Pro-American or Televangelism? (Jan 11)

But a better insight on this "Pro-American" rally comes from Kimsoft. It would explain why the foreign media probably did not wish to report this rally. 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. (Go to Pro-American Demonstrations or Really Anti-Sunshine Policy Demonstrations? for more information on this demonstration.)

Pro-American or Anti-Sunshine Policy Demonstration? (Jan 11)

Anti-War Protest in Seoul: (20-21 Jan 03)

Riot Police in Seoul: (20 Jan 03)

Anti-American/SOFA Protest in Seoul: (22 Jan 03)

Commemorative/SOFA Protest Seoul (23 Jan 03)

Anti-American Protest (24 Jan 03)

On the weekend of Jan 25 & 26, the weather was mild light jacket weather and the demonstrations continued. The temperatures were around freezing, but there was no wind to make it miserable. The Anti-War demonstration featured sidewalk displays, videos of Iraq suffering. The linkage of "Don't Attack Iraq" meaning "Don't Attack North Korea" was not on the signs, but it was chanted (See video). Rev. Mun's anti-War group now lead off the demonstration as their message was more topical with the pending attack on Iraq. The little children with candles made a touching show -- but behind each child is a parent supporting the cause. The demonstration showed a slight shift in strategy as the commemoration of the two girls deaths and protest of SOFA were at the end of the program. The demonstration was peaceful.

Anti-War Daytime Protest (25 Jan 03)

Anti-War/SOFA/Anti-American Candlelight Protest (25 Jan 03)

Emotions Mixed in US Base Town Close to Front Line

For the 37,000 United States troops in South Korea, rising tension over North Korea's nuclear ambitions comes at a time of heightened concern over anti-American sentiment as Seoul and Washington work to smooth their longstanding alliance.

Dongducheon is 64 kilometers northeast of Seoul and is home to Camp Casey, just south of the Demilitarized Zone separating the two Koreas, which was the target of protests following the acquittals of two American soldiers whose armored vehicle struck and killed two local girls in June last year.

These angry outbursts have died down in the new year, but emotions are mixed among GIs who are both homesick and excited to be in a foreign land that hosts the world's last Cold War frontier. While some complain about the restricted freedom brought on by last year's protests, others play down reports of harassment.

"Some people will say stuff like that just because they don't like being in Korea and they'd rather go back home. But I myself have personally never, I don't know anybody that has, none of my friends have and I never have," notes one soldier.

Then there are those who acknowledged the occasional verbal harassment off-base but take it in their stride; "No. It happens everywhere. It happens in America, it happens here. So it don't bother me really too much," added a GI.

Though feelings are just as varied on the Korean side of this US base town, with American soldiers being the prime customers at bars, restaurants and other shops many Koreans want to put tensions behind and make a living. 50-year-old Song Ki-soon has been selling sports wear for 13 years here and she says business has never been so bad. She says tempers flared when demonstrators showed up early this year, resulting in a scuffle with merchants who were losing revenue because of the protests as the controversy over the US forces pits Dongducheon's older generation, which is grateful for the U.S. role in building this town up from the ruins of war, against younger Koreans who want legal revisions that would give South Korea more say over the American troops serving on Korean soil.

(Arirang TV)

Most Americans were relieved that the violent nature of the anti-American demonstrations had disappeared from the on-going anti-War protests. The North Koreans had another explanation for the sudden calm. On 30 Jan the Korean Central News Agency wrote, "U.S. secret operation against S. Korea disclosed." According to the Rodong Sinmun accused the U.S. of having pushed forward a secret operation since last year to "quench the South Koreans' towering anti-Americanism." Supposedly the "secret propaganda plan of the U.S. Defense Department included operations to bribe South Korean media persons, build up public opinion in favour of the U.S. and organize pro-U.S. demonstrations, etc. This is an intolerable challenge and mockery of the South Koreans in their efforts to retake the national dignity and sovereignty usurped by the U.S. imperialists as it glaringly reveals the U.S. true colours as a kingpin of fabrication, trick, plot and terrorism." Supposedly, "The South Koreans are strongly demanding the U.S. clarify its secret operation plan and how it has been pushed forward and apologize for it." We wonder if this "secret plan" is the USFK's ``Good Neighbor Program'' started in January with a view to enhancing Korean people's perceptions and understanding of USFK.

Signs of Changing U.S.-ROK Relationship: There was a dramatic breach in the "unified policy" on North Korea at the end of January. The following article in the New York Times on 23 Jan covers the breach where the U.S. laid out the policy and Seoul followed blindly. This is no longer the case.

Seoul Looks to New Alliances

By HOWARD W. FRENCH

SEOUL, South Korea, Jan. 23 — For five decades, Washington's leadership in its alliance with South Korea went unchallenged. With 37,000 American troops in South Korea, many of them along the world's most heavily armed frontier, the United States called the tune and this country followed along.

With startling speed over the last several weeks, that pattern has dissolved. The breach between Washington and Seoul could be seen on Wednesday, when John R. Bolton, the under secretary of state for arms control and international security, forcefully announced that he had forged a consensus that the issue of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs should be referred to the United Nations Security Council. Within hours, South Korean officials said just as forcefully that they had agreed on no such thing.

The talk in Seoul in recent weeks has been of emerging from the shadow of the United States and of refocusing South Korea's foreign relations within its own region. Moreover, in violation of the ultimate taboo, there have been increasingly strong hints of interest here in a substantial reduction of the American military presence.

In one recent speech, President-elect Roh Moo Hyun, whose election in December has driven much of the talk of change, said: "Although we don't know if it might take 10, 20 or 30 years, someone has to consider an independent defense. Senior military officials have to prepare a plan for a special emergency situation when the U.S. Army moves away."

Washington appears to have been taken aback by the changing language in Seoul, just as it was by the weeks of anti-American demonstrations that swept this city during the election campaign and its aftermath. Looking back, Western diplomats and Korea analysts said that plenty of warning signs pointed to serious problems in the relationship, but that the United States, fixated on Iraq and inflexible in its approach to North Korea, paid them little heed.

Now, American experts in East Asian affairs say, pique over South Korea's sudden assertiveness and umbrage over the long season of protests against the American troop presence have caused people in the Pentagon, and elsewhere in Washington, to contemplate a smaller force here.

"There are major reports under preparation in the Pentagon about how to transform our presence," said Kurt M. Campbell, a former deputy assistant defense secretary who is an East Asia specialist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "Generally speaking, it is hard for our senior military people to believe that we are not loved. We are doing God's work, and if people don't appreciate it there is something wrong with them."

Some regional diplomatic analysts go so far as to compare the shifting relationship between the two countries to a runaway train, and to criticize each side for losing sight of its long-term interests, failing to hear its ally and falling prey to emotionally seductive ideas without thinking through their potentially monumental consequences. These analysts say the Bush administration is conspicuously lacking in high-level Korea experts, while Mr. Roh has never been to the United States.

On the South Korean side, a weariness with being the seemingly always put-upon junior partner in a three-way alliance that includes Japan has driven plans for closer relations with China, a country with which Koreans have deep cultural links.

While no one here speaks of cutting economic ties with the United States, the vision Mr. Roh brings to office is one of a regional economic community, or union, much as in Europe. Significantly, it would include North Korea, which Washington has been working hard to isolate because of its weapons programs. Inevitably, China would be the community's superpower.

In immediate diplomatic terms, whatever Washington has in mind, Mr. Roh seems determined to accelerate the engagement strategy toward North Korea that was begun under the current president, Kim Dae Jung, and has been called the sunshine policy. Already, Mr. Roh plans to invite the North Korean leader, Kim Jong Il, for a second North-South summit meeting, and to seek ways to establish military confidence-building by scaling back the armed forces and examining each other's drills.

"If North Korea responds to the outside world and abandons its nuclear program, South Korea will reward them beyond their own expectations," a senior adviser to the president-elect said this week.

Scott Snyder, Korea representative of the Asia Foundation, a San Francisco-based research group that is partly financed by the United States government, said there had been a "paradigm shift" that revolved around two issues: "a changed South Korean view of the North, since sunshine policy, and a changing view of China."

If South Koreans are feeling more self-confident, many experts warn against allowing giddiness to lead the country down the wrong path.

"This is a real misreading of history," said Victor D. Cha, a Korea specialist at Georgetown University in Washington. "U.S.-Japan-Korea was a pretty winning formula for South Korea's development. Koreans are feeling assertive and are not in a mood to acknowledge this at the moment, but to place their bets on China, whose domestic institutions are not exactly transparent or stable, is wishful thinking."

If anything, experts in Northeast Asian affairs are more scathing in their reaction to the calls in the United States to simply reduce the number of American troops here or withdraw them altogether.

Less than four years ago, William S. Cohen, then the defense secretary, created a stir here when he proclaimed in a speech that the United States would like to retain a military presence in Korea, even after the North and South eventually unified. Mr. Cohen's remarks offended some Koreans at the time, but regional experts say they grew out of a sober assessment of the United States' interests in this part of the world.

In terms of military doctrine, the 37,000 American troops here serve as a tripwire, meant to dissuade a North Korean attack more than to fight a war. Their presence radiates symbolic value, however, throughout the region, especially toward a fast-rising China.

"This administration came into office warning about the rise of China, and we are stumbling into a situation where American interests throughout East Asia risk being compromised," said Joel Wit, a former State Department official who helped negotiate the 1994 arms control agreement with North Korea. "If America is seen as playing an active, positive role, it will be possible to contain these trends. That means dealing with the North Koreans in a way that tells the South Koreans that we have their interests at heart, too," Mr. Wit said. "In the absence of that, there will be more of a drift away from the United States."

FEBRUARY 2003

U.S. Approach on North Korea Strains Alliances in Asia

By HOWARD W. FRENCH

SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 23 — With little of the clamor generated by preparations for war with Iraq, the showdown between the United States and North Korea over that country's nuclear weapons program is severely testing Washington's oldest Asian alliances.

In recent weeks, senior officials in officially pacifist Japan have spoken of mounting a "pre-emptive strike" against North Korea, if it appeared that the heavily armed Communist state intended to use its ballistic missiles against Japan.

"Our nation will use military force as a self-defense measure if they start to resort to arms against Japan," said Defense Minister Shigeru Ishiba.

For many Japanese commentators, Mr. Ishiba's statement was meant to draw attention to the fact that Japan in reality has no strike ability. More than as a credible threat against North Korea, it was intended to influence a debate that has gathered momentum during the administration of Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi over giving the country's armed forces, which face sharp constitutional limits on their action, a larger role in the country's defense, and in making Japan a player in international security again.

When Secretary of State Colin L. Powell arrives here on Monday for the inauguration of Roh Moo Hyun as president of South Korea, he will try to narrow differences with a man whose response to tensions with North Korea has been virtually the opposite of Japan's and, if anything, even more radical.

Mr. Roh has given strong indications that he intends to accelerate South Korea's embrace of North Korea, even as the United States looks for ways to ratchet up pressure on North Korea.

To the dismay of Washington, Mr. Roh has spoken in recent weeks of establishing an economic community with North Korea, stepping up trade, aid and investment there, ruling out economic sanctions and military strikes against the country and even of personally "guaranteeing" North Korea's security.

The president-elect said he would replace the current armistice agreement with a treaty between the Koreas in order to ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula.

"It is better to struggle than to suffer deaths in a war," Mr. Roh said in a speech to the Federation of Korean Trade Unions. "Koreans should stand together, although things will get difficult when the United States bosses us around."

A senior South Korean diplomat said: "It looks like Roh is prepared to throw the alliance away and make common cause with North Korea. We don't understand why he seems to trust North Korea so completely."

While Japan looks nervously at North Korea and is beginning to explore ways to augment its alliance with the United States, South Koreans and experts in this country's affairs are contemplating the end of the five-decade-old alliance between the countries, at least as it has existed, with 37,000 American troops on the front lines here.

"The Japanese are on the spot because the U.S. alliance with South Korea is defunct, and there is no point in insisting on it any more," said Robyn Lim, a regional security expert at Nanzan University in Japan. "The U.S. alliance with Japan is integrally linked with the U.S. alliance with South Korea. Indeed, since the Korean War, the American presence in South Korea has been as much about protecting Japan as it was about South Korea."

Increasingly, the United States is on the spot in South Korea, as well. Mr. Roh, a liberal labor lawyer with almost no international experience, began appointing relatively conservative aides to his national security team today, in what appeared to be a bid to reassure Washington.

He has also distanced himself from the anti-American protests that occurred here throughout the December electoral campaign and seemed to favor his candidacy. Most important, after campaigning for a "more equitable" alliance with the United States, he has said that he sees a place for American troops in this country, even after the two Koreas are united.

There are already signs of a deep distrust of Mr. Roh in the Bush administration. American military officials here say plans are being drawn up to remove thousands of American troops from positions along the demilitarized zone between South and North Korea, and to close the headquarters of American forces in Korea at Yongsan, in the heart of the Seoul, as rapidly as possible.

In a private conversation here last week, a senior American military analyst here said there were profound doubts about what the new South Korean government would do if the United States struck at North Korea's nuclear facilities.

Referring to North Korea's leader, the analyst said: "Kim Jong Il would probably attack our troops on the DMZ and then pick up the phone to Roh and say: `If the Americans retaliate, I will have to strike back again. We don't want to kill Koreans, but the Americans' Yongsan base is in the middle of your capital. You must do something to stop the Americans.' "

Under such circumstances, the analyst said, Washington would have little confidence in Mr. Roh, who has said he would never support the use of force against North Korea.

Just as the United States is rumored to be contemplating moving its military bases out of Germany, there has been a great deal of talk here, still unofficial but inconceivable even a few months ago, about a possible phase-out of the American military presence in this country.

"As both our forces have modernized, the possibilities for a new division of roles have grown," said the United States ambassador, Thomas C. Hubbard, in a recent speech here, in which he reaffirmed the American interest in retaining troops here.

South Koreans have paid close attention to the recent rift between Washington and its traditional European allies, Germany and France, and many complain that the talk of an American withdrawal is fed by the petulance of a United States that is not accustomed to Asian allies articulating a strong vision of their own security interests.

"Should the United States give up Korea so easily?" said Paik Hak Sun, director of Inter-Korean Studies Program at the Sejong Institute, an independent policy group. "An American rivalry with China is inevitable. Japan will always be a close ally of the United States, for fear of China, but the Korean Peninsula is a lot closer to China, and if the U.S. can keep its troops here it can counter China better and compete for the friendship of the Korean people."

Possibility of US Withdrawal: In February the government continued to try to head off the hard-feelings against Korea that was surfacing throughout America. There were conflicting reports of these meetings from the Korean representatives. Representative Ham Seung-hee of the Millennium Democratic Party (MDP), visited the U.S. on January 26 and met with 23 American senators and representatives, as well as government officials including US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific Affairs James Kelly. Rep. Ham stated on 3 Feb that USFK withdrawal was being actively discussed in the U.S. by the government and Congress and that there was a "strong possibility of a USFK withdrawal." He said the Americans he met did not seem to think the candlelight demonstrations were a problem by themselves, but the Korean government's attitude towards them was. However, MDP Chairman Hahn Hwa-kap, who led the party delegation to the United States, denied such remarks from U.S. officials.

The following is from the Choson Ilbo on Jan 30:

US Politicians: USFK Would Leave if Asked

by Kang In-sun (insun@chosun.com)

WASHINGTON - Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) leader Han Hwa-kap who is visiting Washington DC said Wednesday (KST) that a number of American politicians said the United States Forces Korea would leave whenever Korea requests a withdrawal. Hahn told a group of Korean correspondents that after meeting with some ten senators and representatives, he had received the impression that American politicians were more interested in the USFK issue, than the North Korean nuclear problem, and that certain politicians had very strong opinions on the subject.

The MDP party chief said that during his visit, the subject was brought up naturally, while before it had been taboo to mention the problem and that American politicians were worried about the [anti-American] attitude shown by the next administration during the presidential election. The MDP leader said that he had explained that President-elect Roh Moo-hyun would lead the economic and social development of Korea through solid Korea-America relations for peace on and development of the Korean peninsula.

Han, who is in the US to participate in the 'Asia-America Network' events met with eight senators including Republican Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, Republican Senators John Warner and Chuck Hagel, Democratic Senator Hilary Clinton, and three representatives including Republican Congressman Speaker J. Dennis Hastert, on Monday and Tuesday. On Wednesday, he will plan to meet with government officials including United States Assistant Deputy Secretary of State James Kelly.

During recent "fence mending" trips to the U.S. by Korean politicians in January, Secretary of Defense Rumsfield was alleged to have made comments that the U.S. would withdraw U.S. troops if Korea did not want them there. According to the Pentagon in February, Rumsfeld DID mention that the United States can withdraw its forces if the South Korean people so desire, though added that is a very general remark. Seoul officials played down the remarks saying that it is based on a presumption of Seoul's consent. They worried that the controversies concerning the troop reduction will have a negative influence on the Seoul-Washington alliance, which is essential in resolving the North's nuclear issue. They also stated that Rep. Chyung Dai-chul, President-elect Roh Moo-hyun's special envoy, did not discuss the issue when he met Rumsfield face-to-face.

Amidst all the denies of a potential U.S. pullout, on 7 Feb, the Korea Times ran an article stating that Rumsfield DID say the U.S. was willing to pullout IF THE SOUTH KOREAN PEOPLE WANTED IT.

Rumsfeld Tells Seoul US May Pull Out Forces: Report

The U.S. has notified South Korea of its willingness to withdraw its military from South Korea if such a request is placed by the South Korean side, MBC television reported yesterday.

Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, during a meeting on Monday with President-elect Roh Moo-hyun’s special envoy Chyung Dai-chul, told him of Washington’s intention to initially implement a gradual cutback of forces and redeployment of ground troops to the rear, the network said.

``I agree to the views being spread in South Korea on the removal of U.S. Forces Korea, and the U.S. is willing and ready to do that,’’ Rumsfeld was quoted as saying.

The defense secretary went on to say that he is willing to take any measure regarding the USFK that is what the South Korean public wants, the MBC report said, quoting anonymous sources.

To begin with, Rumsfeld requested that Washington and Seoul start discussing the transfer of USFK bases north of the Han River, including the main Yongsan Base, to locations south of Pyongtaek, some 70 kilometers south of Seoul.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz relayed nearly identical views in a separate meeting with Chang Young-dal, chairman of the national defense committee at the National Assembly Tuesday.

By Seo Soo-min
Staff Reporter

The main point was the "SOUTH OF THE HAN RIVER" comment. If there was a full pull-back of all USFK forces from the DMZ, the Unified Command would then shift to the ROK. Unfortunately, the ROK is NOT a signatory to the Armistice so it has a technical problem of heading up a United Nations Command unit. This problem was demonstrated in 1992 when a ROK General was to assume the Combined Command leadership -- and therefore negotiator with the North at Panmunjon. It was immediately rejected by the North for the reasons stated -- it was not a signatory to the Armistice. Shortly thereafter the ROK pulled out of the Combined Command and assumed control of its forces in peacetime operations as a move that was publicized as planned under the 1990 Nunn-Warner initiative.

Thus the only logical scheme for the future is that the USFK move of MOST of its troops south of the Han River, but leave SOME on the DMZ. Thus the USFK would still maintain the Wartime responsibility -- and Korea would retain its demanded tripwire -- and the USFK forces would still remain hostage. Thus the key element is "how many" will be left. Only a handful of troops would not be considered a "tripwire" while a thousand troops might. The movement out of Yongsan would be handled under the MOU signed in 1990, but never implemented by the ROK as they did not want to come up with the money.

To further complicate matters for the ROK was that all the activists' arguments of how much the ROK was spending to keep the Americans in Korea would blow up in their faces. The movement of the USFK off of the DMZ will entail about a $20 billion dollar increase for the ROK as it picks up the burden -- something that the Ministry of National Defense kept its mouth shut about as the activists foamed at the mouth heaping venom on the USFK in 2002. These costs have been well-documented over the years by advocates for removing the U.S. forces from Korea. One can probably expect the same type of misinformation being spread again if this becomes the hot issue of the Spring 2003 offensive to replace the accident with two girls as the cause celebre.

The South Korean government was now in a panic to head off anti-Americanism. On 8 Feb, the South Korean government discounted any talk of a U.S. troop pullout. In a Korea Herald article, South Korean officials stated that the Seoul government had not discussed with the U.S. government a possible withdrawal of American troops. Defense and Foreign ministries flatly denied the reports. Some South Korean media had reported that U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Washington was willing to pull American troops out of Korea when he met President-elect Roh Moo-hyun's special envoy, Rep. Chyung Dai-chul. In response, Chyung stated, "I am the one who met with Rumsfeld. He did not mention a withdrawal or reduction of U.S. forces stationed in the South. ... Cheney did not make such a comment, either." He said Rumsfeld suggested that the two countries discuss relocating some American military bases in populated areas including the Yongsan Base in downtown Seoul, as well as the Land Partnership Plan, a pact on land use related to the U.S. military presence here. Defense Ministry stressed there have been no discussions (though they kept up consultations) between the two sides on paring down the 37,000 American soldiers here since a number of troops was withdrawn in 1991 under Phase I of the Nunn-Warner initiative.

On 7 Feb the Choson Ilbo ran an article of the discussions to relocate the USFK bases with the "envoy" from President-elect Roh's transition team, Yoon Yeong-kwan. The discussions were to relocate the bases north of the Han River to the south and reviewing the Land Partnership Plan (LPP). (See Land Partnership Plan (2002).) The point that the South Koreans are missing -- at least not wanting to talk about -- is the public recognition by the Rumsfield that the U.S. troops on the DMZ are "hostage" to any dispute between North and South. These troops act only as a "tripwire" because of the South Korean demands for them to be there -- not the USFK. From a global perspective, it is very exceptional to have US troops so forward deployed in an area of conflict. However, relocating them south would be a massive change in the topography of the security of the Korean peninsula. For the present, the Pentagon's official stance is that raising the issue of the U.S. troop withdrawal can present a misleading sign to North Korea.

Plan to Relocate USFK Bases Discussed

by Kim Chang-kyun (ck-kim@chosun.com)

Senior Bush Administration officials, including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, suggested discussing the relocation of United States Forces Korea bases located north of the Han River to the south of it with the South Korean delegation sent to Washington by President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, it was learned Friday.

Currently in Japan following the Washington visit, Yoon Yeong-kwan, Presidential Transition Committee's secretary for foreign affairs, unification, and national security, said that Secretary Rumsfeld brought up the issue of reviewing the existing Land Partnership Plans during a meeting on Tuesday, proposing relocation of Yongsan Base which is currently located in densely populated area. Yun responded the issue could be discussed between Washington and the next government's minister of national defense.

Meanwhile, delegation head Chyung Dai-chul said at a press conference with Korean correspondents in Washington Wednesday that Secretary Rumsfeld requested the Roh administration's cooperation in relocating USFK bases north of the Han, when emphasizing rebalancing the two countries' alliance. Chyung added that Secretary of State Colin Powel also mentioned the relocation plan, as well as USFK commander General Leon J. LaPorte, prior to the delegation's departure to Washington.

Chyung reconfirmed Washington's position in a radio interview Friday, and denied some media reports that Secretary Rumsfeld had said Washington would pull forces from Korea if Koreans don't want its presence, calling it false information, and added that the defense secretary never said this.

On 16 Feb, the line of thought of relocating the USFK forces south away from the DMZ was resurfaced. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld remarked to the Senate Armed Services Committee on 13 Dec that he wanted to shift US forces away from Seoul and the DMZ. He also stated that "perhaps" this would lead to the removal of some of the 37,000 USFK troops because of improved manpower transportation capabilities, the size of the USFK could be reduced. Rumsfield envisioned US Forces in Korea might in the future, be more oriented toward air and naval hubs. Specifically this would mean the area near Pusan proposed under the LPP and an unspecified "air hub." However, he said that these were not final plans, but President-elect Roh Moo-hyun had requested the US to study the bilateral relations and realignment would be conferred on with the new administration. Rumsfield stated, "It is quite clear to me that ... the deployments we have, for example, in Korea can be reviewed in cooperation with the South Korean government."

Conservative Korean opinion was now in a panic. A 15 Feb Choson Ilbo Editorial stated, "Having US troops along the DMZ is a military and psychological statement to North Korea that cannot be calculated in financial terms. If you think of the astronomical cost of security that we would have to bear should the USFK leave, you realize how irresponsible and dangerous it has been for some in our society to claim that the US has been here entirely because of American needs. In addition it is clear that this issue will be a massive blow to the domestic economy. Foreign capital has become the largest source of investment in Korean industry; if it were to take flight for fears about stability, the results would be catastrophic. Roh says that we "must be determined even should the economy have difficulty," but with this we cannot agree. One wonders how he can talk as if he's telling the country to prepare itself for hard economic times before being sworn in, and without ample explanation as to what he means or plans about what he's going to do about it." The Korean political lines were being quickly drawn. The GNP would favor the U.S. remaining in Korea while the MDP would be on the opposite side.

Army General Leon LaPorte, commander of U.S. forces in South Korea, stated that the USFK had been studying the alignment of American forces on the peninsula for months. He admitted that the time has come for Seoul and Washington to reassess their military alliance. On 20 Feb in a speech at a seminar here sponsored by South Korean and U.S. military and research organizations, Gen. Leon J. LaPorte of the U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) said the alliance "must grow and evolve." "We can improve the alliance by closely examining the roles, missions, command relationship, force structure, and stationing of our respective forces in order to reflect current and future capabilities of our two nations," the commander said as he spoke on the sensitive issue soon to be put to bilateral negotiations. He also said, “In the future, the both countries will develop the new operation concept based on the changed world security strategy, and we will actively use the improved abilities of both Armies, advanced military techniques, and operation precept from other fighting areas.” He, then added, “Although the interests of Korea and US cannot be one, but they can be harmonized,” and “since the Secretaries of Defense of both counties formed a council to study the future of the Korea US alliance at the Security Consultative Meeting(SCM) in the end of last year, I hope it can develop as a fair alliance.” The following is from the Korea Herald of 21 Feb:

Rebalancing military alliance

The U.S. military commander in Seoul said yesterday that South Korea and the United States will devise a new model for the combined operations of the two sides' militaries after President-elect Roh Moo-hyun takes office Feb. 25.

"I firmly believe we have a window of opportunity to transform the ROK-U.S. alliance during the formative stage of President Roh's administration," said Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, commander of the U.S. Forces Korea (USKF).

LaPorte said both sides can strengthen the alliance by closely examining the roles, missions, command relationship, force structure, and stationing of the respective forces in order to reflect current and future capabilities of the two nations.

The commander was delivering a keynote speech at an international conference, which was sponsored by the Heritage Foundation of the United States, the Korean Institute for Defense Analyses and the Korea-U.S. Exchange Council. The two-day seminar at the Seoul Plaza Hotel will end today.

"These operational concepts will take advantage of our vastly improved capabilities, advanced military technologies, and lessons learned from other theaters to implement an effects-based strategy," he said. Seoul and Washington will begin in April their consultations on the realignment of 37,000 U.S. troops stationed here when they open the first meeting of their joint consultative body on the future of the alliance.

"The interests of the ROK and the United States can never be identical, but they can be harmonious," he said.

LaPorte confirmed that both sides will review basic tenets of the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty, a pact aimed at protecting South Korea from any threat from the North.

"One thing is certain. This review will not take away the vital element of confidence necessary for both nations to ensure and maintain deterrence on the peninsula," he noted.

Peter Brookes, director of the Asian Studies Center at the Heritage Foundation, said that South Korea and the United States should respect each other's position even if they hold different policies on North Korea.

"Seoul and Washington should ensure that if they decide to employ different policies to deal with North Korea, neither country will undermine the other to promote or justify its own policy," Brookes said. The director added, "Both countries should recognize that while their methods may be different, their goal is the same: a peaceful, prosperous, unified Korean Peninsula."

(shj@koreaherald.co.kr)
By Seo Hyun-jin Staff reporter

(SITE NOTE: Korea has now backed itself into a corner with the THREAT of a mutual defense review. The Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 is the ONLY mutual defense treaty the U.S. has that the Congress must approve intervention. The reason is the actions of Syngman Rhee who never agreed to an armistice with North Korea. This situation has continued till today where the South remains technically at war with the North. Roh's unrealistic response was that he would seek a PEACE TREATY with the North to substitute for the Armistice. As the South was never a signatory to the 1953 Armistice, this will be an interesting proposal -- and one which the North will reject. Remember the regime of Kim Jong-Il only remains in power because of the war threat from the south. If the threat is gone, Kim Jong-Il is gone. Thus the proposal sounds idealistic and simple, but in reality it is a deceptive ploy that ends nowhere.)

Rushing to head off panic, Seoul announced that Rumsfield's comments did not mean the USFK was going to be reduced automatically. However, it was stated that realignment or force reduction was a foreseen movement, and negotiations will be centered on keeping defense abilities at current levels. Working level talks were expected to start with the visit of Department of Defense official Richard Lawless, between February 25 to 27. ROK officials said that there might be the possibility of a "cross wind" blowing at these talks, over the American-flag burning anti-Americanism in Korea, and for the incoming administration's "reassessing atmosphere" of the Korea-America alliance.

The Ministry of National Defense said that there had been no specific agreements with its American counterpart and said a meeting on the future of the alliance was being set for March or April, and that it hoped that USFK issues will be dealt with every quarter through the commencement of this meeting.

However, on 18 Feb Ambassador Hubbard confirmed that there was movement in the way of realignment of the USFK forces in Korea. This was all part of the "on-going" reevaluation that was announced in January and brought to a head by President-elect Roh's call for Washington to study the relationship between the two countries and propose ways to "rebalance" it." The ambassador said, "There is definitely room for changes in our alliance." "Our alliance not only should be balanced, it must be seen as being so."

Hubbard confirms plan to realign forces in Korea

The top U.S. envoy in Seoul confirmed yesterday Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's recent statement that stressed the need for the realignment of 37,000 U.S. troops stationed in South Korea.

"As both our forces have modernized, the possibilities for a new division of roles have grown," Amb. Thomas Hubbard said in a forum of the Alumni Association of the Advanced Management Program at Seoul National University.

He also added that the two countries will review how many U.S. troops are required in South Korea in line with a new international security order demanding more reliance on troop mobility.

The envoy's remarks came after Rumsfeld said before the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee last week that the United States will discuss readjusting the roles of U.S. troops in the South with the incoming Seoul government.

The defense secretary mentioned possibly cutting the number of U.S. ground troops. He said Washington will focus on reinforcing the Air Force and Navy, with U.S. troops to be withdrawn from Seoul and from areas south of the Demilitarized Zone.

Hubbard reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to defend the security of South Korea in accordance with a mutual military alliance, saying the United States is not considering pulling all of its troops out of South Korea. But the ambassador said, "There is definitely room for changes in our alliance," and, "Our alliance not only should be balanced, it must be seen as being so."

He was apparently referring to South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun's call for Washington to study the relationship between the two countries and propose ways to "rebalance" it. Roh reportedly delivered the position to top U.S. officials when his envoy visited Washington early this month.

On North Korea's nuclear threat, the U.S. diplomat emphasized that the issue should be resolved through a multilateral body including South Korea, China, Japan and Russia, rather than bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang.

"Such a multilateral dialogue could offer Pyongyang a way out of its self-imposed isolation and a way to improve the lives of its people," he said. "Regrettably, Pyongyang has turned a deaf ear to this call."

(shinyb@koreaherald.co.kr)
By Shin Yong-bae Staff reporter

South Korea and the United States was slated begin talks in April 2003 on reducing and the repositioning of U.S. troops in Korea. The talks, agreed upon at last year's Security Consultative Meeting, will be led by defense ministries of the two countries and held on a quarterly basis.

Roh is in agreement that the USFK at Yongsan should be relocated outside the Seoul area, but he does NOT agree that they should relocate south to Pusan. He is also against the removal of USFK forces on the DMZ and relocation to a southern area -- especially a location as far south as Pusan.

However, nothing has been agreed upon as yet as to the exact location of the new bases South of the Han River. On 24 Feb, the TV news broadcast coverage of the movement of the USFK forces at Yongsan to some flood plains along the Han River. The Koreans intend to keep the USFK near Seoul to act as a "hostage to negotiations" and "tripwire" in case of North Korean attack. To make this work they are going to offer the undeveloped flood plains south of Seoul -- a very bad location. This is a pipedream like the unrealistic offer by Pusan in 1993 to give undeveloped flood plains to the USFK in an even exchange for Camp Hialeah. The coverage was such that it made it appear the U.S. had already agreed to this. This is not true. We believe the biased media is starting to build a false case of "look at how the Americans lied" when the U.S. refuses this ridiculous offer.

Deputy Assistant Defense Secretary for East Asia Richard Lawless met with the Ministry of National Defense (MND) on 26-28 Feb to arrange the basic framework for the meeting on South Korea-U.S. alliance policy slated in April and relay Washington's position on the changes in the Korea-U.S. alliance. In the meetings, nothing concrete was discussed -- only broad issues and settle the agenda for the April meeting. In the meeting with South Korean defense counterparts, Lawless relayed Washington's position on adjustments to the Korea-U.S. alliance, such as readjustment of the U.S. Forces in Korea in size and makeup. In April, the discussions on the relocation of the Yongsan Garrison and the possible reduction or reshuffle of the United States Forces Korea (USFK) will be undertaken.

On 27 Feb, the MND announced that Defense Policy Director Cha Yeong-gu and United States Undersecretary of Defense for East Asia Richard Lawless had discussed the agenda and dates for the joint policy consultation on the future Korea-America alliance to be held in April. Changes in the Korea-America alliance, the relocation and reduction of United States Forces Korea, and alterations in the line of command were addressed at the meeting. Two bases in urban areas; Uijeongbu and Dongducheon will be moved south of the Han River initially, and the Yongsan Base in Seoul will be moved within four years, instead of the eight years, which had been set previously.

At this point, people should be reminded how these same plans exploded in everyone's faces between 1991-1993 when Pyongtaek refused to accept more military within their city; Osan was not large enough to accomodate all the people from the 8th Army relocation; and Pusan offered a ridiculous offer to get Camp Hialeah in exchange for a flood plain with no infrastructure. The government wants them to relocate to the Pyongtaek area but remember that in 1990 and the mayor and populace of Pyongtaek flatly said "NO!!!"

The relocation issue first surfaced in the 1980s, and in 1990 South Korea and the U.S. drew out a memorandum of agreement to move Yongsan base somewhere else. In 1993 the grandiose plans to relocate the Yongsan Garrison was shelved indefinitely because the KOREAN GOVERNMENT did not want to pay an estimated $10 billion for the relocation. The situation has not changed in Korean minds...but the situation has definitely changed in the mind of the USFK. The meeting in April will tell whether the U.S. has learned from the behavior of the Koreans over this same issue in the past. (See 1990: Return of Yongsan to Korea.)

On 26 Feb the activists protesting outside Yongsan demanded the U.S. pay for the full cost of the relocation as in their view the U.S. was in Korea for its own purposes -- and not for the defense of Korea. The NGO groups may attempt to make this the new focus for anti-Americanism in Korea in spring when protests start up again.

As in 1990, the Americans still continue to seek ways to disengage from the Korean conflict without weakening the military resolve. The Koreans want to grow strong, but the Americans want to limit their offensive capabilities. This contradiction has resulted in some interesting developments. On one hand, the Koreans want the Americans to go and on the other, they want them to stay. Likewise, the Americans want to leave, but as the Philippines is closed to them and the Japanese antipathy increased -- along with Japanese demands for shrinking their presence in Japan -- they are forced to remain in Korea. However, if the Bush's new vision of a mobile military is put into place, the presence of the stationary force in Korea -- and partially in Japan -- is eliminated. All of these factors enter into reshaping old elements into a new cold-war military strategy for Northern Asia.

Base Movement Plan to Be Ready by May

by Yoo Yong-won (kysu@chosun.com)

Cha Young-gu, the policy planning bureau director at the Ministry of National Defense, stated Monday that the Initial Master Plan written by Korea and the United States Forces Korea on moving its Yongsan Base will be completed by the end of May. Cha added that the plan will become the basis for estimating costs and searching for base sites, which will be completed by the end of the year.

Cha also stated that the site for the army base will most probably be located between Seoul and Daejeon. Osan, Pyeongtaek, Seongnam, and Suwon are being discussed as the most probable sites for the base and the cost for moving the base will be between US$3 and US$5 billion, less than the original US$10 to US$20 billion projection.

The ministry and USFK entrusted an American service company with the study of the requirements for moving the Yongsan base last December, and are examining the current facilities and moving costs. The MND, with the president's approval, will work closely with the Seoul Metropolitan Office, the Ministry of Finance and Economy, and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade once the plan is completed, promoting the plan from a pan-governmental level.

Cha added in regards to the moving costs that it would be appropriate for the government to pay the cost since moving the base fulfills the demands of Koreans, and the USFK is accommodating such demands. The memorandum of agreement (MOA) that was signed by Korea and the US in 1990 includes a statement on Korea paying moving costs. However, civic organizations have demanded that the US pay some or all the cost.

Cha suggested that once discussions between the ministry and the USFK are held on the Korea-US alliance and the future of US troops in Korea in April, the Land Partnership Plan (LPP) as well as the base issue might be changed according to the results.

The Yongsan relocation plan will probably be finalized by the end of this year according to the Ministry of Defense. A special South Korea-U.S. task force on the issue has already discussed the issue. Both the USFK and Korea have commissioned studies on the base relocation and hope to produce an initial master plan by the end of May. Seoul and Washington will then negotiate on the terms of the base relocation. The next step will be winning approval from the National Assembly and forming a team of various government bodies involved.

The Defense Ministry official said South Korea will likely assume the full cost for the relocation, which experts have estimated to be between $3-5 billion since the relocation is carried out due to Seoul’s, not Washington’s, needs. Sources said the main U.S. military base will likely be put somewhere between south of the Han River and north of Taejon 140 kilometers away from the capital.

On 28 Feb, the new Defense Minister Cho Young-kil warned against any drastic change in the military alliance between South Korea and the United States. Cho said, "I don't think we have any factors which will change the Korea-U.S. alliance." The defense minister said the issue of U.S. troop withdrawal or any other reorganization of U.S. forces here should be dealt with in a cautious manner from the national strategic standpoint. Now that the wheels are in motion, the MND is seeking to slow its course. The major worry is the costs of relocation as well as additional costs to the defense budget once the USFK is pulled back and the ROK must fill the void. The worst case scenario would entail the US leaving Korea entirely and the Korean defense budget would have to increase by $20 billion to maintain the same level of defense -- and still relying heavily on the US promise that it will come to its defense if attacked. (SITE NOTE: The Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953 requires the U.S. Congress approval to enter the fray unlike other automatic mutual defense treaties as in Europe.) The most reasonable scenario will be that the USFK will close Uijongbu and Dongduchon installations and leave some units on the DMZ. These are all open for discussion in April ALONG WITH the US insistence that the ROK increase its share of defense expenditures.

Candlelight Vigil Demonstrations Continue: The anti-American tone of the candlelight vigils died down greatly after the New Years and was superceded by the anti-War movement. The political climate has changed and though the Korean people still feel strongly over this issue, there is a growing movement to suppress any anti-USFK sentiment.

There have been small protests such one held on 22 Feb near the U.S. embassy. Die-hard NGO groups continue to attempt to keep the momentum alive on this protest aimed at the USFK. The NGO groups have tried to keep this alive by attempting to bring the suit into the U.S. courts. However, there is not much substance to the case -- and would be quickly thrown out of civil courts in America. (See Civil Suit for details.)

Protest Candlelight Vigil (22 Feb 03)

Small scale anti-American demonstrations have been held, but most tie in the threat to North Korea with the potential War on Iraq. There are a lot of mixed messages in these demonstrations. For example, on 24 Feb, there was an anti-U.S. protest against Secretary of State Colin Powell, due to attend Roh's inauguration, near the U.S. embassy. On sign portrayed Powell as "Addicted on War: North Korea, Iraq." The signs said "No War for Oil" but it was mixed in with "We Oppose Powell's Visit to Seoul."

Comfort Women Demonstration: Though the anti-American demonstrations have virtually disappeared overnight primarily due to the inclement winter weather, protests are still occurring. The protests over the comfort women resurfaced again with a small demonstration in Seoul held on 7 Feb by comfort women demanding compensation from Japan. Another rally was held on 12 Feb. (See OhMy News for photos of rally.) The position of Japan on the comfort women issue is that the 1963 normalization treaty and reparations at that time absolved Japan of any further litigation. The issue is over compensation for the injustice done to them after all these years. Japan recruited these women in WWII and then turned them into sex-slaves to "service" the Japanese Army throughout Asia. The fight for these women's just compensation continues in Korea and Japan through human rights NGO groups.

Comfort Women Demonstration (7 Feb 03)

Yongsan Removal Demonstration: On 22 Feb, NGO groups protested the building of new apartment structures on Yongsan to accomodate the families. According to a Reuters news report, "Dozens of protesters demanded the United States give up its army bases in South Korea and withdraw their 37,000 troops from Korean peninsula." Seoul City government wants the land badly to construct a park, but until the USFK moves out of Yongsan, it is on a hold indefinitely. Under the latest developments in USFK-ROK relations, there has been more talk of the USFK moving out of Seoul -- but it is all dependent on Korea providing new lands. The NGO groups want an immediate halt to all USFK construction and are protesting the provisions of the Land Partnership Plan as well. Primary NGO protest group is Green Korea. On 26 Feb, another small group protested outside Yongsan stating the "fact" that an overpass was constructed and the apartment construction had started indicated the USFK had no intention of leaving. The group also wanted the USFK to pay for the move in its entirety.

The following is an excerpt from Jan 2002 Special Press Summary: Land Partnership Plan and Yongsan Relocation: Executive Summary.



1. Assessment: The U.S is facing two issues on its continued presence in South Korea: much needed apartment construction for its military personnel and the eventual consolidation and relocation of some bases under the Land Partnership Plan (LPP). Although U.S. Forces Korea (USFK) has made tremendous efforts to clarify the situation that the LPP, including Yongsan relocation, is a separate issue from the more urgent need to construct military apartments, opposition groups have focused on possible construction on Yongsan to spearhead their Anti-US protests. Any construction there will be seen as a delay in relocation and a sign that Yongsan may never be returned, spurring further protest of overall U.S. presence in Korea. Complicating this will be continued refusal by alternate sites to accept Yongsan relocation to their neighborhoods for fear of increasing social and environmental concerns. Careful negotiation and astute political maneuvering is need to prevent further complications.

2. Summary: In May 1989, the U.S. and the Republic of Korea (ROK) signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to transfer Yongsan base out of Seoul by the end of 1996. The two nations signed the agreement in 1991, but failed to narrow their differences about relocation. Suspicions that North Korea was covertly developing nuclear weapons and the overall cost of relocation (as much as $9.5 billion) hamstrung the initiative. On 15 November 2001, during the 33rd ROK - U.S. Security Consultative Meeting (SCM), ROK Minister of National Defense Kim Dong Shin and U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld met and discussed the LPP and subsequently agreed on the need to expedite consultations based on the Letter of Intent signed at the SCM. The 10-year plan calls for 15 of the United States' 41 installations to close with forces being consolidated onto 26 enduring installations with no reduction in the number of troops on the peninsula. The amount of land that will be returned to the ROK represents nearly 60 percent of the 65,000 acres currently occupied by USFK, or 12 percent of the remaining land granted to USFK following the Korean War. The formal signing of the plan is scheduled for 15 March 2002. Yongsan Apartment Construction - While the LPP has received press coverage, including the plan to reduce the U.S. Forces "footprint" on the Peninsula, the main focus of reporting has been on the possible construction of U.S. military apartments on Yongsan. Opposition groups have touted the possible construction as evidence that the U.S. is intent on maintaining Yongsan with an underlying scheme to permanently station its forces on the Peninsula and prepare Korea for inclusion in the U.S.'s Missile Defense Plan. While President Kim is in favor of the apartment construction, politicians appear to be split. Seoul officials appear to be against construction, claiming the area is a "green zone" and hoping to expedite the return of the base to the city. Press reporting indicates that the Korean Veteran's Association along with 57 other groups are in favor of construction to support U.S. forces. Yongsan Relocation - Reporting indicates that the ruling Millennium Democratic Party is in favor of Yongsan relocation while the opposition Grand National Party is more cautious. Seoul city leaders have said USFK and the Defense Ministry shirked a 1990 promise to move forces out of Yongsan by 1996. They appear to have their eyes on the base's prime real estate and plan to build a city hall at Yongsan whenever the land is vacated. Representatives of some alternative sites are opposed to relocation to their neighborhoods because of expected social and environment problems experienced by current bases. Cost of the relocation is also an issue with some groups saying that the ROK should not fund it because of the current financial crisis. Meanwhile, North Korean reporting continues to be negative toward any U.S. presence on the Peninsula.

Prepared on: 31 January 2002

Yongsan Demonstration against USFK Apartment Construction (22 Feb 03)

Other Demonstrations: Other demonstrations have been by farmers over the farm subsidy cuts by the government. President-elect Roh made it plain that he felt the farmers had caused much of the problems in this area. These protests have been relatively small as compared to the WTO demonstration of 2002.

There have been small protests from foreign workers -- many of them illegal workers -- who wish to be granted greater rights and protection when working in Korea. Many have been cheated or not compensated for injuries. Medical insurance and other basic benefits have been denied to these workers -- most of whom are from Southwest Asian countries (Bangledesh, Pakistan, etc.). The organizers are Seoul Church groups who sympathetic to the plight of these illegal workers.

Other demonstrations have been political calling for the release of political prisoners -- especially students activists jailed as "spies" after they were found to have direct links to North Korea. These protests have been very small and carried out mostly by relatives and mothers of the students.

Pro-US/Anti-North Korea Demonstrations: 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. 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.

Anti-War Demonstrations: The major problem between the U.S. and Korea on this issue deals with the "alliance" based on a common threat of war with North Korea. Unfortunately, President Roh and a large group of Koreans continues to think North Korea is not a threat and believe the North has no intention to go to war. In fact, some Korean activists feel that the USFK presence actually creates a stumbling block for reunification. Some activists voice the view that the U.S. "invents" threats that do not exist.

Small demonstrations continued in February on the Anti-War theme that paints America as the "devil" hell bent on attacking North Korea. Bush and Rumsfield are the primary targets identified for being burnt in effigy. Small rallies were held on 6 Feb, 11 Feb and 12 Feb. The faces are the same, but the cause is now different for the "NO WAR" movement. The minister who led the SOFA sit-in in front of the White House in December 2002, is marched in the front of the procession for the anti-War rally. (See Anti-War Protests for more info on this movement in Korea and worldwide.)

On 11 Feb NGO groups held a small rally in front of the U.S. Embassy demanding the Seoul government refuse support for any military action by the United States against Iraq because the U.S. has not proved its case that the war is required. This comes amid the South Korean government's strong evacuation recommendation for its citizens in Iraq, Israel and Kuwait Tuesday, warning that the situation in the Middle East is becoming increasingly tense. However, intermingled with this demonstration is the call for No War on North Korea.

Unfortunately, there is a sense of unreality in the North-South relations. On one hand, the North has stated that it would launch "pre-emptive" strikes against U.S. units in the South if the U.S. increased its forces in Korea. On the other hand, more than 100 South Koreans on Feb. 5 embarked on a three-day tour of Mt. Kumgang through a land route crossing the DMZ. At the end of January, the two Koreas reached an agreement regarding the crossing of the DMZ through a 10-meter-wide temporary road linking South Korea and the North Korean tourist attraction in an east coastal area. The opening of the land route to Mt. Kumgang came four and a half years after South Korean tourists began their trips to the famed mountain in the North through a sea route under a joint venture between Hyundai Asan Corp. in the South and the Asia-Pacific Peace Committee in the North. In addition, the initial surveys continue on the North Korean special economic zones.

The unreality of the situation deals with North Korea saying "I will kill all the USFK in pre-emptive strikes, but I'm sorry that I will also kill a lot of Koreans." The South says, "That's ok, I know you're only saying things you don't mean. I will be your friend and give you money." This is the unreality.

Anti-War Demonstration Protest (6 Feb 03)

On 14 Feb members of 20 Roman Catholic organizations gathered in front of the U.S. embassy in Chongno-gu to urge the Korean government not to look the other way if and when the U.S. invades Iraq. It was a rather small demonstration led by the Rev. Mun. A protestor dressed in fatigues with a Bush mask hoisted an oil barrel with the label IRAQ on it. The banners read "Stop this evil oil war." (Go to 14 Feb Anti-War Photos.)

According to Baharain Tribune Times South Korean protesters urged North Korea and the United States to open discussions to end Pyongyang’s nuclear threats and chanted opposition to a US-led war on oil-rich Iraq. The protest at a park in central Seoul attracted a crowd of some 2,000, including representatives of various civic, religious and academic groups, trades unions, entertainers and foreigners. According to the report, "The crowd carried and chanted anti-war and anti-US slogans and brandished banners demanding Yankees go home" and calling for the United States "to stop attempts to start a war on the Korean peninsula" and to sign a non-agression pact with North Korea." The article described the crowd as chanting “No war, No war.” One protester wearing a mock US military uniform and a mask of US President George W. Bush danced in front of the demonstrators. He carried a barrel symbolising Iraqi oil to suggest that the US motive for the war was its desire to get its hands on the country’s black gold. One Western protestor held high a placard reading: “I am not an American.”"

Though this protest was Anti-War, it was actually Anti-U.S. as the target. The crowd still chanted anti-US slogans and brandished banners demanding "Yankees go home." Pictures of Bush and Rumsfield on the "No War" signs of the NGO groups, but there are no signs with England's Tony Blair. The NGO groups target is clear. They stated, ``We will actively participate in the anti-war protests to send a clear message to the U.S. government and seek strong alliance with anti-war groups from around the world.''

The Anti-War and Pro-Peace Organization, composed of 700 civic groups announced in February that it would hold a "massive" Anti-war on Iraq demonstration on February 15 in conjunction with international groups. The organization was created in 2001 to oppose US action in Afghanistan, and revamped last year when the possibility of war with Iraq loomed. About 40 non-governmental organizations joined the protests to coincide with rallies in 60 cities throughout the United States, Europe and other countries.

On 15 Feb thousands of Koreans rallied in Seoul and five other cities to protest a possible U.S. war on Iraq and call for a peaceful resolution to the North Korea nuclear issue. The demonstrations were part of massive anti-war rallies planned throughout 100 different cities around the world. An article on 15 Feb in The Star stated, "Shouting invective against American war plans and waving banners for peace, thousands of protesters poured into the streets of Asia Saturday in a chain of rallies planned around the world against a U.S.-led attack on Iraq. Demonstrators clogged a downtown park in Seoul, South Korea, to chant and listen to a series of anti-war speeches. The crowd, estimated at 10,000, held signs that included one reading, "Drop Bush, Not Bombs.''

Around the world, massive rallies protesting the United States’ threatened attack on Iraq were held. Protestors around the world felt that the U.S. and England had not made their case that war was essential. This was the first time a protest of this size was held BEFORE a war had started. In London the marches to Hyde Park numbered around 500,000 and other marches were held in Australia, Moscow, Japan, China and Korea -- as well as across the U.S. and other nations.

February 22 to 27 was designated as "national autonomy, anti-war week," by the NGO groups. On the weekend of the 22-23 Feb, the Anti-War demonstrations were mainly confined to handing out of pamphlets. On the TV news, a death-masked figure in fatigues protraying the U.S. held a toy pistol to the head of a "people"-masked figure kneeling on the ground with hands in the air. The anti-U.S. message was very obvious. Feb 26-27 there were small peaceful street demonstrations in Seoul by college age participants, but not any major march. The NGO groups announced a parade commemorating the 33 leaders of the Samil Independence Movement was to take place with marches from Tapgol Park to Gwanghwamun. Again turnout was small.

Kim Dae-jung and Hyundai Merchant Marine Scandal & More: Also in the midst of the North Korean crisis, the flap over Kim Dae-jung using the Hyundai Merchant Marine (HMM) to funnel about $250 million to the North Koreans has raised a hornet's nest. Allegedly at least $500 million was transferred to Pyongyang through Hyundai Construction, Hyundai Electronics and Hyundai Merchant Marine. The Wall Street Journal went so far as to publish an article that said Kim Dae-jung "bribed" the North to hold his historic meeting with Kim Jong-Il that led to his Nobel Peace Prize. Kim stated that funds that were used to further inter-Korean relations were "outside the law" as it was the use of "discretional presidential power" and those involved should not be prosecuted. Kim said this was a "supra-legal action in which the laws of South Korea were inapplicable, as they define the North as an anti-government (South) organization." Kim said to reveal everything about this would not help the national interest or inter-Korean relations.

Kim Dae-jung

The Public Prosecutor's Office stated it was postponing an investigation into HMM's allegedly illegal fund transfer to North Korea until a "political solution" is reached. In other words, it wants instructions from the incoming President-elect as to which direction to take -- but the Roh team has been vacilating. Many Koreans still feel an independent counsel should be appointed. However, Former president Kim Young-sam and twenty "elder statesmen" in various fields announced on 7 Feb that President Kim Dae-jung should be prosecuted according to the law for secretly giving financial assistance to North Korea. In a statement to the press, they stated that the assistance by Kim Dae-jung turned out to be "an act of treason" because it helped the North develop nuclear technology and missiles with South Koreans' taxes. "President Kim Dae-jung brought about the nuclear crisis of today," they said.

On 14 Feb, President Kim Dae-jung apologized for the incident, but stated that the payments were part of a "payment schedule" that was prearranged between Hyundai and the North. It was admitted that the NIS -- Korean equivalent of the CIA -- aided in the transfer of the funds, but again stated that there was no illegality in the act. Despite President Kim Dae-jung's apology for Hyundai's illegal transfer of money to North Korea before the summit in June 2000, the rival parties continued their dispute. While the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) insisted on a special counsel being appointed for a criminal investigation, the ruling Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) resolutely called for a political settlement.

Suddenly the support for the "sunshine policy" is not too popular. And then the Chairman of Hyundai, Chung Mong-hun, came forward with a televised statement. According to a Newsday.com report, he admitted that $500 million had been transferred to North Korea to secure exclusive rights to "avoid unnecessary competition and disputes with Japan, Germany, Australia and the United States, which showed interest in North Korean projects." "Hyundai projects in the North include tourism, railways, an industrial park, a sports complex, dams, an airport, telecommunications infrastructure and power generation. And Chung said his group would consult with other companies in pushing ahead with investments there.

In other words, the South Korean government funded a secret deal to give "exclusive rights" for a specific chaebol (conglomerate) who is now willing to share its largesse with other KOREAN companies. "We have been promoting inter-Korean economic projects with the belief that balanced growth on the Korean Peninsula would help movement toward reunification," he said. Nice bucket of worms.

Chung also said he brokered the summit by setting up a meeting between government officials from the two Koreas in March 2000. He said "government understanding and cooperation" was an inevitable result of the money transfer because of the special nature of relations between the two Koreas, divided since 1945.

Sunshine Policy Renamed 'Peace and Prosperity': The term "Sunshine Policy" used by the Kim Dae-jung administration to characterize its North Korea policy will be changed to "Peace and Prosperity Policy" by the Roh Moo-hyun government. The current North Korea policy, which is based on changing North Korea through continuous support, will remain but with some adjustment.

The reason behind changing the term is said to be the negative image the "Sunshine Policy" gained after secret fund transfers were revealed. Renaming the policy also has to do with the negative public sentiment rising in and out the nation regarding the term. Koreans view the "Sunshine Policy" as a heedless funding policy to North Korea and North Koreans have expressed disapproval for being an object of benevolence.

It was also pointed out that the terms previously used for the North Korea policy emphasized only the methods rather than its goals. The Presidential Transition Committee concluded that a goal-intended term would be more appropriate and thus "peace and prosperity" were chosen as ultimate goals. Taking the leadership in North-eastern Asia through inter-Korean reconciliation, which is one of the central tasks of the Roh administration, was also included in the new term under "prosperity."

More Garbage heaped on Kim Dae-jung: Then to add more garbage heaped on Kim Dae-jung, Daewoo's erstwhile chairman, Kim Woo-choong, disappeared from the public stage in disgrace hiding out in such places as Morocco, but now resurfaced. In a 10 Feb Business Week article it stated that Kim offered a lengthy interview with Fortune's Louis Kraar which has caused a firestorm in Seoul. The conservative press has jumped on Kim's contention that President Kim Dae-jung advised the Daewoo boss to leave the country in 1999 and lie low until the political heat surrounding Daewoo's collapse blew over. Kim Dae-jung's opponents think that the ex-Daewoo boss could spill dirt on Kim Dae Jung's backdoor dealings with the company. However, most Western business correspondents don't lend much credence to Kim Woo-Choong's side of the story.

Pro-US Groups Rallies: According to a 9 Feb Associated Press story a rally in Pusan backed the U.S. stand against the North. Thousands of South Koreans staged a pro-U.S. rally on 9 Feb and prayed for North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions and an envoy of South Korea's president-elect urged Washington to hold direct talks with the communist nation. About 3,000 people attended Sunday's pro-U.S. rally in Busan. The demonstrators, mostly Christians, burned a picture of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il, waved American flags and prayed for an end to North Korea's nuclear ambitions.

The Christian Council of Korea planned a prayer meeting in Yeoido on February 28 with 200,000 participants. Christian groups already held mass prayer meetings in front of City Hall last January 11 and the 19th. The prayer meetings spread to local areas as well. On Sunday, 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. These anti-North Korea demonstrations are being billed as Pro-US support.

Suddenly it is fashionable to be Pro-American. What is extremely strange is that on 14 Feb some 30 Grand National Party (GNP) representatives and GNP regional chapter heads decided to form an "anti-USFK withdrawal" group. By 23 Feb, the total had grown to 130 GNP representatives including Kim Yong-kap and Maeng Hyung-kyu. A statement issued by the group read that the Korean American alliance had been responsible for 50 years of peace and prosperity on the Korean peninsula. And said that the irrational anti-Americanism and the spread of sentiment calling for USFK withdrawal would no longer be looked upon with indifference. It is unsurprising that they would surface once Kim Dae-jung is on the ropes and they would want to be on the opposite side of Roh's policies under the MDP. However, what is surprising is the hypocrisy they show when they were silent when the masses were burning the American flag and members of the GNP were joining ranks with the anti-American NGO groups. Some 20 GNP members do not support this move and belong to the "Towards the People" group.

However, there was a conflict brewing between the pro-U.S. and anti-U.S. (anti-War) groups. On March 1 both an "anti-USFK withdrawal" rally and a candle light demonstration protesting the acquittal of two US soldiers who accidentally ran over two middle school students, were to be held in Seoul. According to an article in the Choson Ilbo on 10 Feb, future plans are underway to organize a massive "Pro-US Rally" on March 1, an independence movement commemoration day. The "anti-USFK withdrawal, anti-nuclear weapons, anti-Kim, pro-unification" committee announced on Friday that their rally to protest the North Korean nuclear program is to be held in front of City Hall on March 1 from noon. The committee consists of various former high level government officials, veterans, and Christian group leaders. 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. According to the rally's organizing committee for the 'March 1 People's Rally', the rally will be an "Anti-nuclear, Anti-Kim, Free Unification" rally. The protest is for March 1 in front of City Hall in Seoul with one million participants. The committee consists of 33 representatives including former Prime Minister Kang Young-hun, Korea-United States Friendship Association chairman Park Keun, and Korean Veterans' Association chairman Lee Sang-hoon.

But then another group popped up on 22 Feb and said it too was scheduling an anti-war march on March 1. Supposedly over 10,000 people will hold a candle-lit rally in Tapgol Park, downtown Seoul, on March 1 to oppose war in Iraq and commemorate demonstrations against Japanese colonial rule in 1919. Beomdaewi, a NGO group seeking punishment of two U.S. soldiers who drove a military vehicle which crushed two Korean schoolgirls to death last summer, said it will join forces with other NGOs to organize the mass rally which will feature a parade of those in the costumes of freedom fighters and Japanese military police. The images would seem to ready made to substituted NGO groups for freedom fighters and USFK Americans for Japanese military police. This should be an interesting encounter. The candle light demonstration organizers also announced that a demonstration was to be held from 7:00pm at Gwanghwamun.

The effort to stroke the USFK continues to "promote mutual understanding." Gyeonggi Province invited 300 American soldiers and 200 foreign laborers for the performance of the musical "Subway Line Number 1" (with English Subtitles) at Uijeongbu Arts Center (UAC) on February 15 and 16. "Subway Line Number 1" has been running since 1994 and is about the contradictions of Korean society seen through the eyes of a young Chinese woman. Gyeonggi Province hoped to expand "mutual understanding by providing cultural exposure, and that such events were planned throughout the year." On February 15, Gyeonggi Governor Sohn Hak-kyu, Major-general John Wood, head of the US 2nd Infantry Division, 150 American soldiers and 20 foreign laborers watched the musical together.

60-Minutes Blasts Korea: The 60-Minutes crew that was reported to be in Korea in January has aired their program to the American public on 9 February. The CBS Recap 60 Minutes for the Feb. 9 airing read, "YANKEE GO HOME! – Bob Simon finds out that young South Koreans see President Bush as more dangerous than North Korean dictator Kim Jong Il and have demonstrated their displeasure with attacks on the U.S. Army."

Though we did not see it, a Korean-American Hojoong Kim noted in a Letter to the Editor of the Choson Ilbo that, "It was an embarrassing and humiliating experience to watch CBS's 60 minutes covering S. Koreans anti-American sentiment tonight. Most heart breaking moment was seeing 8th army commander and US Ambassador choking and swallowing their tears with overwhelmed emotions." Other Americans commented that it had changed their minds about the USFK staying in Korea.

A concerned friend of mine, Richard E. Orr wrote, "Could not help thinking about you last nite as I watched the 60 Minutes program on Korea. I remember you writing about how bad it had become in some areas there. But I don't think I could have imagined some of what I saw. Several of the younger people they interviewed said they were less afraid of the leader of North Korea than they were of Pres. Bush. It would be virtually impossible for me to bridge the mental gap between what I saw there 50 years ago and then what I saw on TV last nite. I realize that these programs tend to go to the extremes a lot; and also that there are still a lot of people there that appreciate the US & UN for what was done for them. But that still was a shock to my mentality..." The following are excerpts from Korea Informed a BBS for the "expat community in South Korea to keep up to date with the articles, stories, images, videos, and links about the problems we face in South Korea -- primarily anti-USFK and anti-US matters."

"ghonakorea" wrote on Feb 10, "I've seen a few posts reference the "Yankee Go Home" piece Which seem to indicate that the 60 minutes crew did not go in-depth enough and point out the media bias, the subway incident, etc.
While I would agree that it would have been nice to point those things out, I STILL think that CBS did a fair job of getting to the point. Let's face it, the show wasn't meant for the expat/military viewing audience in Korea. The opening scene of Old Glory being ripped to shreds. . .and the poignant (and rare) scene with the teary-eyed american General will REALLY hit home with folks back in the states, IMHO. Many of the attacks that have happened are below the radar screen back home, but pictures of shredded flags, molotov cocktails will have an impact if for no other reason than that 60 Minutes is still one of the highest rated shows on TV in the states. I mean, even my Korean wife, her mother and her sister, who watched it with me, were VISIBLY shaken when that General broke down. Can you imagine Ma and Pa in DeMoine?
Hell, the sobbing General even brought a tear to my eye when I thought about the question that was asked.
"Don't Tread On Me!"

"koreaquotables" wrote on Feb 11, "I'm happy they did the show and I think they had most of the right conclusions. I just think they could have had more effect by mentioning more specifics that could have shown better why the conclusions were valid. Really, if the general hadn't broken down and cried, it would have lost much of its punch..."

On 19 Feb, Ambassador Hubbard commented on the tears of 8th Army Commander in response to the U.S. flag burnings. He stated the program did not give a balanced view of the anti-Americanism, but it did show truthfully the signs with murderers, flag burnings and other incidents.

US Ambassador Clarifies Remarks Made to CBS

by Kwon Kyung-bok (kkb@chosun.com)

Thomas Hubbard, the United States ambassador to Korea said Tuesday that US 8th Army Commander Charles Campbell's tears shed during an interview with the American TV station CBS was not an emotional response, but an understandable one after being shown the burning of American flags, and the recent Korean candlelight demonstrations. He added that if Koreans saw their flag being burnt, there would have been a similar negative response and said that Commander Campbell shedding tears was a sad thing.

Ambassador Hubbard, who was invited to speak at a breakfast meeting of a Seoul National University (SNU) CEO alumni held at the Shilla Hotel, said this in reply to a question from the audience as to whether he thought Commander Campbell's actions would stimulate anti-Koreanism in the US.

The ambassador also said that although the CBS current affairs program "60 Minutes" did not give a balanced report on the recent anti-Americanism in Korea, Korean protestors did carry around placards reading that Americans were murderers, three American flags were burnt at the protests, and petrol bombs were thrown at the American Embassy in Seoul. He said that it was also true such images projected negative responses in the US. Ambassador Hubbard said that it had been difficult not to react emotionally when he saw his flag being burnt in the candlelight demonstrations, and that he had been hurt when protestors yelled that American soldiers were murderers.

He also clarified that he did not say that many Koreans hated the US, which was reported in Korea recently, but had said that there were Koreans resentful of the US in an interview with CBS. Ambassador Hubbard concluded that this was the time for Koreans and Americans to respond coolly and think about the importance and significance of Korean American relations

The CBS show "60 Minutes" reported on Korean anti-Americanism on February 9 and when shown burning American flags, Commander Campbell had been seen to have tears in his eyes, while he said that state policies were not made on the basis of emotions but of national interests.

Roh Moo-hyun Becomes 16th President: Roh Moo-hyun took office as the 16th President of the Republic of Korea in an inaugural ceremony at the National Assembly in Seoul at 11 a.m on 25 Feb. More than 45,000 packed National Assembly square and its vicinity.

President Roh Moo-hyun sat at the center of the main platform along with first lady Kwon Yang-sook. To the left sat former Presidents Choi Kyu-hah, Chun Doo-hwan, Roh Tae-woo, Kim Young-sam and Prime Minister Kim Suk-soo, while to the right sat Park Kwan-yong, National Assembly speaker, and Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi.

Former Presidents at Inauguration

In his inaugural address, he touched on the main points of his agenda. He intended to solicit popular participation based on the dictum "by the people" and develop "a balanced, advanced society, in which the nation is united as a harmonious community, is possible only when we remove the structure of contradiction such as privileges, discrimination and exclusion." Roh vowed to continue Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine" policy of engaging the North but his North Korea policy was targeted at "peace and prosperity."

Roh's presidential agenda also outlines his intention to reach out to the public via the Internet, bypassing existing mass media. In a surprise move, he had an interview with Internet newspaper "OhmyNews," in which he vowed "not to compromise with the big print newspapers." The editorials in the large dailies were understandably "concerned."

Roh at Inauguration

North Korea Tensions Heat Up: Despite North Korea's war-like rhetoric in January due to escalating tensions on the peninsula over the nuclear issue, it showed no clear signs of mobilizing its military in January. This contrasts sharply with the first nuclear crisis in 1993-94, when the North declared quasi-wartime conditions and set up an anti-air raid network in Pyongyang. However, the USFK and ROK forces have undergone a review of their ability to withstand a pre-emptive attack from North Korea. These preparations the MND wishes to be kept secret, but there have been leaks in recent weeks. At this point in time, the USFK and U.S. administration do not want to upset the apple cart and unbalance everything in Korea. Though the U.S. Ambassador denied it initially, the Commander of the Pacific Forces requested 12 B-52 bombers to be stationed in Guam. Whether this was to offset the airpower loss in the region created by the U.S.S. Kitty Hawk carrier group leaving for the Middle East -- or by the North Korean situation -- is anyone's guess.

But as things heat up, the economic outlook for South Korea sinks. Moody's Investors Service on 11 Feb slashed the outlook on the long-term ratings of South Korea to negative from positive, due to heightened security concerns stemming from North Korea's suspected nuclear weapons program. The rating agency said that increased uncertainty regarding North Korean actions and possible responses from the international community had reduced the likelihood that South Korea's ratings could move up in the near future. This uncertainty had also introduced the possibility that the rating could move down should the security environment on the peninsula continue to deteriorate. To make matters worse, a global economic downturn and an oil-price upsurge caused the country's trade balance to be mired in deficit for two months in a row for the first time since the 1997 financial crisis. Concern in the export sector has become more serious as global prices of memory chips, the largest export item for Korea, have continued to decline, in addition to a sharp drop in exports of computers and ships.

North Korea Restarts Nuclear Plant: On 28 Feb, U.S. and Japanese media reported that North Korea had restarted a suspended 5 megawatt nuclear reactor in Yongbyon, which is capable of producing weapons-grade plutonium from spent fuel. (NOTE: The Yoimuri Shimbun reported that this was "a 5,000-kilowatt graphite-moderated reactor.") The IAEA and other nations previously had implored the North to not start their reactor. This comes at a time when Secretary of State Powell once again said to the Roh face-to-face that though the U.S. does NOT intend to attack North Korea, any option should not be removed from the table -- even the military option. "Any moves by the North Koreans to reprocess spent fuel would be a matter of deep concern to the entire international community," U.S. State Department spokesman Richard Boucher.

In a Yonhap news article, Foreign Affairs and Trade Ministry spokesman Seok Tong-youn stated, "North Korea's reactivation of its 5 megawatt reactor is not only unhelpful to maintaining peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula but goes against nuclear non-proliferation efforts of the international community, and the government expresses deep concern and regret."

In addition, the U.S. was also looking towards economic sanctions, though it will continue its food aid. North Korea in return has called the referral of its nuclear program by the IAEA to the UNSC as an "act of war." In defiance, it continued its nuclear program. Tensions were cranked up a notch. The anti-War protests have been lukewarm at best due to the cold weather but can be expected to increase as warm weather returns in spring.

Yongbyon Nuclear Facility

Yongbyon Nuclear Facility Satellite Photo

On an international scale, the reactivation of the nuclear reactor was the least dangerous of Pyongyang's three diplomatic cards. The remaining two cards were activating a nuclear plant to extract plutonium by reprocessing used nuclear fuel rods and test-firing a ballistic missile. If North Korea takes one of the two other actions, Japan will have to start discussing sanctions against the country. (NOTE: If North Korea test launched a Rodong missile capable of reaching Japan, the Japanese people will "panic" according to Japan's Foreign Minister Kawaguchi. However, the options are limited as the Japanese Self-Defense Force does not have any weaponry to combat the threat. The only countries with Tomahawk missiles are the U.S. and Britain. The largest concern will be that if that happens, the Japanese would abrogate the Peace Constitution and rearm in "self-defense.")

By reactivating the reactor, North Korea will be able to obtain an additional 8,000 used nuclear fuel rods in about a year. As Pyongyang already has 8,000 used fuel rods, it is possible that North Korea will be able to produce enough weapons-grade plutonium to build more than 10 nuclear bombs.

Pyongyang is urging the United States to open a dialogue by indicating that it could produce a large number of nuclear bombs. Reactivating a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant is a risky option for North Korea as it will upset Washington. North Korea seems to believe reactivating the reactor is an action that will fall just short of drawing sanctions.

The nuclear power plant under the 1994 accord remains on a hold. The executive board members of the Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization (KEDO) agreed to put off some immediate actions they need to take for the project to build two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea. The three key KEDO members -- South Korea, Japan and the United States -- decided at an unofficial meeting in early January to postpone making purchase deals to acquire some parts that are required immediately for the project.

The reactors are being built in North Korea’s Kumho district in South Hamkyung province. The Bush administration’s view that the Geneva Agreed Framework, which called for the reactors to be built, was wrong from the start implying that the administration wants the construction stopped. At present, Seoul is against scrapping the project, while Japan is taking a cautious stance. Groundbreaking work for the project was finished at the end of last year, and nearly 30 percent of the construction has been done. Korea has so far invested $765 million in the work, out of a total of $1.1 billion invested in the project.

MARCH 2003:

Pro US Rally in Seoul (1 March)

Anti-War Protest in Seoul (1 March)
(Source: OhMy News)

(NOTE: Korea is joining other anti-war activists from around the world in providing "human shields" in strategic locations -- with the intention of protecting civilian lives in case of a U.S.-led attack. Thirteen activists of the Iraq Peace Team of Korea -- in collaboration with American peace organizations Voices in the Wilderness and International Nonviolent Peaceforce -- head for Iraq in March. Unfortunately, the U.S. response is that these shields are against the Geneva Convention and any of them killed will be considered a war crime against the generals and Saddam. In addition, the U.S. pointed out that "strategic targets" are deliberately intermingled with civilian structures but will not deter the U.S. attack with smart weapons. At the same time, on 10 Mar the U.S. asked for South Korean support in the event of war breaking out against Iraq. Seoul was asked for a statement of support, medical aid, and help in handling refugees.)

There were also other nationalistic events throughout the country to honor the patriots in the Independence Movement of the country. The Ministry of Patriots and Veterans Affairs announced that over 200,000 citizens reenacted the March 1st independence procession at starting at 11 a.m. at Tapgol and Jongmyo parks. There was a large prayer rally at the Han River park to pray to God for the salvation of the nation. The Christian Council of Korea held a ``save-the-nation fast prayer’’ in Yoido, Seoul. More than 100,000 participants prayed for ``restoration of national morality, national development and economic growth, improved human rights in North Korea and recognition of North Korean asylum seekers.’’

Last Blast of Winter at Beginning of March: A cold wave gripped Korea for a week starting on 3 Mar with Seoul, Suwon and Daegwallyeong recording subzero temperatures. This dampened the protests until it warms up a bit. No protests were held during the cold snap.

By 9 Mar, the protests had resumed again though less vocal. A NGO group organized a photo exhibition at a park in Daehangno, central Seoul, to encourage anti-war campaigns. The group, calling itself the "Citizens Coalition to Materialize the June 15 South-North Joint Declaration and Peace on the Korean Peninsula," held an exhibition that featured the work of photographers and cartoonists who advocate the anti-war theme around the world.

Police Clamp Down on Anti-American Candlelight Vigils: Elements of the 1 March Anti-War demonstration was considered a candlelight vigil for the commemoration of the two girls killed in June 2002. In Seoul on 7 Mar, the Jungo Police Department planned to summon organizers of the candlelight demonstrations protesting the verdict on those responsible for the deaths of two schoolgirls last year, for violating law related to assembly and protest. The Jongno Police Department said they will questions eight leaders of the citizen's group that has staged the protest, pointing out the latest demonstrations near the U.S. embassy may have violated guidelines the group was told to abide.

Anti-American Commemorative Protest (12 Mar 03)

On 12 Mar, about 40 of the Pan-National Council members tried to force their way into the National Police Agency's office demanding that the suppression of the vigils be stopped. Twenty-one were arrested and the conflict seems to only be starting. A representative of the activist group said that the vigils were still held as memorial services and that the police were overreacting. He said that the vigils would continue in the same way at the same place. Later the police said they had indicted without detention three members of the anti-American group that has been maintaining the candlelight demonstrations downtown for trying to raid a police station on 12 Mar in Migeun-dong, Seoul. Ten others may have charges filed as well.

On 14 Mar the Seoul police practically banned candlelight vigils in the Gwanghwamun district saying the gathering was becoming an anti-American rally digressing from its original purpose of mourning the deaths of two schoolgirls and turning into a demonstration or rally that must be registered with the Police. Police said they have informed organizers of the candlelight vigil to decide whether to return to being a mourning event or move to other venues to stage such an anti-U.S. rally. The police had regarded the vigils in Gwanghwamun as memorial services, and allowed them even though the group had not secured permits for demonstrating. The police now say the vigils, which have involved blocking nearby roads, shouting anti-U.S. slogans and attempting to break in to the U.S. embassy, have lost their original intention. At a time when relations with Washington are strained, some observers speculate that the new administration's policy to stop the spread of anti-U.S. sentiment has something to do with the police action. But a Seoul police agency official said the decision was independently made, and was a judgment that the vigils had turned illegal and political.

Anti-American Commemorative Protest (15 Mar 03)

On 15 Mar a small group showed up in defiance of the ban on the Commemorative Event. The event was peaceful so there was no incidents.

Anti-War Demonstrations Continue: The world has heated up in its protests against the War with Iraq and the South Korean youth have latched onto this topical issue. Anti-war protests were held in Seoul on 14-15 Mar with the same skits that were performed on the 1 Mar demonstrations. On 15 Mar about 3,000 people gathered for an anti-American and anti-war protest on Saturday at Jongmyo Park in downtown Seoul, according to police estimates. The popular image is a silver painted U.S. soldier wearing the crown symbolizing the statue of liberty shooting Iraqi women prostrated on the ground.

Anti-War (15 Mar 03)

On Mar 20, the eve of the War with Iraq, NGO civic groups and student groups held rallies in Gwanghwamun, Seoul to protest the attack by U.S. and coalition forces on Iraq and the Seoul government's decision to send non-combat personnel to assist U.S. forces there. About 1,000 members from some 700 civic activist groups such as the Korean Professors' Union jointly staged a sit-in demonstration as well as nighttime candlelight vigils, holding placards and chanting slogans to denounce the U.S.-led war near Kwanghwamun downtown, Seoul. They demanded the immediate halt of the attack -- as though anyone in the US-England coalition was listening to them. They stated President Roh's support of the U.S. attack was illegal and that if Korea sent troops to an unjustifiable war, Korea would be stigmatized as a criminal nation.

Professors protest in front of Blue House

However, President Roh feared an over-reaction by the police to anti-War demonstrations. The NGO activist groups are known as Roh's popular base of support. As a result on 21 Mar, he instructed police not to employ "heavy-handed tactics" in dealing with protests against the U.S.-led war on Iraq. Keen to avoid clashes between police and protestors, Roh issued the order to his political aide Yoo In-tae after receiving a briefing on the candlelit anti-war rally held in downtown Seoul on 20 Mar.

Korea Peace Team Human Shields: Laughably, the 13 anti-War protestors from Korea that went to Iraq to act as human shields have just earned our "Chicken Little Award for Valor." 10 of the 13 remained in Amman, Jordan out of harm's way while "getting visas" -- and waiting for the bombing to stop. In actuality on March 12, the 10 "went to Baghdad and staged an anti-war candlelight vigil, which included hanging a large banner with an anti-war message." They left Iraq ltwo days before the war began. For such "courage, " these "human shields" will receive our "Chicken Little Award of Valor." Three who made it into Iraq selected sites of their own choosing. Two protestors chose to act as human shields in their hotel room, while one bravely went out to take up duties at a power plant. However, BEFORE the attacks began, he removed himself back to the hotel to a BASEMENT room. The three were doing "humanitarian service" at a local hospital which in their words was "more meaningful" than being a human shield. So much for the dedicated Human Shields of the Korean Peace Team!!!

Korean Human Shields in Iraq

According to the Korea Herald on 22 Mar, "Bae Sang-hyun, one of the three now in the Iraqi capital, told an MBC radio program yesterday that he was leaving a power plant in northern Iraq unharmed. He was in the facility Thursday as part of a "human shield" when the United States launched its first strike. Bae considered the complex would be a prime target of the U.S.-led attack. "Although we are having difficulty with getting food, clothing and housing, there's no big problem with our health," Bae was quoted as saying. The trio, including a 29-year-old woman, Yoo Eun-ha, said they are staying in the AlFanar Hotel in Baghdad and will push ahead with the anti-war campaign and rescue work there along with other human rights activists."

Later Bae Sang-hyun removed himself from the power plant and went to into "humanitarian service" at a local hospital. Bae said he decided that giving humanitarian assistance would be "more meaningful" than being a human shield, so he left the power transformer facility before the air strike began on the 20th. Bae reported that he came out of the substation because, as the war began, there was no meaning as a human shield. But others including two Japanese remained there . Bae reported the local news in an e-mail to the Coalition of Hope for Open Society at Masan, a southeastern city on 20 Mar. "The air strikes started around 5:30 am. I went up to the roof of the electric substation. I can hear bombshells everywhere that break the morning. About 40 U.S. fighters fire missiles. There are anti-craft fires from the Iraqi military. Managers here call me, saying that they will get here soon. The bombings continued for about an hour." (Mar. 20, 1 a.m.) (NOTE: The danger to these Human Shields protecting the substation was fairly certain as the coalition has previously stated they were not targeting the infrastructure. The proof of this promise is that the lights of Baghdad stayed on during the horrific "Shock and Awe" bombings on the government centers of power.)

On 22 Mar contact was lost with the three activists in Iraq. Calls were made to their hotel in Baghdad where Han Sang-jin, Yoo Eun-ha and Bae Sang-hyun were staying, but government officials couldn't get through. On 24 Mar, four of the 10 Korean peace activists who were in Jordan returned to Korea.

Anti-War Internet Protests: However, much of the anti-War protests was being played out on the internet. Petitions are being circulated and the Blue House website has been swamped by emails protesting the sending of troops to Iraq in May. The following is from the Choson Ilbo on 22 Mar:

Support for War Sparks Nationwide Debate

by Cho Seung-hyun (vaidale@chosun.com)

The government's decision to support the U.S. war effort in Iraq has stirred up a flurry of disputes among the segments of society. The Korean Professors Union held a press conference in front of Cheong Wa Dae on Friday, censuring the attack and Seoul's decision to dispatch troops to Iraq. The union, with about 800 members present, said that President Roh Moo-hyun's support of the U.S. attack was illegal and that if Korea sent troops to an unjustifiable war, Korea would be stigmatized as a criminal nation.

Supporting the decision to back the war in Iraq were members of the March 1st National Convention, such as former Prime Minister Lee Young-deok, the president of the Korea-America Friendship Society, Park Keun, and members of the Citizens United for a Better Society. They say the government should cooperate with Washington and send troops to the Persian Gulf to maintain the Korea-U.S. military alliance.

Much of the dispute is playing out on the Internet, where tempers flared after President Roh's televised address on Thursday. A netizen with the ID of "small practice" wrote on the Web site Jinbonuri that "President Roh violated the constitution by deciding to dispatch our troops to Iraq." He created a petition, to which 150 people quickly added their names.

The Cheong Wa Dae Web site was swarming with thousands of posts and emails criticizing the president's decision. One netizen said that the president had betrayed his people and in return the people should betray him.

But other voices supported Roh. A netizen with the ID "people" wrote on the Cheong Wa Dae Web site that "The war is abhorrent, but as an ally of the U.S., we must not forget that 30,000 American soldiers are in Korea to secure our nation." Another netizen at the Jinbonuri site wrote, "People are being oversensitive about a practical diplomatic decision made by the president. Supporting this war is a necessary move."

A majority of Internet users in the nation were overwhelmingly opposed to the U.S.-led assault on Iraq. In an online survey of 40,035 people conducted by Yahoo! Korea on 20 Mar:

• over 75 percent or 30,080 respondents said that they believe the attack on Iraq was to secure U.S. interests in controlling Iraqi oil reserves.
• Many Koreans are highly suspicious of U.S. President George W. Bush's motives for the attack, adding to the anti-U.S. sentiments already present in Korea.
• The respondents said that U.S. military and oil conglomerates will benefit the most from the war.
• 44 percent of the respondents said the war could bring about a chain of bloody revenges including counterattacks by terrorists.

Professors protest in front of Blue House

However, President Roh feared an over-reaction by the police to anti-War demonstrations. The NGO activist groups are known as Roh's popular base of support. As a result on 21 Mar, he instructed police not to employ "heavy-handed tactics" in dealing with protests against the U.S.-led war on Iraq. Keen to avoid clashes between police and protestors, Roh issued the order to his political aide Yoo In-tae after receiving a briefing on the candlelit anti-war rally held in downtown Seoul on 20 Mar.

On 22 Mar the War in Iraq started its air campaign. The Korean TV played repeatedly the 90-minutes of "shock and awe" bombing of Baghdad that demolished Saddam's administrative buildings on the banks of the Euphrates River.

Baghdad Attack (22 March)

Anti-War Rallies Expand Across Korea: More anti-war demonstrations throughout Korea commenced on 22 March. The Green Foundation and four other civic groups including the People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy staged a large-scale anti-war rally chanting `stop war' and blowing whistles and bugles, "in protest against the immoral war.'' Vietnamese Buddhist monk and spiritual leader Thich Nhat Hann joined the rally. In a separate move, the Korea Action Network Against War, a coalition group of some 700 civic groups, held a full-scale rally which extended to a nighttime candlelight prayer vigil near Kwanghwamun. On 22 March, the USFK issued warnings that personnel should avoid the demonstrations with instructions not to stop -- and not to interact with demonstrators.

On 22 March, the Ministry of Defense stated that the May departure may be moved up and it was planning to send 60 Special Forces soldiers along to provide protection for the Engineering battaliion.

More anti-war demonstrations were scheduled throughout Korea on 22 March. Thousands of NGO group activists held a rally on 22 Mar in in City Hall Plaza to denounce the United States for unilaterally waging war on Iraq without the approval of the United Nations. The People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy (PSPD), Green Korea (Environmental Movement) and several other major NGOs in a "Stop War" demonstration. About 2,000 activists staged an anti-war rally chanting `stop war' and blowing whistles and bugles "in protest against the immoral war.'' Vietnamese Buddhist monk and spiritual leader Thich Nhat Hann joined the rally.

In a separate rally, the Korea Action Network Against War, a coalition group of some 700 civic groups, held a full-scale rally which that extended into a nighttime candlelight prayer vigil at central Seoul's Jongmyo Park near Kwanghwamun. The 2,000 ralliers came from hundreds of civic groups, some of them anti-war, some anti-American. One, Anti Migun, is dedicated to "finding solutions" for the two girls who were killed by a U.S. armored car last June. The demonstrators held candles and paraded in the park. The participants said that the U.S.'s war in Iraq was unjustifiable and opposed to the United Nations and international sentiment. They called for President Roh Moo-hyun to immediately withdraw his support for the war and his decision to dispatch forces to Iraq. As a precautionary measure, the police posted 8,000 officers from 63 squadrons outside the U.S. Embassy.

On 22 March, the USFK issued warnings that personnel should avoid the demonstrations with instructions not to stop -- and not to interact with demonstrators.

On 23 Mar In Korea outside Kunsan Air Base in the afternoon on Sunday, one lone protestor stood wearing a billboard sign proclaiming, "No War." The weather was rather mild so it was surprising that more demonstrators had not assembled there.

In Seoul, various rallies were held to protest the war in Iraq. Hundreds of civil groups held an afternoon press conference Sunday in front of the National Assembly to protest Seoul's decision to send forces to Iraq. The meeting with reporters was followed by a candlelight rally at 7 p.m. and an all-night sit-down protest. Over at Jongmyo Park in central Seoul, about 1,500 members of the National Labor Union of Public Service Workers rallied. Also, a parents' organization, the Parents' Group that Loves School, said it would begin an anti-war petition for children to sign.

Anti-War Protest (23 Mar)

In the photo above, note the mixed messages -- BOTH commemorative AND anti-War. The anti-War rally In Seoul was led by Preacher Han Sang-ryul of Anti-Migun -- the same minister that visited the White House in the middle of winter to protest the SOFA over the death of the two girls. Again he shaved his head -- but this time before a smaller crowd. That is why there are mixed messages of commemoration AND anti-War. (Go to Tongil News for details.) The burning of the sign of Bush replaces the US flag seen in other protests around the world. Kunsan's Rev. Mun Chon-Hyun's (right) who leads the anti-War Movement is torching the Bush vampire image. The USFK issued a warning advisory to all USFK troops to bypass any demonstrations.

Anti-War Protest (23 Mar)

Anti-War Protest National Assembly (26 Mar)

The Korean military have completed preparations for the sending of 600 engineers and 100 medical staff to Iraq awaiting the politicians approval -- which is starting to turn political. The ruling MDP has come out in support of the resolution -- but some of its members are protesting the war.

On 27 Mar Anti-War protests heated up. About 30 protestors stormed the U.S. embassy and were arrested. Some tried to scale the wall and chain themselves to the railings.

Anti-War Protest U.S. Embassy (26 Mar)

The Korean Confederation of Trade Unions (KFCTU) would try to combine the efforts of the 700-odd civic groups that have allied themselves in the national anti-war movement. The Korean Teachers and Educational Workers Union said that its members would teach anti-war themes and distribute anti-war stickers during classroom hours.

Anti-War Protest Mad War (26 Mar)
Note the Use of "American" McDonald's Sign

President Roh tried to quell Peace Movement by acting swiftly to suppress the anti-war movement led by civic groups. Cabinet members urged support for the U.S. effort, saying that "if you want to live on a peaceful street you need a strong city boss." Cheong Wa Dae invited leaders of about 10 civic groups to a meeting on 26 Mar to explain its decision to send troops, but several of the leaders refused to attend.

Cheong Wa Dae urges unity on troop dispatch to Iraq

The presidential office of Cheong Wa Dae began yesterday appealing to civic activists and lawmakers not to oppose its plan to send non-combat troops to the U.S.-led war on Iraq.

The moves came a day after the National Assembly delayed a vote on a motion calling for the dispatch of 600 military engineers and 100 medics in the face of mounting anti-war sentiments.

"This is a justified war, so we have to assist (the United States) in support of its alliance with the nation," a high-level Cheong Wa Dae official said, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Ryu In-tae, senior presidential secretary for political affairs, met the representatives of 10 major civic groups to persuade them to cease protesting against the dispatch plan.

Ryu conveyed to the civic leaders President Roh Moo-hyun's belief that the dispatch plan was a crucial, if indirect, means to resolving North Korea's nuclear issues peacefully.

Other Cheong Wa Dae officials began contacting lawmakers, mostly reformists, to call for their cooperation in the passage of the bill, as previously agreed.

On Tuesday, the rival parties decided to delay a timetabled vote after failing to surmount internal discord over the issue. The ruling Millennium Democratic Party (MDP) and the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) earlier said they would pass Roh's proposal to contribute to the post-war rehabilitation of the Middle Eastern region.

"We should not send our soldiers to a war that is lacking in justification and U.N. endorsement. The party leadership should not set up a party line on voting before it allows a 'free' vote," said Rep. Kim Hee-sun, a first-term female lawmaker with the MDP. The MDP's top leaders, meanwhile, said they would push to see the bill engaged in a floor vote as early as tomorrow. The GNP responded by saying more time is required to consolidate public sentiment regarding the bill.

"There should be no disruption of national opinion," said Rep. Rhee Q-taek, the GNP floor leader, proposing that President Roh conduct a televised debate with civic activists.

Last Thursday, Roh announced that the Seoul government would back the U.S.-led strikes on Iraq and promote sending a battalion of army engineers and medical staffers. Roh's decision incited a public backlash, as major civic activists waged anti-war rallies and sit-in protests.

(khj@koreaherald.co.kr)
By Kim Hyung-jin Staff reporter

In a sign of mounting public opposition to the government's plan to send non-combat troops to Iraq, thousands of anti-war activists on 28 Mar held protest rallies around the National Assembly in Yeouido, southern Seoul. Some 150 protesters from civic organizations held a press conference in front of the legislature and started a sit-in to try to keep lawmakers from endorsing the government's motion in a plenary session Friday.

Anti-War Protest (27 Mar)

Anti-War Protest (27 Mar)

In addition, South Korea is unwilling to accept a request by the United States to provide government-level support for post-Iraq war. Washington asked its allies earlier this week for possible assistance in the rebuilding of Iraq and the handling of political prisoners' camp -- adding that security, medicine, and food were specified as areas of needed support.

The troop bill was up for a vote. On 25 Mar, the rival parties decided to delay action on the bill to send 700 troops to Iraq until Monday. The MDP and the GNP had earlier said they would pass Roh's proposal, but between 50-68 lawmakers are against the bill and are taking joint steps with civic activists who have been holding anti-war rallies and sit-in protests. However, civic groups and labor unions threatened to wage a "rejection campaign" -- a threat of political activism -- at next year's parliamentary elections against lawmakers who cast ballots for the bill. President Roh Moo-hyun urged civic organizations Friday to exercise restraint concerning what he called their "excessive activities" concerning the government's motion to send non-combat troops to Iraq. "Excessive activities" refers to the "rejection campaign" against lawmakers who vote for the controversial motion.


Anti-War NGO Group at National Assembly (28 Mar)

Rallies supporting or opposing the dispatch of troops to the U.S.-led war in Iraq have been staged in many places in Seoul, revealing clearly the divisions in national opinion. In front of the National Assembly building in western Seoul, civic activists with starkly contrasting opinions over the dispatch of troops held their respective gatherings at the same time.


Pro-US Support from Marine Veteran Group at National Assembly (28 Mar)

According to the Korea Times, "Both Roh and his aides appeared to be caught off guard when anti-war sentiment spread like a bushfire, following the start of U.S. campaign in Iraq." This is strange as Roh told the police to use restraint in "misunderstandings" in handling the protests early on thus encouraging the trend. Roh supposedly "agonized" over his support of the troop bill before coming out in support. Clearly, Roh is pro-US simply for political reasons.

In reaction to the left-wing activists "rejection campaign" threat, South Korean right-wing and veteran groups warned Saturday they would stage a campaign during next year's parliamentary elections against lawmakers who oppose the government's motion to send non-combat troops to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

On 29 Mar an American flag was burned during an anti-war demonstration in Seoul while candlelight protests were held in major cities nationwide to denounce the coalition forces' massacre of Iraqi civilians and the government's plan to dispatch troops. The now traditional flag burning (now a hand-painted replica which is cheaper for the daily burnings). Traffic was brought to a standstill around Kwanghwamun in Seoul when about 3,000 demonstrators marched arm-in-arm toward the U.S. embassy. The march ended in the obligatory confrontation with police and pushing on the shields of the police. Nearly 1,000 riot police surrounded the U.S. embassy to face marching protesters. Then the 1980s running away scene as the demonstrators scattered after the police started making arrests. It was a scene out of the 1980s democracy movement -- only now it looked like the 30-40 year olds were reliving their youthful days. (Go to OhMy News for videos of the demonstrations)

During the day, there was a children art projects to paint anti-war signs and posters. Very cute.

A massive candlelight vigil was held in Kwanghwamun at night, but the turnout was relatively small. (See Tong Il News for photos of the demonstrations.)

In reaction to the left-wing activists "rejection campaign" threat, South Korean right-wing and veteran groups warned Saturday they would stage a campaign during next year's parliamentary elections against lawmakers who oppose the government's motion to send non-combat troops to the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

The New York Times pointed out the Korean hypocrisy in dealing with the anti-War protests against America. It said the National Human Rights Commission of Korea, a Korea government agency, weighed in, saying, "The war of aggression on Iraq, led by the United States and England, was not approved by the U.N. Security Council, and is an inhumane act that may kill hundreds of thousands of people." What highlighted this as an ideal example of Korean hypocrisy is that in the past, the commission has declined to comment on the human rights situation in Communist-run North Korea, arguing that its mandate is to deal with domestic issues. Enter the Roh administration and suddenly the mandate is different? President Roh was quoted as saying, "The agency was doing its duty when it outlined its stance, although it was different from the government." Let's see if we understand: The NHRC is a government agency that doesn't reflect the stance of the government? Give us a break!!!!

On 30 March the weather was overcast but spring-like making it very ideal for protests. As the vote is not scheduled until Wednesday, the anti-war demonstrations at this point are simply to intimidate undecided politicians. Union demonstrators held a large rally in Yoido along the Han River and marched through the streets to the National Assembly. Minor confrontation with the police. (See Tongil News for photos.)

Anti-war protestors out in force. In Seoul, some 20,000 union activists carrying anti-US and anti-war placards rallied near the National Assembly against Roh's pledge to dispatch 700 non-combat troops to the war effort in Iraq. Pro-US conservative demonstrators also out in confrontation mode, but very small in numbers.

The rival political parties agreed to vote on the motion to send non-combat troops to support the U.S.-led war in Iraq on 2 April -- the third delay on the vote. Korea is having a hard time figuring out if it is America's ally with a "moral debt" owed to the U.S. The vote will be taken after President Roh gives a "state of affairs" address to the Assembly.

When the troop deployment was surfaced, the Ministry of Defense stated that it was imperative that the country swiftly approve the resolution to demonstrate its resolve in supporting America. Roh's "half-hearted" support with his talk of gaining "leverage" at the upcoming military talks in April instead of actual upfront support, has labeled him accordingly. This fiasco has shown is that Korea does NOT consider its "moral" debt to America important. For all the "glad-handing" that Foreign Minister Yoon is doing with the U.S. and Japan, this is a central issue that America is watching closely so that it can count its "friends" in this all-important Iraq conflict. So far Korea has NOT been counted in the rolls.

Nosamo, a supporters' group for President Roh Moo-hyun, is being divided over the government-proposed bill to send Korean noncombat troops to Iraq to help the coalition forces. The internet based group provided support for the Roh during his campaign for the Presidency. Most are against the troop resolution.

The Korean National Red Cross (KNRC) launched a donation campaign Saturday to help Iraqi refugees in the Middle East. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) asked each of its regional offices to raise 108 million Swiss francs (about 97.2 billion won) to help Iraqi civilians who are suffering due to the war.

On 31 March a group of anti-war lawmakers said they would take turns to stage sit-in strikes at a lawmakers' building at the National Assembly. So far, Rep. Kim Won-wung of the People's Party for Reform has staged a sit-in at his office at the National Assembly for 12 days.

Demonstrations continue outside National Assembly, but not in great numbers. College students continue their anti-war protest shutting down their classes -- with the support of their professors. Pro-US conservative demonstrators also present but in very small in numbers.

WTO Demonstrations over the Rice Market Opening: Other demonstrations have been held by farmers over the farm subsidy cuts by the government. The government announced in March a reduction of the rice acreage as the rice consumption in Korea continues to fall. A protest was held against the WTO Fair Trade Act on 15 Feb against opening of the rice market and cutting subsidies to the farmers. Roh made his position clear in the first days of his administration in that he felt that the farmers had brought much of the problems upon themselves -- though the government would attempt to do what it could to alleviate their hardship.


Anti-War (15 Mar 03)

The government warehouses are filled to capacity and this has prompted the Korean government to propose sending rice to North Korea over the next three years. This situation happened before years ago when the government had a glut of Tongil Rice which was unpalatable to the South Korean tastes. The solution was the same by sending the rice surplus north -- though at that time it was done through a third country (China). These farm protests have been relatively small so far -- as compared to the large 2002 WTO demonstration in Seoul that included the traditional American flag burning.

Anti-War (15 Mar 03)

Potential USFK Troop Reductions: An article in theKorea Herald on 5 Mar stated, that in a Parlimentary Briefing a government official stated the United States may reduce its ground troops deployed in South Korea. Though there was no possibility that the US would pull out all its ground forces, there was a possibility that they would reduce them. It is the FIRST TIME that a South Korea government official has officially raised the possibility of the reduction of the 37,000 U.S. troops in the South -- though the U.S. and ROK have not officially discussed the troop reduction issue. The ROK was concerned that the U.S. has not revealed its intention to reduce the troops. In the future, Seoul and Washington was to begin discussion about issues surrounding the readjustment of U.S. forces in the South, including the relocation of the Yongsan headquarters out of Seoul.

With the current pro-USFK feeling -- or at least the slackening of anti-Americanism -- the USFK has come out to explain its relocation processes and attempt to foster good relations with the community. We see that for the first time they are offering to have Korean translations on the site. We hope the the U.S. embassy follow suit as well.

The Korea Herald on 12 March said in an editorial, "USFK commanders assigned to this geopolitically sensitive region can play a multiple role beyond what is called upon by their uniforms and insignia. Gen. LaPorte and his staff are showing possibilities of making a change with their initiatives, especially by increasing their visibility in Korean society. If the large crowds of protesters make U.S. servicemembers feel unwelcome, they should understand the rallies are actually a positive sign of social progress here. The protests reflect Korea's liberalization, which has brought about the rise of local autonomy as well as the rapid growth of civic groups and their influence on almost all areas of the host society." The USFK "Good Neighbor" Program was lauded as a start with the setting up of action hotlines where the community could call in troubles with the USFK bases. However, the Korea Herald continued to tell the USFK they must understand that the protestors throwing stones at them as a "positive sign."

USFK Presents 'Good Neighbor' Program

by Yoo Yong-won (kysu@chosun.com)

The commander of the United States Forces Korea, General Leon J. LaPorte, on Wednesday talked about what a relocation of U.S. forces may entail and introduced a "good neighbor" program designed to improve relations with the Korean public.

General LaPorte, at a press conference at the Yongsan army base, said that even if the main base is moved out of central Seoul, the United Nations Command and the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command will remain in Seoul. General Laporte emphasized that the relocation of the base would be done because it is wanted by the Korean people. About 6,000 servicemen are stationed at the Yongsan base, and about 300 work for the Korea-US Combined Forces and the UN commands.

Regarding the relocation of the US Army's 2nd Division to south of the Han River, General LaPorte said that various plans are being discussed but nothing has been decided. He said that according to agreements made last year in the U.S.-Korea Security Counter Measure pact, both nations will cooperate in enhancing the role of the USFK and the future of the Korea-US military alliance.

James N. Soligan, deputy chief of staff, also said the relocation of the 2nd Division would be part of a USFK relocation. Mr. Soligan said the relocations would be done to bolster the deterrence of a North Korean attack and also help balance the security of Northeast Asia.

General LaPorte also presented a "good neighbor" program to help build ties with the Korean public. He said direct hot lines with Korean-speaking operators would be installed at the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command and other U.S. bases for Koreans to make complaints or suggestions.

In line with that, the website of the USFK will soon be translated into Korean, and locals can use it to post their opinions.

The USFK also plans to establish sisterhood relationships with neighboring schools, teach English to students at night and invite middle and high school teachers to the base for discussions. It will also invite the Korean police guarding the bases in for tours.

However, on 7 Mar the Choson Ilbo reported that Defense Secretary Rumsfield once again laid out the possibility that the USFK would be reducing its forces in Korea and that the forces along the DMZ were "not flexible." In addition, Rumsfield also laid out the opening volley of increased share for Korea to be discussed in the upcoming SOFA discussions.

Rumsfeld Indicates USFK Cut

WASHINGTON - U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said Thursday that the United States would "end up making some adjustments" to its forces in Korea. "Whether the forces would come home, be moved farther south on the peninsula or move to some neighboring area are the kinds of things that are being sorted out," he said.

Mr. Rumsfeld first spoke publicly about the possible shifts on Feb. 13 at a hearing of the Senate Committee on Armed Services. He mentioned the possibility of bringing some of the troops back to America, but gave no specifics.

This time Mr. Rumsfeld, in a Pentagon town hall meeting with officials and soldiers, said that while the United States had many forces positioned far forward in the South, the Korean public considers the U.S. forces an intrusion into their lives, and the troops are not very flexible or usable. He pointed out that the South's gross domestic product is 25-35 times the North's, and that Seoul has "all the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent that is needed." He said that the United States should focus on what it does best: providing air and sea hubs and reinforcements.

Mr. Rumsfeld said that the changes were being made to accord with the wishes of Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who has asked how the relationship between the United States and South Korea could be rebalanced and restructured. He said that the top U.S. commander here, General Leon LaPorte, is engaged in a consultative process with the South Korean government.

(Ju Yong-gung, midway@chosun.com )

Roh rode into office on the tails of the anti-Americanism, but now that he is seated in power, there is a different musical score from the Blue House. Unfortunately, Rumsfield keeps reminding him of the statements of his personal envoy -- now his Foreign Minister -- on how the structure would be "rebalanced and restructured." According to Choson Ilbo article on 7 Mar, Prime Minister Goh Kun said that "now is not the time to start a relocation of the U.S. military forces stationed on Korea because of the sensitive nature of the North Korea nuclear crisis." In a meeting with U.S. Ambassador Thomas Hubbard, Mr. Goh said talks on relocation plans should be put off until certain conditions were met. The timing of the relocation would be the most important thing to consider, Mr. Goh said. He said the preconditions necessary for a relocation were the solving of the nuclear issue and the maintenance of the deterrence and tripwire functions of the U.S. forces.

Amazingly, the KOREANS ADMITTED THAT THEY WANT THE AMERICANS POSITIONED AS TRIPWIRES. Though all nows this, the Korean government has shied away from admitting that THEY want the USFK to stay put. The Prime Minister Goh Kun said it was not appropriate to discuss realignment of U.S. troops stationed in Korea at this point in time, and that the issue needs to be dealt with AFTER the escalating standoff over the North Korean nuclear program settles down. He stated that if a shifting of the U.S. troops is carried out, its deterrent capability should not be weakened, and its role as a "tripwire" - to ensure a U.S. military response if North Korea were to attack - must not be impaired.

(SITE NOTE: We view this 'tripwire" statement of Prime Minister Goh with a touch of bitterness aimed at the Korean government. We wonder where was the Korean government when the anti-Americanism was in full-swing and activists were burning the U.S. flag and demanding "Yankee Go Home" in front of the U.S. embassy. The protests were a stone's throw away from the Blue House down the road where Kim Dae-jung was sitting doing NOTHING. Roh was riding on the coat tails of this anti-Americanism -- and he supported the anti-Americanism. At the time, they were full of themselves believing they could talk their "brothers" into making peace and didn't need the USFK. When the North slapped them in the face and the U.S. has made it clear that it was moving up its timetable of disengagement, they were suddenly trying to make it seem like the US was deserting them. It will not work -- the world has seen Korea at its worst. The truth was that the Korean government deserted the ROK-US alliance first. When they have failed as mediators, the Korean government shifted to its weird brand of sophistry and tried to shift the blame to the U.S. -- not South Korea in encouraging the North to pursue its nuclear goals. The latest government orchestrated pro-US rallies cannot wash that away the negative press. We have no bones to pick with the ROK military, Ministry of National Defense or the older generation who stood with the U.S. in this new phase of ROK-US relations -- but we have no patience with Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun who let the anti-Americanism run wild and encouraged the North into exacerbating the present crisis. Within Korea, the "386 Generation" is running wild with the backing of Roh and his reformist agenda. Korea is learning some hard facts of international life from its actions.)

A New York Times article stated:

South Korea, in Surprise, Demands U.S. Forces Stay in Place

By DON KIRK

SEOUL, South Korea, March 7 — Officials here said today that Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld had ignored them in suggesting realignment of American forces in Korea and demanded that they stay where they are at least until resolution of the North Korean nuclear issue. South Korea's newly installed defense minister, Cho Young Kil, said Washington "has never officially informed us of the movement of U.S. troops" and "the withdrawal issue was never raised by the U.S. government."

Indeed, said Mr. Cho, talking to members of South Korea's fractious National Assembly, American and South Korean officials "will not discuss any possibility of movement of U.S. troops before the nuclear issue is resolved."

The demand for American troops to stay comes as a shock to United States officials, who had assumed they were responding to commonly held Korean thinking by pushing ahead with plans for shifting the American military posture.

(SITE NOTE: We do NOT believe for one minute that the U.S. was "shocked." The U.S. has been through the drill of Koreans once too often. Only now it is advantageous for the U.S. to leave.)

The South Korean response indicated the sensitivities here regarding the role of United States troops as the new government of President Roh Moo Hyun settles into power amid a nuclear crisis that shows no sign of ending any time soon.

Assuming that anti-American demonstrations in recent months verified the desire of many Koreans for American troops either to go home or to assume a much less visible presence, United States military strategists have been drafting elaborate plans for pulling them back or withdrawing many of them entirely.

Against this background, Mr. Rumsfeld said on Thursday that he envisioned a plan under which American forces would provide mainly air and naval support while South Korean troops guarded against North Korean forces massed above the line between the two Koreas.

Mr. Rumsfeld, at the Pentagon, suggested that the alternatives were between pulling American troops to positions south of Seoul, reducing the number of United States troops in Korea, or both. Those choices, he said, were "the kinds of things that are being sorted out."

South Korean officials, however, viewed Mr. Rumsfeld's remarks as an unsettling revelation that was entirely news to them. All they know about, they said, was a plan announced last year for American troops to leave some minor bases in the interests of tactical efficiency.

"Rumsfeld made some wording that was not discussed fully," said a foreign ministry spokesman, in understated politeness. "We should understand each other. There will be more intense discussions." The South Korean response appeared to represent a swing of the pendulum away from suggestions in recent months that the United States scale back its forces and reconsider basic defense arrangements.

"Anything that would leave the impression the United States was backing out would send the wrong signal," said Ralph Cossa, president of the Pacific Forum of the Center for Strategic and International Studies. "At this point it doesn't make sense either to do it or talk about it."

South Koreans have not altered their pleas for a "more mature, equal partnership," as demanded by President Roh, but are turning that demand into another reason for the United States to keep all 37,000 troops in Korea, the majority between here and the North Korean frontier.

"We agree it's a critical issue," said Song Young Gil, a National Assembly member from Mr. Roh's Millennium Democratic Party. "After the nuclear crisis is solved, at that time we will consult on this problem."

Mr. Song shared a view, increasingly heard here, that any American proposal to move troops from near the line with North Korea may mean that the United States intends to attack North Korean nuclear facilities against the wishes of the South Korean government. The logic behind this thinking is that the United States would want its troops out of harm's way in case North Korean ground forces retaliated by striking across the demilitarized zone.

"American troops are something like hostages to attack by North Korea," said Mr. Song. "Maybe this kind of action means some kind of signal for a pre-emptive strike against North Korea."

For much the same reason, Mr. Song also opposed proposals to withdraw American forces from the large headquarters area that they have occupied in Seoul since the Korean War.

"When North Koreans attack Seoul, automatically American troops will be involved just in time to react," he said. "So they can prevent North Korean attack."

In any case, "We ask Secretary Rumsfeld, do not withdraw American troops at this time," said Mr. Song. "If the alliance is equal, Americans should heed the voice of the Korean government."

The commander of United States Forces in Korea, Gen. Leon LaPorte, talking to Korean journalists on Thursday, sympathized with the desire to move American forces from Seoul, estimating that perhaps 300 troops would stay behind to staff a joint American and South Korean headquarters.

Maj. Gen. James Soligan of the Air Force, deputy chief of staff, said at the same gathering, "We're looking at a number of options," including possible withdrawal of the 2nd Infantry division. The 16,000 troops of the divison are stationed at bases between here and the North Korean frontier, 30 miles away.

The growing chill with the Roh administration could be felt when Ambassador Hubbard stated on 7 Mar at a luncheon that while he intends to respond to calls voiced for "fairer relations" between the US and Korea, the demands were rather "abstract and vague." He said that he thought the two countries presently have "a mature and fair relationship based on mutual respect," while acknowledging that many people would be disappointed with that opinion. He went on to state that disagreements between Seoul and Washington on goals and policy were inevitable. However, a mature relationship does not make disagreements disappear, but helps them be managed more systematically.

On 9 Mar the Christian Science Monitor ran an article that stated the ROK military does NOT want the USFK withdrawn from the DMZ.

Rethinking U.S. Troops In S. Korea

Christian Science Monitor
March 9, 2003

PADJU, SOUTH KOREA - South Korean Corp. Kim Song-hoon serves near the demilitarized zone dividing his country from North Korea, and lives and trains with U.S. forces. He is certain if the U.S. ever withdrew from the South, North Korea would immediately attack.

"The North is confident they can defeat our Army without much trouble," Mr. Kim says. "What stops them is the U.S. Army. That's just the fact."

Now, a Pentagon review of U.S. troops in the South - which comes amid the gravest security crisis the peninsula has faced in many years - represents the most extensive reexamination of forces that have deterred North Korean aggression for 50 years. Remarks by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld about "adjustments" of the 37,000 U.S. troops - possibly withdrawing or redeploying them in a less dangerous position south of Seoul - has caused some shock and confusion among officials here, and elicited the clearest message to date from the new Roh government that U.S. troops are wanted, at least for now.

Only two months ago, that government was elected on a wave of popular feeling against what is often felt to be a suffocating presence of U.S. forces.

From the U.S. side, three main ideas are in play - none of which may actually happen. In addition to possible redeployment of troops from the demilitarized zone, there is consideration of moving the central command outside of Seoul. Also under review is a possible overall drawdown from the peninsula.

All are separate issues. But in the current standoff climate, they have become confusingly congealed, and the subject of suspicion among many Koreans.

Ratcheting up tensions

Mr. Rumsfeld's comments are set against rising tensions on the peninsula. North Korean leader Kim Jong Il has, in short order, restarted a dormant nuclear reactor that can produce weapons-grade plutonium, and embarked on a series of what U.S. officials call "dangerous" provocations, including an anticipated short-range missile test this week.

Last week, four MiG fighters from the North intercepted an unarmed U.S. spy plane over international waters in the Sea of Japan. A New York Times report now claims the pilot of one jet that came within 50 feet of the U.S. plane made an internationally recognized hand signal for the plane to follow him down. Air Force officials interpret this as an attempt by the North to take the U.S. crew hostage in an aerial replay of the 1968 Pueblo naval incident. "I felt that until the plane intercept, [North Korean leader] Kim's moves were predictable," argues one U.S. military analyst in Seoul. "But this is a far more risky game."

Talk of adjusting U.S. forces in Korea comes after a year of emotional protest in South Korea against American GIs, culminating in December in the surprise election of leftist Mr. Roh, who promised voters to put relations with the U.S. on a "more equal basis."

Yet in the interim, the nuclear crisis and a downturn in the Korean economy has brought a more sober reckoning of what options the Roh government can pursue. Many of the younger protesters in Seoul that helped elect Roh have criticized the U.S., "thinking that no matter what they said or did, the Americans would never leave," one analyst points out. "They felt free to rant, thinking U.S. interests in the region meant no withdrawal. But Pentagon thinking may be different."

Changes in the U.S. force presence in South Korea has been under discussion both here and in Washington for nearly a decade. There are some 17 military posts along the DMZ in a space the size of Rhode Island. Many of the army posts have barracks built in the 1950s, and even some officers complain they cannot bring their families on base.

In coming years, the U.S. plans to hand over some 50 percent of its current landholdings under a program agreed to by the Korean parliament last year. U.S. troops are increasingly in the way of the civilian population, which led to a tragic accident last June when a U.S.-tank vehicle ran over two schoolgirls, bringing a national outcry that lasted for months.

Interpreting moves

In addition to concerns about the U.S. review, the timing of Rumsfeld's comments in particular have spurred some whispering. Some Koreans now worry that the U.S. may redeploy the bulk of its troops south of Seoul, below the Han River, to put them out of harm's way - out of range of the North's artillery fire. Worries are that such a move would preface a possible preemptive strike against Kim's nuclear facilities. Some observers feel that while Kim has long wanted U.S. forces off the peninsula, a U.S. withdrawal might be interpreted by him as the signal for a U.S. attack - backing him into a corner from which he finds it rational to make the first military move.

U.S. diplomats and military officials deny any decisions have been made, and will wait until meetings between the U.S. and South Korea in April.

One colonel at the DMZ stated, "we will fight alongside the South Koreans no matter what happens. We haven't let them down for 50 years, and we aren't starting now."

Kim Ki Ho, a South Korean colonel serving alongside the 2nd U.S. Army division at the DMZ says, "I speak for every South Korean officer I know when saying we don't want the U.S. out of Korea, and we don't want the U.S. deployed south of the Han River."

However, on 13 Mar, OhMy News, a internet newspaper, stated that the U.S. had contacted Korea about the possibility of a pre-emptive strike against the Yongbyon nuclear site. The U.S. Ambassador flatly denied this calling the report "ridiculous" and the Seoul government issued an official statement denying this report -- and demanding a retraction.

The remark by Prime Minister Goh over the troops being a "tripwire" stirred some remarks by Washington officials. A Choson Ilbo article on 20 Mar stated:

U.S. Says No More 'Tripwire'

by Joo Yong-joong (midway@chosun.com)

WASHINGTON - A high-level official at the U.S. Defense Department said this week that the tripwire function of the U.S. forces near the Demilitarized Zone was outdated. The official, who requested anonymity, told Korean correspondents that the expression applied to the situation 10-30 years ago, and that Americans wanted such expressions done away with. The official said that if a war broke out here in this age of missiles, North Korea would target American air bases from the beginning.

The official also said that Washington wanted to relocate the Yongsan base in central Seoul as soon as possible, maybe within months, and that the two big bases north of the Han River should be relocated south of the river within years. Osan and Pyeongtaek were mentioned as possible relocation areas.

He stressed that the American defense treaty was stronger than ever but that if the Koreans wished, U.S. troops in Korea could leave tomorrow. Washington wants a new blueprint for the next 50 years of U.S.-Korea relations to be made before October, when the alliance turns 50, he said. Washington wants talks on how to make the relationship more balanced, as President Roh Moo-hyun has requested, but wants Seoul to take on added roles and responsibilities, the official said.

Despite the government stance there is a suggestion that the majority of Korean people favor U.S. troop withdrawal. A Yonhap News article on 24 Mar stated: "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."

Small groups of Korean-Americans Protest Withdrawal of U.S. Troops: Yonhap News carried a short blurp that said about 50 Korean residents in the U.S. staged a rally in front of the White House on 1 Mar in protest against anti-American sentiment in Korea and North Korea's nuclear development. The protesters called for activists in South Korea to stop anti-U.S. movement and to halt their demand for withdrawal of U.S. troops. They also urged the North to end its nuclear weapons development and China to stop sending fleeing North Koreans back to their hunger-stricken homeland. According to a article in Korea Times The demonstration was organized by a U.S.-based Korean human rights group, called the ``Asia Pacific Human Rights Association,'' led by a pastor, Yoo Cheon-jong.

On 8 Mar Korean-Americans living in Los Angeles protested against North Korea's nuclear weapons development program and the withdrawal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula. The 2-hour demonstration saw some 600 Koreans call for the settlement of the North Korean nuclear crisis and the cementing of diplomatic relations between South Korea and the United States.

Continuing Talk of Troop Withdrawal: In Washington Times on 7 Mar, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said that he planned to move some American troops away from the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea. "I suspect that what we'll do is we'll end up making some adjustments there," Mr. Rumsfeld said. He described at least three options: Move troops farther south on the Korean Peninsula, place them elsewhere in Asia or send them home. Mr. Rumsfeld's most explicit statement to date that the United States will reposition some of its 37,000 troops in South Korea could ease heightened tensions between Washington and the North. He made his remarks during a "town hall" meeting with Pentagon employees.

When Seoul was shocked by his remarks, Rumsfield responded that he was only reacting to Seoul's requests to "restructure and realign" the "alliance." Prime Minister Goh immediately sent out the message that the USFK forces were needed as "tripwires" along the DMZ. President Roh stated that if the U.S. wanted to relocate their forces they were free to do so -- much in the same manner as he did before in Jan before the ROK Chiefs of Staff. He quickly retracted that with statements of the strong alliance again.

North Korean Situation elevated to a Crisis: After the reports of the Yongbyon reactor was restarted, President Roh instructed his foreign policy team yesterday to devise a response to North Korea's reactivation of a nuclear reactor. The intent was to prepare "countermeasures" -- whatever that might be. Roh continued his position that his government will not tolerate the North's nuclear development but that the issue should be resolved peacefully through dialogue. Roh, in his first policy speech since taking office, warned of a "calamity" from the standoff over North Korea's nuclear program unless a peaceful resolution is found quickly. In response, Pyongyang issued a dispatch threatening that nuclear war could break out on the Korean Peninsula at "any moment," an escalation of the communist North's hostile rhetoric as international pressure grows for it to disarm. North Korea started preparations to test fire its missile platforms and Japan became more anxious. Things got even worse when the North "shadowed" a RC-135S reconnaissance aircraft and came within 50 feet of the aircraft. Immediately, B-52 and B-1 bombers -- that had been held off because of South Korea's aversion to any hint of military escalation -- were dispatched to Guam. (See North Korean Situation for details of March military incidents.)

Yongbyon Nuclear facility

The United States and other countries proposed the replacement of the reactors with thermal power plants, fearing that the light-water reactors may be diverted to produce weapons-grade plutonium. The Agreed Framework made between the United States and the North in 1994 has been virtually scrapped with KEDO delaying the procurement of "critical parts" for the reactors.

On 8 Mar it was reported that President George Bush gave notice yesterday that the US would "resort to military force against North Korea if diplomacy fails to stop it building a substantial nuclear arsenal." Bush told US newspapers that his administration would maintain its efforts to prevent North Korea building a nuclear arsenal, adding: "If they don't work diplomatically, they'll have to work militarily." It was the first time he explicitly raised the question of using force. However, officials emphasized that Washington would ALMOST certainly not respond with force if Pyongyang took the next step towards producing plutonium: moving its spent nuclear fuel rods to the recently reactivated Yongbyon reprocessing plant. "I don't think that is a red line any more," an official involved in policy-making on the Korean peninsula said. Bush stated that he was "optimistic" about finding a diplomatic solution to the nuclear stand-off with North Korea. He said there were a number of regional countries which had a "direct stake in whether or not North Korea has a nuclear weapon".

Kevin Siers Charlotte Observer, NC (Mar 03)
Click on image to enlarge

Foreign Residents Getting Jittery: On 9 Mar, Yonhap News wrote, "Foreign residents in South Korea are become jittery as tension grows on the Korean Peninsula over North Korea's nuclear weapons program. Some foreigners have already left for home for fear of possible war on the peninsula and others have cancelled reservations at deluxe hotels. Some American firms with Korean branches e-mailed their employees in other branches, telling them to avoid business travel to South Korea or Japan for the time being."

The tension inched up a little by the announcement on 7 Mar from Korean Minister of National Defense Cho that the U.S. hopes to move its troops off of the central Seoul base of Yongsan as soon as possible, and wants to make its bases more unified, but that no confirmations have been made of U.S. troop downsizing plans.

U.S. Pre-emptive Strike Possibility? Rumors circulated in the media that the U.S.would pull out its troops as a harbinger of a military strike against the North. However, Seoul officially states the "chances are very slim" that the U.S. will launch an attack, but that the U.S. may have secret plans. (NOTE: This official reaction is in response to Colin Powell's talk with Roh about the U.S. not removing the military option from the table and Gen. Meyers, U.S. Joint Chief of Staff, stating there had been "contingency" plans drawn up for such an action. Gen. Myers said in an interview with NBC that if President George W. Bush decided to use military force to resolve special issues, U.S. troops are ready to operate in a flexible and effective manner, adding that North Korea is one of the targets of nuclear attack. He also said that the U.S. maintains and updates all military options _ including preemptive nuclear attacks _ against North Korea.)

Unification Minister Jeong Se-hyun dismissed a possible preemptive military attack by the United States against North Korea in a SBS radio interview with an SBS radio program on 5 Mar. He stated the rumors of a U.S. attack are baseless and that Washington would not "ignore the will of the South Korean people." (NOTE: The point that the U.S. would consult Seoul prior to a pre-emptive strike.)

The rift between the United States and North Korea over holding out what American officials call "the military option" has contributed to growing anxiety. The Koreans populace in general show little concern of a threat to their well-being from the North, but a military option does bring into play the threat of the destruction of Seoul because of the AMERICAN actions. In a society sharply and increasingly divided on the future of the United States-Korean alliance, officials have talked a fine line between support for the American position and insistence on the need for dialogue with the North.

North Korean Crisis Affecting the South's Business Climate: After having not appeared to have had any effect on the economy since the crisis began in October with North Korea's acknowledgment of the existence of a nuclear weapons program, the crisis has begun to hit the stock market in full force. Prices on the Korea Stock Exchange closed today at their lowest level in 16 months.

The nuclear crisis has played into fears of war in Iraq, which has resulted in a sharp increase in oil prices and two consecutive months in which imports exceeded exports. Officials also fear that the nuclear crisis could affect foreign direct investment, which had been rising steadily since the 1997-1998 economic crisis.

Anti-Draft Movement Grows: The Ministry of Education and Human Resources Development sent official instructions to colleges and universities nationwide in November 2002 and in February 2003 calling for cooperation in controlling a growing campaign among students against South Korea's compulsory military service system. The move to reject mandatory military duty was spreading on campuses. The growing calls to refuse to serve in the military was described as a "grave threat" to national security.

On 18 Mar it was announced that the term for draftees would be reduced by two months for all services. The service period for the army, navy and air force will be curtailed to 24, 26 and 28 months, respectively. In addition, the time for alternative service (i.e., working in government positions) will be also reduced by two months. The new scheme will also be applied to riot police, prison guards and compulsory fire fighters. Skilled jobs held by active servicemen will be referred to non-commissioned officers with the aim of preventing a possible drop in war capability because of the shortened term of service.

NGO groups File Environmental Noise Suit: On 4 Mar in residents near Camp Page, Chuncheon, Gangwon Province filed a suit seeking government compensation for their suffering due to the noise from helicopters in the base. A committee composed of local residents held a press conference at a community center and said it had presented the petition to a local court seeking compensation of 420 million won (US$351,000). The core NGO group would be Green Korea. This is a continuing battle of the NGO groups in the gray area of damages for "noise pollution." A similar suit was recently filed against the ROKAF 19th Tactical Fighter Wing at Chungwong AB.

NGO groups Urge Calling Off Joint Military Exercises: Several South Korean civic groups urged Seoul and Washington Monday to call off two joint military exercises scheduled to take place from Tuesday through April 2. As part of a protest in Yongsan Garrison, six civic groups demanded the military authorities of the two countries suspend plans to conduct the March 4-April 2 Foal Eagle and March 19-26 RSOI (Reception, Staging, Onward Movement and Integration) exercises. North Korea claimed the two exercises are aimed at calming anti-American sentiment and rationalizing its attempt to wage war against the North. This was exactly the party line the North was espousing that the exercises were a pretext to war -- and should be cancelled. The exercises went forward as scheduled.

Anti-Exercise Protest by Anti-War group in Seoul (12 Mar 03)

However, after the RC-135S was "shadowed" on 2 Mar, the tensions were cranked up a lot. The reconnaissance flights were to resume after a brief pause according to a 12 Mar Reuters story. The story stated that RC-135S reconnaissance planes would be watched over by AWACS radar planes and "high-tech U.S. Navy warships" in the information-gathering missions over the Sea of Japan. The "high-tech" ships are Aegis cruisers from the USS Vinson battle group as well as from the Japanese SDF.

On 13 Mar the U.S. Navy announced plans to send the aircraft carrier USS Carl Vinson to South Korea to participate in a major U.S.-South Korean Foal Eagle exercise. The U.S. Air Force is sending six F-117 Nighthawk stealth fighters from their home base in New Mexico to South Korea to participate in the exercise as well. The North again screamed that the exercise was a pretext for a pre-emptive strike. (NOTE: It should be noted that the last time the F-117A Stealth fighters were in Korea was during the last nuclear standoff with North Korea in 1993. On 23 Mar we observed the F-117A practicing "touch-and-gos" at Kunsan AB and the aircraft are truly impressive in that they can "turn on a dime." A very impressive aircraft.)

On 22 Mar when the U.S. started its "shock and awe" air campaign against Iraq, the North Korean standoff started to take on a new meaning in the minds of Koreans. The Foal Eagle Exercise was only ONE element of a war plan. The key element that had changed was the fact that (1) the strike was pre-emptive; (2) It had been carried out in the face of world condemnation; (3) It was being carried out WITHOUT the support of major nations; and (4) It was being carried out against the #1 target of the Axis of Evil. North Korea was reminded that it was #2. At this point, the rhetoric from the North was dramatically different and so was the Roh anti-US defiance talks of "equal partnership." The U.S. was quite capable of launching a preemptive strike against North Korea -- with or without the support of the South. At the onset of the Iraq War, Roh proclaimed that the USFK would not be removed until the nuclear crisis had been resolved.

F-117A at Kunsan (16 Mar 03)

USS Carl Vinson at Pusan (15 Mar 03)

Anti-Exercise Protests: Anti-War protests targeted the Foal Eagle and RSOI exercises. On 19 Mar a protest was held outside Yongsan by a small group carrying banners that said, "Stop Foal Eagle RSOI Exercises Targeting North Korea!" (Go to Tongil News for photos.) Similar demonstrations were held throughout Korea. This demonstration was in conjunction with the anti-War protests being held in front of the Blue House protesting the War in Iraq at the same time.

On the 22 Mar the Tongil News showed an interesting video clip of protestors at Five-color Beach (?) on 21 Mar in the midst of the Foal Eagle Exercises with students attempting to run down to the landing of a fishing village and stretch out their banner with Korean flags waving. They were intercepted by the police and hauled away in police buses. In the background of the video, the troopship and landing craft used to practice a landing assault are shown in the background with the helicopters flying overhead. They never got a chance to disturb anything.

Peace and Prosperity (Sunshine Policy) Programs Continue: The Kaesong project continues unabated with work underway on both sides. However, power remains as the biggest stumbling block. As to the road crossings through the DMZ, the Ministry of Defense said South Korean troops have resumed roadbed construction and mine clearing operations as part of the project to reconnect cross-border railways and roads. Soldiers in charge of the reconnection of the Gyeongui (Seoul-Sinuiju) line through the western sector of the DMZ finished the groundwork for the 1.8 kilometers of railroad through the DMZ last December and are now scheduled to complete work on the roadbed by the end of May. Meetings between the Koreas continue on building a family reunion center near Mount Geumgang in the North with discussions on the construction schedule and size of the envisaged center for hosting meetings of families separated by the 1950-53 Korean War.

Kim Dae-jung and Hyundai Merchant Marine Scandal Cloud Politics: The majority GNP has passed a bill authorizing a special counsel to investigate the "cash for summit" scandal. Roh had until March 15 to decide whether to veto the bill (send back the bill for "reconsideration"). However, if he did so he stands a chance of being overruled by the GNP vote. Public opinion is divided over whether or not President Roh Moo-hyun should exercise his right to reject a bill passed by the legislature. Roh's supporters are calling for a veto against the controversial bill, claiming that an investigation would not serve the national interest. On the other hand, his GNP critics are demanding that he sign it into law, warning that his refusal to endorse it would invite a serious political backlash. Roh would prefer a political compromise to limit the scope of the investigation to matters within South Korea only, but the GNP balked. Roh claims the "secret" negotiations between the two Koreas must not be probed as a matter of national security.

---

Go to Kunsan AB Protests: January-May 2003.Go to Kunsan AB Protests: April-June 2003. Go to Kunsan AB Protests: July-September 2003. Go to Kunsan AB Protests: July-September 2003.

RETURN TO MAIN TABLE OF CONTENTS

Return to Top

---

For comments or inputs, contact:

Kalani O'Sullivan .

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

Weekly

---