most voters agreed that reform measures by the incoming Roh Moo-hyun administration are necessary, they had different opinions on the problems concerning the United States.

The difference was most obvious in questions about the U.S. military forces. An overall majority of Koreans favor withdrawal or reduction in numbers of the USFK. Forty three percent said the USFK should be somewhat reduced; 14 percent demanded a full withdrawal or a substantial reduction. Forty two percent said the USFK should remain at the current level and 2 percent said the forces should be expanded.

But opinions ranged widely according to the age groups and regions. While 51 percent of those aged 50 or older said that the USFK should remain at the current level, only 30 percent in their 20s agreed; just 8 percent of those 50 or older and 15 percent in their 20s were for full withdrawal of the USFK.

Opinions also varied by geography. Seven out of 10 in the Jeolla provinces said the USFK should withdraw or be reduced (52 percent for reduction, 18 percent for withdrawal). In the Gyeongsang provinces, around half were for either maintaining the current level or reinforcing the USFK.

Asked about the U.S. government, 47 percent said they "dislike" it. Only 16 percent "like" it, and the remaining 37 percent feel neutral. The younger generation and those in the Jeolla provinces are most opposed to the U.S. government. Among those in their 20s, 61 percent said they dislike it, while only 35 percent those 50 or older agreed. Fifty-five percent in the Jeolla provinces dislike the U.S. government, but just 37 percent in the Gyeongsang provinces.

Koreans, however, feel slightly warmer toward the American people and society. Thirty-two percent "dislike" them, 25 percent "like" them, and 43 percent were "neutral."

Asked what would be a desirable U.S.-Korean relationship, six out of 10 said that U.S. dominance is not desirable, including 48 percent who said, "Korea's U.S.-centered foreign and security policies need to be diversified," and 12 percent who answered, "Korea should totally reconsider its U.S.-centered foreign and security policies."

Thirty-three percent said, "the traditional alliance between the two countries should be retained." Only seven percent said, "Korea should acknowledge U.S. hegemony in the world and cooperate with it."

The opinion leaders, who appeared more progressive than the general public in other questions, were more cautious about the withdrawal of the USFK. Fifty-five percent of them favored keeping the traditional U.S.-Korean alliance.

by Special Reporting Team

The Korean polls show that one in two Koreans "dislike" Americans. However, an email to us from an old vet made a valid point about these polls over whether Koreans "liked" the U.S or not. He said, "When did being "liked" have anything to do with our foreign policy?" He's right. These polls are strictly for the Korean public in inciting the public and justifying the actions of the NGO groups in the public's mind.

Yonhap News reported on 24 Mar: "Nearly seven out of 10 South Koreans favor a withdrawal of U.S. troops, according to a poll conducted by fn research and consulting, an affiliate of the Financial News daily newspaper. The poll, conducted on 2,154 adults across the country one month into Roh Moo-hyun's presidency, suggested 68.4 percent support the pullout of the 37,000 U.S. soldiers stationed here with the remaining 31.6 percent against such a withdrawal."

USFK Poll in January 2003: In January, a USFK survey was to be conducted by DoD personnel in the Kyonggi-do area along the DMZ to ascertain the impacts of the USFK on the people in the area. Basically the poll will be attempting to ascertain the feelings of the people in the area towards the USFK. According to the news release a USFK survey was to be conducted by DoD personnel amongst the civilian populace in the Kyonggi-do area near the DMZ to ascertain the impacts of the USFK on the people in the area. Basically the poll was to ascertain the feelings of the people in the area towards the USFK and identify the problems encountered. According to the release, the personnel were due to arrive in January. Whether the poll was conducted as planned or not is unknown. No further news releases were published. The poll appears to have been part of an on-going review of the USFK forces in Korea talked about by Ambassador Thomas Hubbard in February 2003 at a Ministry of Defense think-tank seminar.

USFK Conducts Opinion Poll

by Kim Joon (kjoon@chosun.com)

The US Army 2nd Infantry Division announced Friday that it had started to conduct an opinion poll on Korean's perception of the United States Forces Korea from January 13. The announcement said that polling experts had flown in to collect the opinions of some 300 villagers of Gwangjeok-myeon, Yangju, Gyeonggi Province, where two middle school students were accidentally killed in a traffic accident last June, and some 400 residents of Paju, Gyeonggi Province, where American bases are situated. Twenty questions were included in the questionnaire, including personal data, and perspectives on Korean military threats, the USFK war prevention abilities, American bases' influence on regional economies, and pollution. An American official said that US forces took opinion polls when an improvement with civilian relations was needed and that the results will be used to further Korean American ties.

U.S. Opinion Skewed: The following is a very interesting article on U.S. perceptions of Korea. The article appeared in the Korea Times on 2 Nov 2001 BEFORE the anti-American campaign of 2002. Though some of the American opinions have gotten worse, many of the observations remain true.

[Stone Mirror] Role of US Press in Improving Inter-Korean Relations (II)

American Perceptions of Korea

The average American has an increasingly favorable, but still badly skewed impression on Korea. Some of these views would be laughable if they were not so dangerous. For example, 39 percent of average Americans thought Seoul was the capital of North Korea (45 percent knew better), and 71 percent still thought the U.S. provides major economic assistance to the South, while 18 percent (a 'great deal') and 32 percent (a 'fair amount') got their information about Korea from television programs such as M*A*S*H. At the same time, 30 percent of Americans felt 'very strongly,' and an additional 33 percent 'fairly strongly' that the U.S. had vital interests in South Korea. These percentages have increased from 43 percent in 1982. There is also an increase from 39 percent to 52 percent since 1987 among Americans who regard South Korea as a close ally or friend, although 18 percent believe South Korea is 'mainly unfriendly' or an 'enemy.' China and Russia are regarded as a greater threat to peace than North Korea. And 60 percent of the general public, in contrast to 33 percent of those 'better informed,' regard South Korea as posing a threat to U.S. jobs. In 1999, 47 percent of Americans thought the human rights situation in South Korea was very or somewhat favorable, and this percentage, although still relatively low, was double that impression in 1980. Finally, 48 percent agree that the U.S. should come to the defense of South Korea if it is attacked from by North Korea, while 43 percent would not do so.

Thus, although there is a growing favorable opinion about South Korea in the U.S., the attitudes of the average person is still far less positive than that of official U.S. pronouncements and the closeness of the military alliance. The need for further education of Americans is thus both obvious and urgent. How much this should be a responsibility of the educational system, from primary levels through university, and how much the media, and then whether knowledge of facts and relationships would yield positive policy adherence or support are different and essentially unanswerable questions.

Parenthetically, one should also note that the amount of space that American newspapers normally devote to international affairs has drastically diminished over the past decade, and overseas offices of American papers have also been cut. If Korea is a problem, the issue is far more widespread. The insularity of American knowledge on the rest of the world is both dangerous and tragic.

The Role of the American Media

The Fourth Estate in the United States has a very special function. It is, in effect, an informal but essential element in the checks and balance systems by which the United States, and democracies, operate. On a recent public television program, the relationship between the U.S. presidential press secretary or spokesman and the media was described by the White House as one inherently of confrontation. The media, under this system, considers that it should not be too close to the government, as one of its functions is to be the watchdog on state governance. It is true that often, in times of crisis, the media are swept along in the wake of government policies (perhaps events since September 11, 2001 illustrate this graphically), but at least in the last quarter-century, any cozy relationship between the media as a whole (as opposed to individual papers) and the government has been broken. In the earlier period, publishers, editors, and senior government officials came from the same class, had similar or even identical education, and knew each other socially. This is less true today; the press and media are more diverse, and perhaps suspicion of government has grown as a result of both Watergate and the Vietnam War, when in both cases the government attempted both to use the media for its own purposes and to keep from the press critical aspects of events.

It is certainly true that the government, most especially the White House, will attempt to put the most favorable interpretation on any event, and 'spin doctors' (public relations specialists) are employed to figure out what would most appeal to the American public. But the balance, even with the 'bully pulpit' that any president has, is more even. The government tries to influence the media, but their weapons are limited. President Eisenhower could stop White House subscriptions to newspapers he did not like, and President Truman could write a very nasty letter to a music critic of the Washington Post who badly panned his daughter's concert, but these were essentially the venting of individual, not national, spleens.

If the U.S. government were to attempt to limit press access, as all administrations have done to some degree and under various rationales, there would be an outcry in the press over such sensitivities. The government has lost many cases where secrecy was invoked in the name of national security, the publishing of the 'Pentagon Papers' by the New York Times and Washington Post is a prime example, and a freedom of information law, although imperfect, provides considerable access to the public record. Even in times of warfare and national emergency, the press fights to be able to accompany military missions and report back with a relative degree of objectivity and in spite, in the worst cases, of considerable censorship. Public opinion in the United States against the war in Vietnam was in large part prompted by the negative media images and stories emanating from the battlefield.

If one were to think of the role of the international press in most industrialized countries in terms of classical East Asia, one could say that the press acts as a modern Chinese (or Korean) Imperial Censorate, which had access to the emperor and whose function was to tell the Emperor or King what was right, proper, appropriate, and prudent. The people who staffed such institutions in China or Korea wrote the histories. They represented the societal norms and acted as a break on imperial power. They had imperial access and were, if you will, the conscience of a society in which power was highly and personally concentrated.

It is in a sense ironic that the media in the West has taken on the traditional role of the Censorate of the East, while the role of the media in the East often engages in that activity with more circumspection, and other, more modern types of 'censorates' close to the leaders are lacking. If the press in Korea does not take on the Censorate role, then there is no other institution in that society capable of doing so, and then government tends to become more isolated both from reality and its own public.

The Role of the Korean Media

The history of the Korean media since the First Republic has not been a happy one. It has been subject to implicit and explicit censorship, ritual purges, repressive measures, the selective withdrawal of government advertising, and tax scrutiny. The state has in extreme cases subjected the press to direct KCIA control, and in other cases has used its pressure to influence what is or is not reported or what degree of emphasis or prominence (or lack thereof) some stories should have. Even since political liberalization in June 1987 and new constitutional provisions for its absolute independence and freedom, these pressures still exist to a degree, although there is no doubt that the status of the media has vastly improved since the dictatorial eras. There is no doubt that the press (which is freer than the non-print media) has a degree of autonomy unprecedented in Korea history. Yet there are still a great deal of personal influence, self- censorship, and care exercised in the state-media relationship.[1]

At the same time, the Korean press begins with a higher degree of social acceptance than the American press. It was regarded as modern type of literati with greater prestige than the U.S. press. It has in large part lost that standing through shoddy and inaccurate reporting, the lack of attention to detail and alternative sources, sometimes corruption or subject to manipulation, and a tendency to be seen as less than independent. About four-fifths of press revenues now come from advertising (since the period when the government allowed the expansion of the number of pages newspapers could print), and those companies that advertise are highly concentrated, thus giving them great influence. Some chaebol owned some of the newspapers outright, although since the financial crisis of 1997 that has changed.

The media have from time to time been charged with corruption, and the influence of chonggi (white envelopes containing money given to the reporters) is still said to be extensive. Ministries are covered by a core group of reporters, on a Japanese model, and they are often dependent on government handouts, not on new work. Earlier analyses of the press in Korea indicated that the bulk of 'news' (in contrast to other editorial, non-news, stories) were self-serving handouts from interested organizations, especially government.

The press in Korea is subject to intense, informal pressures to conform. When certain stories emanating from abroad nowhere appear in the Korean media, there is a natural suspicion that state influence or self-censorship is present. Although this may be a holdover from a previous, unpleasant era, this persistent perception is important. As one editor said, in Korea there are editorial meetings to determine why one paper's stories were not similar to those in other papers, while in the United States such meetings would have criticized the staff because their reporting or stories were similar to those of other papers. The U.S. media tries to beat other papers with unique stories. The Korean press, according to many in that profession, does not engage in investigative reporting, perhaps both because the culture of the press and the costs, and the political consequences of being a 'rogue.'

The roles of the press and reporting and editorial staff in both countries are somewhat different and have differing effects in both societies. In Korea, the press regularly gets well known Korean academicians to write articles of opinion and analysis on a regular basis. There are only a few reporters who have become respected columnists. Thus the avenue of mobility within the reportorial profession (it is extensive when reporters venture into other fields) in Korea is more circumscribed than in the United States. In the U.S., the regular op-ed writers are not primarily academicians, so this gives greater scope for advancement to those professionally in the media. Most governments, including democracies, regard information as power, and thus want to use it for their own purposes. Over time, democracies have come to understand that control of the media, which can often be uncomfortable to those in power, is a necessary price for societal balance. Korea, on the other hand, is still strongly influenced by the Confucian concept of the moral (in contrast to the legal) authority of those governing. There is thus a tendency for the state as much to regard acceptance of their views and opinions as a form of moral and appropriate obedience as it is for the leadership to advocate orthodoxy of opinion. It is significant that there is a great difference between the United States and Korea in explaining unpleasantness. In the U.S., 'spin doctors' try to put things in the best possible light. In Korea, one uses myongbun, which differs from 'spin' in that it always contains a moral element, in keeping with the template of moral governance and authority.

Under these circumstances, it is apparent there is a tendency in Korea for the state to try and use the media to further its policies, the most important of which now is to improve relations on the Korean peninsula through the 'Sunshine Policy' or some form of engagement. Some in the media in Korea will resist, and they clearly have far more right to do that than ever before in Korean history. Yet the pressures for intellectual conformity and orthodoxy on serious policy issues are also apparent.[2] If the government in the United States were to attempt to pressures the press, there would be outrage with important political ramifications.

Conclusions

If the American press were to contribute to improvement of relations on the peninsula, it could only do so within the context of American cultural practices in terms of the relations between the U.S. press and the state. Since these relationships have tended to be skeptical at best and often adversarial or confrontational, any governmental dictum to attempt to use the media to engender support for state policies on the peninsula would likely fail and raise suspicions about the motivation and role of the state.[3] Any foreign efforts inappropriately to influence the U.S. press would produce even worse results, as happened in the 'Koreagate' era in the 1970s. Open explanations of policies, both to the media and to the public, are more effective means to solicit support. The direct role of the state in this process is severely circumscribed. There also may be an educational role for the press in educating government, or at least those decision makers who read the press and rely on it for their information.

The media themselves, however, including the press, could, and should, do more on its own to improve their reporting and analysis. Better trained staff sensitive to local issues, especially those related to the peninsula, greater allocations of space to peninsular problems, more background reporting on issues before they become crises,[4] senior resident correspondents on the peninsula, all of these could contribute to enhancing understanding, if not directly to better relations. These are valid reasons for expanding competence and coverage, although whether they would result in improved peninsula relations is a moot point.

The need for greater sensitivity of the American press and media to Korean issues is apparent. The burgeoning Korean-American population will also begin to demand greater accuracy and more in-depth coverage of the peninsula and the issues affecting it. But the responsibility for this lies with the media, and not with the U.S. government, except only indirectly. If an administration at the highest levels were to explain to the public the importance of the peninsula in terms of U.S. national interests and the Northeast Asian region, then the media might respond with better coverage. But this need not result in improved relations, although it might produce greater understanding. Thus, the short answer to the question of whether there is a role for the American press in improving Korean relations is; there is none. But there is a clear role by the media in improving understanding, a role not yet properly or adequately fulfilled by the press.
----
[David I. Steinberg is Director of Asian Studies, School of Foreign Service, Georgetown University.]

Roh wants to revise SOFA, but U.S. and MOJ Sees No Need:

Executive Summary: The U.S. alliance with the Republic of Korea has been America's most consistently dangerous commitment since the end of World War II. Yet South Korea is beginning to look away from the United States for its defense. Newly elected President Roh Moo-hyun campaigned on a platform of revisiting the security relationship, and he has attempted to adopt the role of mediator between America and North Korea.

Recently attention has been focused on events in North Korea, but the North Korean nuclear controversy must be considered within the context of the U.S.-ROK security relationship. The future of America's relations with South Korea is complicated by Washington's unnatural military presence on the Korean peninsula, and no solution is likely until that unnatural presence is removed. The 37,000 U.S. troops in the South are a Cold War artifact, and the U.S.-ROK alliance— once considered valuable—must be reconsidered. It is time to restructure that relationship, and the United States and the ROK should begin planning for removal of all American forces from the Korean peninsula.

Currently North Korea is emphatically claiming that the U.S. is preparing for war. The U.S. has waved it away with the White House stating that the North has always said the same thing. This time there is a buildup going on and the stakes are getting higher. But for the first time, the U.S. is going it alone -- as Donald Rumsfield hinted at in December 2002 when he stated that the U.S. could win two wars simultaneously implying that the U.S. didn't need South Korea's help in destroying the North.

The various exercises in early 2003 were simply covers for moving more and more U.S. forces into the area. (See F-117A Visits Kunsan for details on F-117A deployment and other units.)

• The 7th AEW with its 24 B-52s and B-1 bombers were in place in Guam. In March 2003 the F-16s of the 18th FS, 354th FW were directed to Guam for an undisclosed period. The 53rd Weather Reconnaissance Squadron was been ordered to deploy to Guam until 15 Dec. The 49th FW F-117As deployed at Kunsan and were joined by a squadron of Marine FA-18s in May.
  
  
• The USAF in Japan has had five spy planes, including RC-135Ss and WC-135Ws, making regular flights since January, when the North Korean nuclear crisis pitched up. Also, the number of E-3 AWACS active in the effort rose from one to three. The E-3s were flying almost every day along with two F-15s - which is unprecedented. The flights used to be staged only during daylight hours, but beginning in May the RC135S started making night flights -- possibly to monitor missile launches at night by North Korea. Tensions decreased significantly when massive explosions were noted at the North Korean missile test facility. Though no damage assessment was released, the threat of missile tests over shooting Japan were greatly reduced.
  
  
• The USS Carl Vinson was first deployed to cover for the USS Kitty Hawk when it deployed to the Persian Gulf, but when the Kitty Hawk returned on May 6, the USS Carl Vinson returned to Yokosuka to replace the USS Kitty Hawk when it entered the Yard on May 12. The USS Carl Vinson will remain deployed until December and is most assuredly covered by the two nuclear subs out of Guam as long as it remains in the area.
  
  
• On 22 May the 3rd Battalion, 8th Marine Regiment along with some element of the III Marine Expeditionary Force arrived in Pohang via high speed transport from Okinawa the Korean Incremental Training Program which would take place May 28 through June 19. Over 600 Marines from Okinawa were transported, but the significant point was that they arrived in less than 24 hours. The significance is that other methods of transport would take weeks to mobilize.
  
  
• 1,800 soldiers/airmen had their overseas rotation who had their tours extended prior to the Iraq war had their tours re-extended. Task Force 2-34 (2nd Btn/34th Armor Rgt/1st Bde/1st ID) was supposed to depart after 4 May, but was held in place. In addition, the Task Force for Foal Eagle withdrew enough equipment for 2 armor companies, 1 mechanized infantry company, a field artillery battery, a headquarters element, and equipment for a forward support battalion. (See Global Security.org for details.)
  
  

(SITE NOTE: In January 2002, my anger at Korea and the silence of Kim Dae-jung in not stopping the violence was such that I recommended that the U.S. leave Korea immediately -- even if the consequences on Korea were to be catastrophic. I felt it had earned the enmity of America -- and deserved the bitter fruits of its violent, hate-filled anti-Americanism. Now I have changed my mind because the U.S. basically has reversed the situation completely -- causing the Koreans to shut up and pay attention. The U.S. is saying that they are minor players in this drama -- and they had better not make waves anymore.

The point is that the U.S. is a minor player in the initial DEFENSIVE of South Korea from a North Korean onslaught. It brings to the table its high-tech Apache helicopters, artillery systems and intelligence, but the actual numbers of USFK forces are not significant. The U.S. promise of 640,000 follow-on forces IS significant. However, Korea is a minor player in the OFFENSIVE phase. Under Oplan 5027 the USFK will "take the fight north." All USFK buildups have been pointed to the removal of the North's regime and the complete destruction of its military. ALL of the U.S. might would be brought to bear on the North if it were foolish enough to start a war.)

Stryker

The U.S. future war-fighting strategy in Korea started to publicly take shape in May. The DMZ would be the sole responsibility of the ROK and they would have to hold or delay the North Korean invasion. Marine Expeditionary troops from Okinawa or Japan would be the first troops could be relocated to Korea within 24 hours using high-speed transports. U.S. 25th ID Light Infantry Brigade would be airlifted in from Hawaii. The 3rd Bde, 2d ID SBCT would be in place in the first week to hold the ground until the Heavy Brigade follow-ons with their equipment pre-positioned off-shore in Korea would be ready to join in the battle. Even if the equipment were located off of Vietnam on transport ships, it could still reach Korea within the 7-day window that is forecast for the mobilized forces from the continental U.S. to arrive.

The Stryker Brigade Combat Team is the newest unit in the Army inventory, designed to fill an operational gap between the Army's heavy and light forces. The SBCT is more responsive, deployable, agile, versatile and sustainable than current heavy forces with increased lethality and survivability over the Army's lighter forces. The Stryker, an eight-wheeled medium-weight armored vehicle, is the SBCT's primary combat and combat support system. Significantly lighter and more transportable than existing tanks and armored vehicles, the Stryker allows the SBCT to be strategically and tactically deployable, officials said, and capable of rapid movement worldwide. Its primary advantage in Korea is its ability to move around in an urban environment. (SITE NOTE: We also have come to the conclusion that the Stryker/LAV III is NOT the right choice for use on the DMZ -- especially during the rainy season when it will become mired down in the mud. Also the DMZ is best suited for tracked vehicles that can clear obstacles easily, while the Stryker must literally slam into the object to ride up over the obstacle so that its wheels can grab. Its armor and guns have been criticized. These are only a few of the complaints. However, if it is positioned SOUTH of the Han, it has fewer liabilities as it is operating in its environment with paved roads. SEE Stryker for details of its faults.)

The 3rd Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division (Arrowhead Brigade) is the first unit in the Army to train at two of the Army's premier training centers back-to-back undergoing certification. The Brigade moved from the NTC in Fort Irwin, CA to Fort Polk, LA in preparation for its capstone evaluation between 17-27 May. If all goes well, the Secretary of Defense will then certify to Congress that the results of the evaluation indicate the design of the SBCT is operationally effective and suitable for deployment on operational missions. At that time it could be deployed to Korea for summer military exercises to test its capabilities in Korea.

We agree with Secretary Rumsfield and the USFK hierarchy that the U.S. forces must be removed from the DMZ as soon as possible and relocated south of the Han. If they remain on the DMZ, the U.S. options for dealing with North Korea are severely limited. Despite the South's refusal to admit that the "military option" is a negotiating card with the North, we feel it is essential to bring the North to the table. The U.S. has shown its resolve to go after the "axis of evil" and topple the regime in Iraq. The conclusion that North Korea may be next is not hard to figure out for the North.

We fully support the idea that the 2nd ID should be turned into a smaller SBCT (Stryker Brigade Combat Team) status, to make its forces lighter and more mobile -- and relocated south of the Han River in Taegu or Pyongtaek it becomes a highly effective fighting force. The entire DMZ -- including the JSA (Joint Security Area) -- should be turned over to ROK control. It is time to kill the outdated and bankrupt concept of stationary U.S. forces being used as a "tripwire." By pulling back from the DMZ, the U.S. would complete the disengagement started in 1970 when President Johnson started the withdrawal of U.S. troops along the DMZ.

Rumsfield's proposal in March 2003 to relocate the 2d ID enmasse south of the DMZ and turn over the entire DMZ and JSA to the ROK has definite merit. The U.S. has promised the ROK increased high-tech weaponry and follow-on support. In May 2003, the U.S. proposed pre-positioning equipment for a heavy brigade off shore on 3 or 4 transports, beefing up the air defenses with 16 PAC-3 Patriots to beef up the 48 PAC-2 Patriots already in country. The envisioned building another runway at Osan AB to turn it into an "air hub" reflect the changed global strategies the U.S. will employ in the future. With the new runway, emergency troops could be airlifted in to beef up Army and USAF units in the Pyongtaek area.

More important is that once the 2d ID has been reduced, the 3d Bde 2d ID could be reconverted into a "medium" brigade with M1A1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles that are more suitable for the Korean environment. It would remain in place and supplement the ROK forces until such time as a permanent peace is reached between the Koreas. The bottomline is that there is a significant difference between a 3,000-4,000 man brigade versus the current 14,000 Army troops. This however would be dependent on the world situation and the global positioning of future Stryker units. The whole concept is undergoing a reevaluation after the Iraq War and the failure of the NATO allies to support fly-over authority to get the troops to the battle area.

U.S. Needs to Review Some Old Concepts: We still feel that we need to dust off the Nixon Doctrine that states that the U.S. will furnish economic and military assistance, but Korea will be responsible for providing the actual manpower for its own defense. Our policy should be that we will provide immediate air and naval support with follow-on ground forces if necessary. The point is that the defense of Korea is theirs alone. Under the third phase of global military repositioning, the forces need to be moved out of areas that are points of contention. Forces have been largely withdrawn from Saudi Arabia -- and now the U.S. is eyeing Korea and Okinawa. It is time.

We need to reconsider why Korea's Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) is NOT an automatic defense mechanism like Europe's MDT in that it requires Congressional approval. The truth is that from the start the Korean MDT reflected the basic distrust of the Korean government. We need to remember that the Congress made sure that the MDT took effect only if the North attacked the South, not vice versa -- because of our basic distrust of Syngman Rhee. We need to remember how in 1953, Syngman Rhee refused to sign the armistice creating the "state of war" between the two Koreas that has lasted till today. Our "alliance" with Korea was founded on mistrust -- not the opposite. It is time the Koreans face up to the reality of their situation.

We need to review the reasons for having the U.S. troops act as a "tripwire" in Korea. The idea of a "tripwire" still favored by the Roh Administration -- and was openly demanded by Prime Minister Goh in March 2003. It is a bankrupt idea that has outlived its time -- and was based on false assumptions to start with. The 2d ID was not positioned near the DMZ because the U.S. wanted them there. They are there because the South Koreans DEMAND them to be there. The only reason the bulk of the 37,000 troops are stationed uncomfortably close to the DMZ is that they are nothing more than a "tripwire" to reassure the South that the U.S. would come to their defense once American blood is shed. They were positioned strategically along the invasion corridors to ensure that they WOULD BE in harm's way. Because of their status as a "tripwire," the U.S. options in Korea are severely limited.

A G-12 Nation Can Foot its own Defense Bill: The time has come for Korea to foot it fair share of the defense bill. Why is Korea a hardship tour where only 10 percent of the soldiers are on accompanied tours, while locations such as Europe and Japan have rates about 76 percent? It is time that someone speaks out on this issue. The reason is simply that the ROK was NOT forced to foot its fair share until 1990 when the FIRST renegotiation of the SOFA was accomplished since it took effect in 1963. After 1990, there have been other renegotiations and the ROK has been FORCED to increase its defense share -- though the NGO activists denounced the U.S. for doing this. (SEE SOFA for details.)

The bottomline is that for a G-12 nation, Korea costs the U.S. about $20 billion annually. (SEE Korea Should Start Paying Their Own Way for details.) Korea benefits from the high-tech weaponry and intelligence that the U.S. brings to its defense. In the past, the ROK has tried to quietly move away from the U.S. support negotiating with other countries for military hardware. (SEE Korea's Move to be Independent Militarily from U.S. Support for details in 2001.) However, Korea has been very quiet about this fact over the years -- until in May 2003, the Ministry of National Defense finally admitted publicly that $20 billion annually was the expense that it would have to foot if the U.S. military left Korea. This report was a result of a plan that President Roh demanded in March 2003 to outline how the ROK could defend itself without U.S. support. The investment required to bring ROK forces up to the protection afforded with the U.S. forces was beyond the reach of the Korean economy. Shaken by this figure, the Korean public suddenly fell silent.

Historically, the U.S. has been willing to foot the bill for Korea's defense because Korea provided a buffer zone between China and Japan -- the cornerstone of democracy in Asia. Over the years, the support for the corrupt regimes and iron-fisted dictators of Korea followed. However, with the fall of the "Evil Empire" in 1991 and the opening of trade partnerships with China with its "most favored nation status," the concept of a buffer-zone has become outdated. It is now time for the U.S. to step away from subsidizing the South Korean defense with a $20 billion contribution.

How did the U.S. get trapped into this "subsidy"? After the Korean War, the U.S. provided 100 percent of the foreign income for the corrupt Syngman Rhee regime, but this also allowed the U.S. to have a free-hand in Korea -- including stationing its nuclear weapons there that were not allowed in Japan. In effect, Korea remained "American territory" until 1961 when the students revolted against the regime. When Rhee was exiled, Park Chung-hee emerged as the next strongman of Korea and grants to prop up his regime was continued. China at the time was the enemy -- and the buffer zone that Korea provided was essential to the U.S. strategy in the region. After Park was elected, the first SOFA agreement was signed and the financial support continued for Korea. In the 1970, Lyndon Johnson decided that he needed more international support in Vietnam and called on Park Chung-hee to increase his commitment of troops to Vietnam. The U.S. troop commitment was reduced and the DMZ was turned over to the ROK. In return, the ROK received increased U.S. aid to upgrade its military forces in the form of Foreign Military Sales (FMS) equipment, training and grants.

U.S. prestige in Asia was at a low-ebb in Asia after its defeat in Vietnam. In 1975, then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfield under Gerald Ford should remember that the only reason the U.S. remained in Korea was to reassure our Asian allies of America's resolve to remain a power in Asia -- even after our humiliating defeat in Vietnam. However, Jimmy Carter was fed up with Park Chung-hee's human rights excesses and he campaigned to remove the troops from Korea if elected. In addition, Jimmy Carter wanted to remove the American troops as a "tripwire" because they limited his flexibility of action in dealing with the continuing threats from the North. However, Carter was forced to retreat from his original position and the Americans remained. Park Chung-Hee received $1.5 billion during the course of the 5-year force-improvement program, primarily through FMS credits. Over the years, the U.S. expenditures in Korea for its defense has amounted to over $20 billion annually.

This assistance was a significant contribution to the ROK's efforts to expand further its defense industries and contributed to the Miracle of the Han. The South made a conscious decision to foresake its military modernization and sink all of its monies into a "chaebol" system based on the Japanese "keiritsu" industrial system. Thus was born the chaebol system with selected companies receiving all the benefits and protection of the government. In effect, the South started its military modernization program 12 years after the North in 1987 -- by using the U.S. umbrella to offset its low expenditures on defense. This allowed the ROK to funnel its financial resources into its chaebol industrial base.

In April 1990, the senior Bush administration sent a troop reduction plan, based on the Nunn-Warner East Asia Strategy Evaluation Report, to the US Congress. At first, the American forces were slated for an initial 25% reduction, but the South Korean government still feared North Korean intentions and was opposed to the 'high' rate of reduction. At that time, the U.S. saw no strategic reason for staying in Korea. The Koreans cried out, "Why has my big brother forsaken me?" The troop reduction rate was lowered, but soon the first North Korean nuclear crisis began with Kim Il-sung pushing the envelope to the brink of war.

In November 1991, then Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney announced that the United States would suspend its planned force reductions "until the dangers and uncertainties of the North Korean nuclear program have been thoroughly addressed." It was North Korea's "nuclear potential" and the threat of war that stopped the troop withdrawals ... not any strategic reason for the U.S. The situation was resolved in 1994 when a treaty was signed where the U.S. promised heavy oil and the North stated that it would shelve its nuclear program. Nuclear generators would be built under the auspices of KEDO.

Though the world claims that Jimmy Carter saved the day through diplomacy, we still believe it was Clinton's resolve to make a smoking hole of the Yongbin facility with cruise missiles -- his favorite weapon -- that changed the North's mind. But the key point is that the USFK forces had NOTHING to do with the resolution of this crisis. As we said before, a "tripwire" USFK force is NOT going to resolve this nuclear problem. It can only be resolved through diplomatic dialogue or making a smoking hole of Pyongyang.

In the 1990s after the Nunn-Warner Initiative, Korea started to upgrade its defense in earnest as it did away with its image of the U.S. as its "big brother." Korea was growing up. However, it used its protectionist policies to funnel its military contracts to its shipbuilding industries as well. The ship yards are pumping out submarines on German design and cruisers and destroyers. Its ambitious plan also calls for a carrier in 2010 -- the Admiral Shin. The KF-16 contract allowed Korea to start up a fledgling aircraft industry in Sochon. The KMA-1 Main Battle Tank is built in Korea and its armored troops carriers are being exported. However, Korea lacks the high-tech weaponry of the U.S -- nor does it have the advanced intelligence sources. (See Korea Continues to March to Its Own Drummer for a detailed look at the ROK military. Incidentally, the Korean plans to build a carrier may push the Japanese into building one of their own. The point is that the Japanese is only missing a carrier to have a carrier battle group with Aegis destroyers already in place. The South Koreans in denouncing the Japanese -- have openly supported the North and have pushed the Japanese to consider rewriting their "peace Constitution. This separate problem is a very sticky issue.)

However, it was not until 1990 that Korea was FIRST asked to provide its fair share for defense. Screaming loudly of lack of funds, it did increase its share -- though not up to a share expected of a G-12 nation. In later SOFA negotiations, the share for Korea increased significantly. It was at this time the NGO (non-government organization) activist groups, using a very strange logic, claimed that the U.S. should foot the bill because they were in Korea to further their foothold on power.

As the anti-Americanism of 2002 progressed, the resolve of the U.S. to withdraw from the DMZ was solidified. Because of the Roh administrations actions in not supporting the U.S. stance on handling North Korea, the U.S. has now taken a tactic of TELLING the South what it intends to do under the guise of "close coordination." The final step will be in October which will put into concrete the U.S. intentions in Korea for the future.

The U.S. has promised Korea high-tech systems to improve their defense capabilities. In May, the U.S. proposed a plan to bolster the forces in Korea by sending in 16 Patriot PAC-3 to supplement the existing 48 Patriot PAC-2 batteries would neutralize most of the North's missile threat. The ROK has these systems on order, but delayed procurement until 2007 as the Americans are bringing in PAC-3 systems. They get their cake and eat it too. As for Apache helicopters and A-10 Warthogs, it will have to be willing to spend more cash. As for intelligence capabilities, it is far behind Japan who already has two spy satellites over North Korea and plans to launch two more.

As the U.S. cranked up the pressure on Korea sharing more of its defense burden, the ROK has increased its defense budget from 2.7 percent of GDP to 3.2 percent of GDP. However, to most this still falls short of what most developed countries spend on their defense. Now that the South is prosperous and democratic, it can afford to commit more of its GNP into its defense. It has twice the population of North Korea and an economy 18 times larger. Its adversary lacks international friends. North Korea now talks of avoiding absorption by Seoul, not of conquest. The South Korean military is a formidable force capable of defending South Korea alone, while the North's military though still formidable is slowly getting weaker and weaker. (See Food for Thought: The Military Option in North Korea: for a short comparison of the ROK-North Korea faceoff.)

How Long is SHORT TERM? We see no LONG TERM reason for the U.S. to remain in Korea. Our opinion is still that the USFK should reduce its presence at the earliest possible date. Once the North Korean situation is resolved, the U.S. should start the immediate disengagement process and/or leave Korea -- leaving behind a small caretaker force for its prepositioned "follow-on" packages. The CATO Handbook for Congress: Weaning South Korea (1996) makes a compelling argument for complete withdrawal.

Though we now feel that the current USFK plan to relocate and convert the 2d ID to a SBCT is in the best interests of the USFK, we feel that it should be viewed as only a SHORT TERM measure. We feel that once the 3d Bde 2d ID Interim SBCT has served its purpose of forcing the relocation off the DMZ of the 2d ID and the U.S. troops are all south of the Han river, the next phase should take place. The Interim SBCT should be reconverted back into a "medium" brigade with M1A1 Abrams tanks and Bradley fighting vehicles. The LONG TERM goal should be to leave the defense of Korea to Korea. We still feel that the the U.S. should ultimately leave Korea -- leaving behind a caretaker force like in Thailand with equipment prepositioned as part of a "follow-on" package.

How long is "SHORT TERM"? The U.S. is signing on for between 2007-2011. These are reflected in the dates of the amended SOFA and LPP documents that the USFK are inking to implement their new military global repositioning strategy in Korea. However, things are changing so rapidly that I don't think anyone -- even those involved in the most intimate planning details -- knows where this new strategy will lead. The dynamics of the situation are much bigger than simply Korea. The global repositioning strategy regionally includes how China and Russia will react with deployments of their forces -- AND the strengthening of the Japanese SDF forces and Taiwan defense. The South East Asia dynamics also affect this mix by adding Australia, Thailand, Indonesia, Singapore, Philippines and Vietnam to the equations.

Behind the scenes regionally, we see the U.S. encouraging Japan to enlarge its SDF forces. The inclusion of Japanese SDF crews on borrowed KC-135 tankers raises questions of why an SDF force needs tanks. Japan is increasing its satellite intelligence capabilities over North Korea -- but we also think it also over South Korea as well -- and the question is: "To what ends?"

Amid much furor, a few years ago Japan joined the UN peace-keeping forces of the world. In the Iraq War, the Japanese provided tankers on the seas enroute to the Persian Gulf. We have watched as the SDF improved its naval forces until all it needs is a carrier to form a carrier group. The nomenclatures of the vessels have been masked to pretend that they are coastal defense vessels, but in fact Japan has had a world-class blue water navy since the 1970s. The Japanese have started to manufacturing their own fighters and have plans of drawing boards for the next generation fighters. The SDF forces are equipped with an impressive array of the latest high-tech weaponry and have other weapons on order. The Japanese are seriously moving towards a different perspective on the use of the SDF. Japanese Air SDF pilots and maintainers arrived in Alaska for Cooperative Cope Thunder on May 27. The June 5-20 exercise represents the first time the JASDAF has deployed fighter aircraft to any exercise outside of Japan. Cope Thunder is a Pacific Air Forces-sponsored, air combat training exercise held up to four times a year. SDF Forces have practiced air refueling operations at the helm of a borrowed KC-135 -- something that SDF would not need for strictly Japanese use. Recently it finally opted to sign on to the Theater Missile Defense initiative, though it has jointly joined with the U.S. in research on such a system for many years. It is ordering PAC-3 Patriots in the interim.

We see the recent changes in providing war contingency powers to the Constitution and there is now talk of amending the "Peace Constitution" altogether. The biggest impact is the changes to the Japanese "peace" constitution that has allowed it to consider actions IF Japan were attacked. The interpretations of these changes are that "imminent" attack is classified the same as an attack. Thus preemptive strikes are possible. Other changes was the authorization of a non-combatant SDF force to Iraq even though there are still hostilities going on. These changes reflect a very dramatic shift in the Japanese stance to its military capabilities internationally.

The Japanese are now seeing their neighbors -- not only North Korea, but also South Korea as a potential future threat. Remember that if the Koreas unify, they will have the combined strength to become bullies of the area -- especially if the South takes over the North's nuclear arsenal intact. This has not been lost on the Japanese man in the street who knows how much hatred is being heaped upon them from Korea. If the Koreans think that their insults to the Japanese emporer, Prime Minister and Japanese people in general has not been recognized, they need to rethink their positions. The recent remarks of a son of man lost in a ship sunk returning Koreans after the war when he lost a Japanese court suit rings true -- "I will never forgive them and I will pass my hatred of the Japanese to my progeny through the millinea." Business is business and good relations are essential for their business relationship, but it does mean that Korea will ever become a trusted friend.

As Korea increases its military, so has the Japanese SDF. If one looks closely you will see a parallel development between Korea's increased military strength and Japan's SDF buildup which has been very low-key but from 1990 on, a lot of high-tech aircraft and armaments have been added to its inventory. The only difference is that the Japanese are light-years ahead of the Koreans. The Koreans can only buy or sign lease agreements, while the Japanese already have a home-grown defense industry. The Japanese will launch their second set of spy satellites over North Korea in Sept 2003, while the Koreans are still struggling to get their home-grown cruise missile off the ground. The Koreans could only manufacture under lease agreement the KF-16, while the Japanese improved the design of the JF-16 with Mitsubishi carbon composite wings making it better than the original. The Japanese have three Aegis destroyers, but the Koreans in their attempt to "buy cheap" only have a defective French Aegis-version that no one wants to talk about.

In recent months, there has been talk of removing more and more of the U.S. forces from Okinawa as the U.S. global repositioning of military forces progresses. Where this will lead is unknown at this time, but it is certain that there WILL be a reduction in Okinawa where 98 percent of the U.S. forces in Japan are stationed. If one looks at the threats to the area that these forces support, they are Taiwan and Korea. Taiwan has been promised some very controversial armaments to offset Chinese threats and the shape of Korea's forces are undergoing changes as we speak. Therefore, Okinawa's U.S. forces will undergo changes as well.

Therefore, we are backing away from our opinions stated in January 2003 that the U.S. should withdraw its forces IMMEDIATELY. We now see some very postive steps by the U.S. to dictate its future in Korea -- rather than accepting all the pain and grief it did in 2002. Because of the positive changes, we now agree with the U.S. positions to change the military forces in Korea.

In the LONG TERM, we still feel the USFK should be removed once the North Korean threat of nuclear weapons are removed and some form of reduction in forces takes place along the DMZ. We have a feeling that it may come very soon. The opinion polls in Korea show that the citizenry are finally waking up from their idyllic stupor and facing the reality that appeasement of the North is a losing strategy. However, they also remain firm in their resolve that as soon as the North Korean crisis is over, the USFK should leave.

How long is SHORT TERM? I would feel 2007 would be a good target date. I feel that within three years, everything should come to a head. The nuclear issue will be resolved -- or Yongbin will be a smoking hole, Seoul will have been attacked with catastrophic consequences, and North Korea will have ceased to exist as a country.

If the nuclear issue is resolved with promises of future economic incentives, the military downsizing will still be a problem. International economic aid programs will have caveats to ensure the North does not funnel the aid to its military under its "Military First" policy. Either the North regime will be on its last legs and seriously speaking of a "federation" with a popularly elected government -- or the South will be fully committed to economically propping up the regime and thereby losing any justification for future U.S. support. China will have decided to either continue to support the bankrupt nation that is its buffer zone between the West and itself -- or remove its support for the Kim Jong-il regime and await its demise. In three years, the Japanese should have decided on the fate of the "Peace Constitution." In addition, most in the U.S. feel it is time to toss the Japanese "Peace Constitution" aside as the era of the "nuclear umbrella" is over. The American people are moving into a period of isolationism -- caused by the terrorism threat to all Americans at home and abroad.

Is the USFK Still Necessary in South Korea in the LONG TERM? In the absence of the "Evil Empire" threat posed by Soviet communism, the defense of South Korea loses its connection to U.S. security, and the rationale for Washington to maintain a costly and dangerous military "tripwire" far from home disappears. If one uses the idea that the U.S. will be needed to defeat the North in case they invade, that is what follow-on forces are for as part of the commitment under the Mutual Defense Treaty. It does not answer why the USFK forces are still stationed in Korea. If you remember that the MDT response for Korea is NOT automatic and must be approved by Congress, then you see the only reason the USFK is on the DMZ.

Regardless of what the Bush administration and ROK politicians say about "regional stability," we feel there is no longer any U.S. security interests to justify the risking of American lives as a "tripwire." It is time to go home. However, we are realistic that it will not happen immediately, but it should be the goal of the U.S. forces.

The White House states that the U.S. presence in Korea is needed to contribute "to regional stability by deterring aggression and adventurism.'' If you look around, is China or Japan going to invade Korea? There is only one nation -- North Korea -- and by definition an invasion by the North makes it a KOREAN WAR which has nothing to do with U.S. security concerns. For fifty years, the U.S. has been waiting for this event -- and been blackmailed at every turn. North Korea uses it to its economic advantage and the South uses it to wring out American concessions. Its time to say, "Enough!!!"

The new global repositioning of U.S. forces will go a long way to correct many of the old concepts that have outlived their usefulness. Though the North's Weapons of Mass Destruction are a regional concern, the stationing of 37,000 troops in Korea does nothing to resolve the issue. During the 1993 nuclear crisis, Jimmy Carter is given credit to negotiating a peace, but it was the threat of nuclear submarines with cruise missiles trained on the Yongbo facility that brought them to the negotiating table.

The bottom line is that the U.S. is stationing troops in Korea on a "maybe" circumstance that risks thousands of lives daily and spends tens of billions of dollars each year. For what? To prevent events that are not only purely speculative but also only tangentially related to U.S. security.

The U.S. has NO strategic business interests in Korea to protect. Korea has NO strategic core industries or mineral wealth that the U.S. must protect for its survival. In fact, there are few American companies in Korea to protect at all because of the continued protectionism in Korea -- though disguised as special taxes and exemptions -- has forced all American companies in Korea into joint-ventures. This was -- and is -- the only way they could get their foot in the door. Even now, many major U.S. industries are reluctant to invest in Korea because of the hidden problems, corruption and lack of transparency in the banking industry.

There is NO economic reason for retaining a military force in Korea -- except for the defense industries to continue their sales to the ROK under the catchphrase of "interoperability." Yes, there are such plants as GM-Daewoo that are "partnerships" but look at how much of the controlling interest the American partners control. There is only one reason we can see why the U.S. would want the USFK forces to remain -- the continued military sales on defense contracts. According to the FAS: U.S. Arms Transfers Database Search , in 2001 the U.S. gained $2,808,056,375 in Direct Commercial Sales (DCS), but granted aid under the Foreign Military Sales (FMS) program amounting to $774,389,000 (Equipment and Construction combined). This comparison looks good, but when one factors in that the U.S. spends almost $20 billion annually on supporting its troops with equipment and construction funds, it certainly doesn't look like such a good deal. In addition, the ROK uses these military hardware purchases (DCS) as blackmail to keep the U.S. forces in place -- and to their benefit it allows the ROK to limit its expenditures on defense. Currently the ROK spends 2.7 percent (to be increased to 3.2 percent) of their GDP, but this is still a drop in the bucket compared to the U.S. contribution to their defense. Personally, we cannot justify in our minds the potential loss of American lives simply to sell airplanes, military hardware or Patriot missiles.

There still exists a constant risk of war resulting from inter-Korean disputes -- but this risk has stretched back for 50 years. However, these risks no longer have any relevance to America's security. As a result, Washington's security guarantees impose an onerous tax burden on all Americans. But we must always remember that the war initiated by North Korea will be a KOREAN war...not a war involving U.S. interests.

The friction between the U.S. and Korea will not get better -- but will only get worse. The primary support of the USFK presence is amongst the older generation in their 60s or older. However, the younger 20-40 year old group or "386" generation (March 1986 Democracy Movement generation) is now coming to power. Roh and his reformist agenda is only the vanguard of this generation. Their biases as a group are definitely anti-American and they are slowly going to inherit the power structure.

A Gallup Korea poll in December 2002 showed that one in two (53.7%) Koreans "disliked" America. The Gallup Korea poll also showed that 54.8% were AGAINST the withdrawal of the U.S. forces from Korea (a decrease from 1992). In 1995, 45.6% of the Koreans said America should leave NOW, but in 2002 the rate had risen to 55.6%.

However, recent MBC polls show that NOW the majority of the Koreans want the USFK to stay because of the North Korean crisis, they also wish the USFK to leave at some time in the NEAR future. What this means is that over half the Koreans "dislike" U.S. forces in Korea but at the same time want the U.S. forces to stay to protect them. Then when it is CONVENIENT for them, the Koreans will kick the Americans out of Korea. We feel that the U.S. should take a stand that if these people are going to kick the U.S. out as some unspecified time in the future anyway, why not leave now and save everyone the heartburn?

Is the U.S. Presence Hindering Reunification? We have come to believe that if the U.S. were removed from the equation and the two Koreas were placed eyeball-to-eyeball with mutual self-destruction the only possibility, peace would come to the peninsula. The conflict has stretched on and on because South Korea has surreptitiously provided funds to the North through its National Intelligence Service starting in 2000 prior to Kim Dae-jung's historic summit meeting with the Kim Jong-il. Hyundai Maritime and the Hyundai Group illegally aided in the transfers to North Korea bank accounts in Hong Kong and Singapore.

In the 1990s, the activists blamed the U.S. for keeping the Koreas divided by blaming the U.S. as the CAUSE of the division and maintaining the division for their own selfish military and economic purposes. But when the astronomic costs of the reunification was published, the activists changed their tacticsAt first the activists demanded IMMEDIATE reunitification, but when the costs of the reunification and the thought of millions of North Koreans streaming South to make a shambles of the South's economy set in, they changed their tune. The truth is that the South does NOT want the North to collapse. If the North should collapse today, the South would be burdened with a devastingly high cost of support 20 million destitute and starving North Koreans -- not counting the impacts to China with a massive influx of refugees. The problems of infrastructure, cultural differences where the North is still at a primitive stage of economic development and a multitude of other concerns would dampen any future growth in the Korean economy. Thus in 1995, the Koreas proposed two separate governments under one federation that would slowly assimilate the North into the Southern economy and finally a unified government would be elected by both peoples. Unfortunately, the North Korean regime did not view this favorably as they have 20 million people versus 40 million in the South and outvoted at the polls. Thus who is to blame for the lack of action on reunification? The Koreas -- as the U.S. has nothing to do with this reunification process.

In May 2003, the North proposed a federation form of government where both countries would be ruled by one government. Though unacceptable to the South, it shows that the North is willing to consider methods of reunification to peacefully coexist. Unfortunately, reunification will come at a hefty price for the South who will suddenly have to feed its brother to the north. Reunification will NOT be like that of East-West Germany because the North is a backwater, non-high tech nation with a people who simply do not have the skills or education to enter the world economy. By contrast, the East Germans were technologically advanced and had open access to Western ideas. Opening their society was not a culture shock and the workers were able to find employment in the West easily.

Our Anger over Korean Anti-American Abuses: People are starting to say that the anti-American events of 2002 were a fluke -- sort of a mass hysteria that people got swept up in. Some claim, it was just an unusual circumstance that came about right after the highs of the World Cup Games in June 2002 and the emotionalism was simply an extension of the nationalistic fever that unified the nation's people as one.

However, from a man who has watched the anti-Americanism surface repeatedly in Korea for over a decade, I can say it was NOT a fluke. It has been the same for years and it will NOT go away. It is only CONVENIENTLY buried for a while until it is CONVENIENT to bring it out and flaunt it again. The anti-Americanism was there when I was in uniform and the college student activists were throwing kerosene firebombs at me from outside the gate in the 1980s. The anti-Americanism was there when I was teaching English downtown in the 1990s and the student activists were battling the riot police in the streets. The anti-Americanism is still here as I sit in Korea in the 2000s. The anti-Americanism will be here in Korea into the unforeseeable future. It has become part of the Korean psyche. (UPDATE 28 JULY 2003: 20 students from the outlawed Hangcheonyeon entered the Corps of Engineers compound across from Yongsan burned the American flag and demanded the USFK leave Korea.)

On one hand we feel anger, but on the other we understand where the Koreans are coming from. Though we have witnessed some of the basest forms of bigotry, xenophobia, and racism in the past months, we also understand that the Koreans are venting their grief and frustration in the only way they know how. We may not agree with their comments, but we do understand where they are coming from.

However, when given the choice of which side to be on, we choose the American. We have seen this anti-Americanism in action over the years, but in 2002 it was out of control. Though it has subsided, we know that the anti-Americanism is just below the surface ready to erupt as it did during the anti-War protests in April-March over the Iraq War. The following are some of our observations of the violent events in 2002 and the on-going friction in 2003:

1. We do NOT accept any of the Korean excuses that the anti-American events of 2002 was caused by the Korean emotionalism or growing nationalistic pride. We saw the Korean courts make a mockery of justice by freeing protestors who did harm to Americans. We saw the media flush their unbiased status down the toilets as they practice the most depraved forms of yellow journalism to incite the populace to hatred. We saw the NGO activist groups spread disinformation and hate materials to incite people to violence. We saw government officials, educators, shop keepers, businessmen, and people from all walks of like shout "Yankee Go Home." However, what saddened us the most was that we watched Korean spiritual leaders, whom we trusted, turn to teaching hate to children. The words that the anti-Americanism has abated are meaningless as one watches the videos of the anti-American protests during the Iraq War in March-April. It surfaced again in June on the anniversary of the deaths of the two girls as crowds massed in Seoul and outside Camp Red Cloud on the DMZ.

2. We can NOT accept the Korean view that the U.S. should offer "carrots" to the North to resolve the North Korean nuclear issue. We do NOT agree with the Roh government and the NGO activists' demand that the U.S. blindly return to the Clinton approach of appeasement. We can understand their deep emotional need for the "Peace and Prosperity Policy" (Sunshine Policy) to work -- though we feel the policy is doomed to failure because the North Koreans are only stringing them along. Over and over the North has used family reunions and emotional issues (Mt. Kumgang tours) to entice more grants. They suckered the the South into a special trade zone far to the north and refused to allow any foreign trade zones near Pyongyang. The North's Sinuju trade zone turned into a fiasco. Now the North has offered up the Kaesong special trade area, but are putting in caveats to the land offered as they go along. We feel the North is playing upon the South's greed to reserve the choicest pieces of real estate in North Korea for itself in return for economic aid. However, to blame the U.S. for failing to bow to the North Korean blackmail is ludicrous.

3. We object to the Korean government's hypocrisy when it abstained from voting against North Korea's human rights abuses at the April UNC Human Rights Forum. They did so because they feared their dear "Peace and Prosperity Policy" would be impacted. It admits to South Korea North Korea defectors in high-profile cases, but refuses to acknowledge officially the hundreds of thousands hiding in Northern China. The depths of the horrors exhibited in the prison camps are unspeakable -- repeated by defectors and even Korean War POWs who have escaped in recent years. However, their bypocrisy to NOT condemn the North for its obvious human rights violations in turn condemns the Korean government as hypocritical opportunists.

4. We do NOT accept the NGO activists' claim the U.S. has displayed "arrogance" in following a path of unilateralism in its foreign policy. They were offended by Bush's "axis of evil" stand -- and we can understand their viewpoint. We support the Korean view that it deserves the respect due to it as a sovereign nation. We support the Korean view that THEY have the right to control their own destiny without outside interference. What we do NOT support is their arrogance to try to tell America that it must consult with Korea on the formation of America's foreign policy in dealing with North Korea. Since when did the formulation of any nation's foreign policy -- even Korea's -- depend upon a multinational concensus. Treaties may be multinational, but a nation's foreign policy is not.

5. We can NOT accept the NGO activist groups view of America. We can understand the Korean dislike for President Bush's "cowboy" style of diplomacy that boils things down to "you are either with me or against me." They seek to have America change this style of diplomacy -- but they won't stand up and tell America as a government that it is "against us." Instead the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun governments pay lip service to an "alliance" but go about stabbing America in the back by pursuing its own agenda. The Koreans claim that Bush's approach is "unilateral" in dictating the strategy to handle the North Korean crisis -- without consultations with Korea. However, what was South Korea's actions in January 2003 running around to all the neighboring nations -- including North Korea -- to attempt to solve the Korean nuclear crisis on their own? Hypocritically, it was a unilateral "cowboy-style" action. The events of September 11th changed forever the U.S. style of diplomacy. The American people see the threat of terrorism to themselves from an ambiguous network of terrorist worldwide, while the Koreans do not. The North Koreans have threatened the U.S. with nuclear weapons in they hysterical tirades and have been added to the list of terrorists. Unlike the South Koreans who wish to overlook the threats to them as being anything personal, the Americans take it very personally. If the South Korean government wants to go it alone, the U.S. can easily leave Korea.

6. We can NOT understand the NGO activists who demand a "more equal" relationship with the U.S. It is ludicrous for Korea to openly receive protection from the U.S. while simultaneously demanding greater control over how the U.S. protection is used. Until South Korea pays more of its own money on its own defense, it has no right to demand how the US defense monies is spent in Korea. If one looks at the idea of reciprocity, one will see that the Koreans are takers -- not givers. The Koreans are the largest exporters of babies to the U.S., but they condemn the morals of the U.S. The Koreans revile the U.S. but find ways to have their sons and daughters achieve U.S. citizenship. If the Koreans want a "more equal" relationship, it should attempt to be "equal" in its relationship with the U.S. FIRST.

NOTICE/DISCLAIMER: The content of this page is UNOFFICIAL and the views and opinions expressed do not necessarily reflect those of anyone associated with this page or any of those linked from this site. All opinions are those of the writer and are intended for entertainment purposes only. Links to other web pages are provided for convenience and do not, in any way, constitute an endorsement of the linked pages or any commercial or private issues or products presented there. Neither the DOD, the Air Force, the 8th Fighter Wing nor Mickey Mouse has endorsed any of this site. All Air Force links are publicly accessible through the worldwide web. If there is any discrepancy between eye-witness accounts and OFFICIAL DOD records, this site opts to lend credence to the eye-witness views.

Return to Top

16 Feb 03 Links Purged: June 5, 2000 HTML Toolbox