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, 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.

This site has little in the way of technical information on Kunsan AB's tactical planning, weekly exercises, or technical specifications on the aircraft. Our position is that Kunsan AB has been promising to "kick ass" for over thirty years and not a speck of bomb iron has hit North Korean soil yet. These tactical plans change from week to week, if not daily, but the point is: NO ONE from Kunsan has dropped a bomb on North Korea or shot a MiG from the sky. All the plans are simply plans -- not reality.

HOWEVER, the hard work and ability of the airmen to carry out the war game planning in the face of a hardship tour speaks loads of their caliber and dedication. The PEOPLE is what we want to cover -- not the GAME. The second item we wish to cover is the BASE which has served the airmen -- who served the mission. Over the years, wings and organizations have come and gone from the face of Kunsan AB -- but the base has always remained to serve. The third item covers those Korean events that affect the life of the airmen or mission at Kunsan. This ranges from main gate protests to the ever-mounting efforts of Korea to wean itself away from American military dependency.

Korean Protests:

JANUARY 2005:

AREAS FOR DISSENT: Beginning of 2005

FEBRUARY 2005:

North Korean Surprise: Admits Nukes In February, the North made a "surprise" announcement on 10 Feb that it was removing itself from the six-way talks indefinitely. It stated it wanted bilateral talks with the US -- which the US refused off-hand. The North then stated that the US troops would have to be removed from South Korea before it would engage in talks. The US and ROK simply stated that this was negotiation rhetoric -- but privately there were rumors that the US was seeking a hardline on North Korea to include economic sanctions and isolation. It is very obvious that this would be an aim for a regime change -- caused by internal collapse. It was reported on February 14 that South Korea and the U.S. will not approve the North’s declaration that it possesses nuclear weapons, and that they will counter that with “ignoring strategy."


Menees (Feb 2005)

Then the North stated that they also had one or two nuclear weapons. In the past, the ROK has stated basically that there was no proof the North had weapons -- only the US say so. Now that the North stated publicly that it HAD nuclear weapons and the ROK government strategy of North Korean support went down the tube.

The North's announcement caused about 20 protestors to protest the North Korean weapons. However, we can't understand why they chose to protest in front of the US Embassy -- when the real area was the Blue House just up the block. (NOTE: As a side note, President Roh Moo-hyun was having his "sagging eyelids" operated on 10 Feb so he was not seeing anyone -- no pun intended. However, we did find it funny that the leading anti-American politician got double-eyelids out of the plastic surgery operation.)


Sheneman (Feb 2005)

In addition, a group of conservative civic activists peacefully burned North Korean flags during a rally in Gwanghwamun, a major intersection in the center of Seoul, on Feb. 11, denouncing a North Korean announcement a day earlier that it has manufactured nuclear weapons and will boycott six-party talks. Public reaction was very muted. Oddly, it is against the law to burn any nations flag -- more because it is a fire hazard, but there were no arrests in this effect.

The North's nuclear weapons announcement placed South Korea in a bind as it is supporting North Korea with many economic food and monetary programs -- and with fertilizer for its crops. In addition it is entangled with the Kaesong Economic Zone that Korean companies have already moved into. In the face of the North's nuclear announcement, the ROK has stated it will continue with its reapproachment process with the North -- though the US has stated that it should reconsider sending fertilizer to the North. This is also coming at a time with anti-North NGO groups announced that the North had executed about 60 defectors that China had repatriated to the North. This also came at a time when the UN World Food Program (WFP) stated it was pulling out of the North of North Korea because it was not allowed to monitor the distribution.


Stantis (Feb 2005)

The Unification dissidents have been silent on the nuclear weapon point -- and the anti-war faction have also been silenced. These two groups based their public support on the idea that the US was lying about the nuclear weapons -- just as they had about the WMD in Iraq that never materialized. Even now the ROK government is trying to say that without a test the ROK is still not certain that the North has weapons -- even if they said so and the US has said so. Now the activists had to regroup and replan their Spring "offensive" strategy -- and now it looked like they had a weak hand. To the world, the ROK would appear to be appeasing the North because it held a nuclear weapon to its head -- or that the ROK government was North-leaning as many ROK conservative groups claim.


Wright (Feb 2005)

---

Conference on Human Rights in North Protested by Students The 6th International Conference on North Korean Human Rights & Refugees at Sogang University in western Seoul on Feb.14. Outside was a small group of student activists wgi held a rally, calling for the immediate end of the international conference on North Korean human rights. South Korea's leading students' activist group, or Hanchongryon, joined other progressive groups in criticizing the forum for fueling anti-North Korean sentiment. "The seminar has nothing to do with improvements of North Korean human rights records," said a coalition of more than 80 groups, including the Citizens' Coalition for Democratic Media, in a statement. The international community should focus more efforts on providing aid to the cash-strapped country to cope with its food shortage, which has aggravated the human rights problem, they added. They claimed the conference did not enhance the human rights situation in North Korea.

Inside the conference concluded that the North had one of the worst records for Human Rights, but there were no clear cut solutions to the problem though many recommendations. The concensus was that tying the issue to the six-way nuclear talks would be a mistake and complicate matters but they hoped there could be a negotiated settlement. The US representative did not attend the conference. As a sidenote, it was noted that the US's vaunted Human Rights for North Korea law is unfunded in the 2005 budget presented to Congress. Whether one likes it or not, the law had too many loopholes and turned into a program where many Korean-American and South Koreans lined up to get a share of the anticipated funds to aid North Korean defectors in resettling in America. The law has turned into an international hot potato.

---

Protest Noise Pollution??? Protest in Nov 2004 results in fines from police for noise pollution. The following is an editorial from the Joongang Ilbo on 13 Feb 2005.

[EDITORIALS]Shhhhhh...street rallies noisy

Members of the Daegu subway union who led a rally were booked without detention by the police for making noise louder than the legally permitted level. The leaders of the union are charged with generating a higher noise than legally permitted with loudspeakers at a rally by member unions of the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions last November. This is the first time that charges have been filed under the new Assembly and Demonstration Act revised last September. The law forbids noise that could cause serious harm to others through the use of loudspeakers. The legal level of noise is 80 decibels during the day and 70 decibels at night. For residential areas and school districts, the limits are 65 and 60 decibels respectively. Should one emit noise louder than this level and ignore police orders to stop using loudspeakers, one could be sentenced to 6 months in prison or fined up to 500,000 won ($476).

Since the 1980s, street rallies have become a common part of Korean life, and many people have had to suffer the noise emitted from such rallies. Residents near these rally sites have complained their daily lives are disrupted by ear-splitting loudspeakers, gongs and drums often used by protesters. Nearby schools have had to conduct classes with windows shut even during the summer because of the noise from the rallies. When an individual or a group makes a statement, it should not annoy others. There is no other civilized country in the world that has such determined protesters who are willing to use any means possible to voice their opinion as we do. Civic group protests that ignore noise restrictions are selfish and do not acknowledge the rights of others to live in a reasonably quiet environment.

If the street protesters won't restrain themselves, then legal restraints are inevitable. With the first application of the noise level law, street ralliers should voluntarily refrain from using loudspeakers. The police shouldn't hesitate to apply the law when the noise of a street rally passes the legal limit. At the same time, the police should regulate and penalize any group action that purposely disrupts the traffic around the city according to the law.

The strict application of laws is unavoidable to prevent illegal and violent street rallies and to encourage a more "sound" and effective street rally culture.

Anti-American Unification/Anti-war factions Still Around After the US removed its troops because of the failure of the ROK to send troops to Iraq, the anti-war movement has been very muted. The reason is that there is a fear amongst the general populace that the US has been pushed too far by the activists. Though the general populace really doesn't want the Americans on their soil, they are also realists that know the Americans are needed for the security of their country. Thus the NGO activists have not received the support as was seen prior to the troop dispatch to Iraq. In Sep of 2004, the Unification and anti-war NGO joined on the Pyongtaek relocation issue but there was not much support for the populace and the protests remained relatively small -- and isolated to Pyongtaek only.

On 14 Feb 2005 the anti-war and unification factions met to discuss their combined strategies in the Spring. The meeting was held at Sanguan University in Seoul with a small rally. The focus was on having the Americans stop the war in Iraq and other areas of the world. The student activists statement was that the war was causing widespread poverty and devastation. (NOTE: The same technique as in 2004 used whereby the focus is America, but all banners have NO English that can be picked up by the world press. Expect the same in 2005. For example, at the bus stop near the Study Hall bookstore in Songtan is a long banner on the fence. It reads that the American military should go home and that Korea is for Koreans -- but it is in hangul. Americans who pass by are completely unaware of this banner's anti-American slant.)






Anti-war/Unification NGO meeting (14 Feb 2005)

2002 Candle-light vigils Illegal TWO AND A HALF YEARS after the bloody and violent candle-light vigils that fostered the most despicable and vile anti-Americanism on the US soldiers, ROK Supreme court upheld the 18-month SUSPENDED SENTENCE of the organizer stating the vigils were illegally organized. This case is political eyewash -- as the same techniques of illegal rallies are held all the time -- though without the legal intervention. For example, a protest in Feb 2005 outside of the Japanese Embassy by a Veterans Group over the Japanese Ambassador's statement that "Takeshima (Tokdo) belongs to Japan" ended up with the group battling police in their attempts to throw plastic packages filled with red chili power over the embassy wall. The following is from the Stars and Stripes on 25 Feb 2005.

Candlelight protests were illegally organized, S. Korean court rules

Stars and Stripes Korea bureau
Pacific edition, Friday, February 25, 2005

SEOUL — The South Korean high court has ruled the massive candlelight protests that followed the 2002 deaths of two young Korean girls crushed by a U.S. armored vehicle were illegally organized.

The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued Tuesday, upheld a previous decision that sentenced the protest organizer to an 18-month suspended prison sentence for “violent conduct” and failing to file proper paperwork for the demonstrations.

The protest organizer had argued the events were memorials for the two girls and therefore did not require paperwork to be filed. But the court disagreed, pointing out that participants chanted political slogans and marched to the U.S. Embassy in Seoul

At least 14 such rallies were held from July 2002 to October 2003, the court said.

The violent conduct, the court said, included flicking lit cigarettes at riot police assigned to monitor the events.

While saying they had no problem with the rallies or their political nature, the justices nonetheless ruled the events should have been organized within the laws covering such gatherings.

“The candlelight vigils were beyond commemoration and thus required prior reporting to the police,” the court ruling read.

According to the Korea Times, the protest organizer rejected the latest ruling and said he would request a retrial.

“The court gave the guilty verdict not only to me, but also to the hundreds of citizens who participated in the rallies,” the paper quoted Kim Jong-il, the protest organizer who has no relation to the North Korean leader of the same name, as saying.

The rallies were part of months of disturbances following the June 2002 incident, in which a 2nd Infantry Division armored vehicle struck Shin Hyo-sun and Shim Mi-son on a curvy road leading to a training area. Two soldiers were charged in the deaths but acquitted by a military court. U.S. officials — including Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld — repeatedly expressed regret over the incident.

Japanese collaborator witch-hunt continues with Japanese nationalism on the rise The search for Japanese collaborators continues under the direction of President Roh that in the opinion of most is strictly a political move to embarrass the wealthy or powerful. One focus was former President Park Chung-hee who was a Japanese officer...as a means to embarrass his daughter, the Chairman of the GNP. At the same time, anti-Japanese freedom fighters who were Communists were presented medals for the first time -- demonstrating the left-leaning shift in the viewpoint of the administration.

However, Japanese nationalism is on the rise at the same time. Thus at the same time the Koreans are throwing stones at the Japanese, the Japanese reaction is condemned. On the touchy issue of Tokdo (Takeshima), when the Koreans issued a stamp commemorating Tokdo as a Korean possession, the Japanese did the same in response. The islands was seized by Korea in 1952 and occupied with a sentry ever since. Japan claims the islands were ceded to Japan by the last rulers of the Chosun dynasty at the turn of the century. Japan wanted the matter to go to the International Courts but Korea refused.

On 23 Feb 2005, the Chosun Ilbo reported that the ROK and Japan could be set for another clash over the Tokdo islets. The local council in Japan's Shimane Prefecture presented a bill calling for a Takeshima Day to be designated to mark the 100th anniversary of what it says was its legal annexation of the islands now administered by Korea. The ROK Foreign Ministry in a statement expressed strong regret over the Japanese provincial government move which it said infringed sovereignty over the Tokdo islets, which "clearly belongs to Korea by virtue of history, geography and international law."

South Korea filed an official complaint over remarks by Japan's ambassador that Dokdo, a cluster of uninhabited South Korean islets in the East Sea, belongs to Japan. A new wave of anti-Japanese anger has been rising in South Korea since Japanese Ambassador Toshiyuki Takano told a meeting with foreign journalists on Wednesday that Dokdo, which is called Takeshima in Japan, "is historically and legally Japan's territory." About 200 riot police were deployed to protect the Japanese Embassy in central Seoul. Organizations demonstrated in front of Japanese Embassy in Jongno. Members of the Korean Veterans Association insisted there that Japan stop making its claim. The islands are not much more than volcanic outcroppings in the East Sea, but their value lies in the rich fishing waters around them.

It is not the first time that Japan has claimed its sovereignty over the islets, but Seoul is taking the envoy's remarks seriously this time as they were seen as a direct slap in South Korea's face. The uninhabited islets lie halfway between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Since 1954, South Korea keeps a small maritime police detachment on the islets as a symbol of its ownership. Despite strong economic and political ties between Seoul and Tokyo, anti-Japanese sentiment is still strong among South Koreans who suffered under Japan's colonial rule in 1910-45. The two countries established formal ties in 1965. The territorial dispute goes back to the early 17th century when historical documents show that Korean and Japanese fishermen occasionally clashed in the area. In 1954, a Japanese activist was killed by ROK mortars on a boat attempting to land on Tokdo.

When Japan began a process to annex the Korean Peninsula as a colony in 1905, its central government ordered its prefectural government of Shimane to issue a notice to claim ownership over the islets. The Shimane Prefecture notice became the pillar of Japan's territorial claim. The local government seeks to designate Feb. 22 as Takeshima Day, marking the 100th anniversary of the posting of the notice.

South Korea counters that the prefecture's notice ignores Korea's centuries-old ownership claims. Historical records show that in 512, Korea's Shilla Kingdom conquered a small nation called Usanguk that governed Ulleung Island and Dokdo. South Korea so far has maintained a low profile on the dispute, fearing that it might escalate into a major international territorial row.

"Does one need to repeat saying his wife is his wife? No words are necessary," President Roh Moo-hyun said in a meeting last year. South Korean officials believe that a string of Japanese claims to the islets is Tokyo's coordinated efforts to make it an international dispute and bring it to the international court.

"We have control over Dokdo, so we don't want to make trouble. Japan wants to make trouble because they have a problem with the status quo," said Kim Byung-ryull, a Seoul National University professor and author of "Dokdo or Takeshima." "A similar situation appears between Japan and Russia over four islands currently controlled by Russia," Kim said. "Japan has made attempts to raise an issue with the islands -- Shikotan, Kunashiri, Etorofu and the Habomai islets -- while Russia does not want to respond to it." (NOTE: The Russians offered two of the islands to Japan and would discuss the other two at a later date. The Japanese refused this offer. The claim of the Japanese government is based on the Japan-Russian Treaty of Trade and Friendship concluded in 1855. This was the first treaty that Japan and Russia officially concluded. Both countries had been engaged in exploring the Kuril Islands for 200 years. The Second Article of the Treaty provided that the boundary line was demarcated between Etorofu (Iturup) and Urup, and "all the Island of Etorofu belongs to Japan, all the Island of Urup and the Kuril Islands to the north of it (Urup) belongs to Russia" in the Japanese text. The Japanese consider Shikotan and Habomai the coastal islands of Hokkaido, situated out of the Kuril volcanic group, and previously under jurisdiction of Hokkaido.) "The same is the dispute over Senkaku Islands. They are under Japanese control. China constantly tries to raise an issue with it, and Japan remains silent," he said. (NOTE: From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands. Furthermore, none of the points raised by the Government of China as "historic, geographic or geological" evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China's arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.)

MARCH 2005:

SPRING IS HERE!!! First Protest at Pyongtaek Though not publicized in the Stars and Stripes or Korean newspapers, a small protest was held by the Unification NGO groups in support of the farmers who are being forced off their lands on 5 March. The protest was held at Pyongtaek's Camp Humphries along the fenceline -- away from the main gate area. This is the first of the protests as the weather is getting warmer.

The signs were all in Korean following the recent strategy of the NGO groups to NOT give the foreign press a reason to pick up on the protest. However, there was one flag in the group that read, "Yankee Go Home." The other signs read, "Go Away! American Soldiers Go Home!" Most of the signs basically read that "Korea is OUR land -- not America's. American soldiers Go Home." The protest was basically peaceful though there was the obligatory ripping to shreds of the simulated American flag. The group was dispersed by the riot police after the protestors started fires in the dry grass all along the fence line. (NOTE: This is done this time of year throughout Korea to clear away the dried brush so this is not a big deal -- though in downtown Seoul the setting of a fire falls under the "arson" code violation.)

Incidentally, in Songtan, the banner (in hangul) still is on the fence at the bus stop in front of the Study Hall Bookstore and Chonchul English Academy telling the American soldiers at Camp Humphries and Osan AB to "Go Home" and stating that "Korea is OUR land."

---

Locals Protest against U.S. Firing Range Relocation Plan Yonhap News reported on 7 March 2005 that U.S. moves to establish a new firing range in South Korea are facing opposition from local residents at a proposed site who are concerned about the excessive noise, environmental destruction and potential accidents that may ensue. According to the 2005 fact book produced by the USFK last month, the U.S. intends to shut down its Koon-ni Range in Maehyang-ri, just south of Seoul, and build a new range in Chik-do, 70 kilometers from the southwestern port city of Kunsan.

The US can't win on this one. The NGO activists have been after the closure of the Kooni Range for years. The ROK claimed it didn't want to pay any money for upkeep as the US wanted the range and all kinds of silliness was going on. Finally the US said it was closing the range and moving to Chik-do which the Army can use for live-fires of its hell-fire missiles as the Rodriquez Range up near the DMZ is too short. The US has been using the site for years, but not as a primary range.

---

Anti-war NGO Protest US Global Strategy Following President Roh's denouncing of the USFK use in preventing aggression in North East Asia as part of the US global strategy, the anti-War NGO elements chimed in with a tiny protest at Yongsan Garrison -- "The USFK for Role Expansion in Asia-Pacific" and the use of the 2d ID as the "outpost of aggression." Very small and only significance is that they are still alive looking for an issue to latch on to. President Roh unwisely chose to draw the battlelines -- which if Article 9 of the Japanese Peace Constitution is changed in 2005, will see the pull back of USFK forces from Korea in the blink of an eye.

---

Japanese Protests Getting Out of Hand while Japanese Nationalism on the Rise Japanese nationalism is on the rise. As such, the self-perception of the Japanese is being reshaped from "peaceniks" to those who are willing to "defend" their country -- even if it means venturing abroad. This requires reshaping the thinking of the youth and weaning them away from the "peace" textbooks. A new Japan is on the horizon and these textbooks are just part of the pattern to reshape the country's thinking of itself and reshaping the self-image of a Japanese person.

Roh reopens Japan's war wounds By Kosuke Takahashi makes some good points about this issue. "For Japan's part, it should reconsider postwar education policy in its modern history. Japanese education appears to have emphasized postwar Japan as a defeated nation, which suffered from aggression by great Western powers and which received two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, ending the war - not as aggressor and victimizer in Asia. Because of this reluctance to face up to the past, in the postwar period Japanese education and ordinary parents seem to have avoided teaching much about neighboring countries' history and geography. Perhaps most Japanese high-school students cannot cite the name of five cities in South Korea now, although they can probably cite names of five cities of the US..."

The youth of Japan also view the Tokdo issue differently than the youth of Korea. Japan these days is swept with Hallyu, a boom in Korean pop culture, rather than anti-Koreanism. While Japanese youths love Korean pop singers and soap operas, few know of Takeshima, the Japanese name for Tokdo.

An editorial in the Donga Ilbo on 15 Mar 2005 stated that,

"Japanese society is largely cynical of Korea’s protests. A Japanese professor argued, “The Japanese government has expressed its regret over past history, escalating its tone on several occasions. Nonetheless, problems are continuously emerging between the two countries, which is why the Japanese government became annoyed.”

Japan believes that history issues were solved with the joint declaration of a new twenty-first century Japan-Korea partnership, first established in 1988 by President Kim Dae-jung and Japanese Prime Minister Keizo Obuchi. Japan wants to no longer be labeled as a war criminal country, after six decades of such a label.

The Japanese media said, “The Roh administration aimed to ‘straighten out history’ in order to improve domestic politics,” when the Korean government unveiled documents on the bilateral relations normalization negotiations in the 1960s early this year. Japan alleges that that the history issue is nothing more than a Korean domestic political issue rather than a problem to be solved through the joint effort by the two countries.

Every year, the Koreans raise hell about the distortions that everyone has about Korean history -- because all the historians of the world are ignorant fools and only the Korean historians know the truth. Years ago, the Korean embassy in Washington reported that an American history book had 250 errors about Korea. In truth, most American students don't even know where Korea is on a world map. To have that many errors was ridiculous -- but the Korean paranoia has been around a long time. In 2004, Korea was raging -- on an international scale -- regarding China's attempt to claim rights to the ancient kingdom of Goguryeo, as a vassal state. There was a great hubbub when the Chinese eliminated the history accounts from its website. The Education ministry instead planned to join academic forces with North Korea to firmly counter such a move by supporting research of Korean ancient history. In 2005, the latest textbook tirades are against the Japanese -- for their unrepentant colonial period stance.

The Seoul government has expressed deep regret over the content of history textbooks written by Japan's right-wing nationalists that have yet to be approved by Tokyo. Government spokesman Lee Gyu-hyung said Friday the textbooks, published by the Fuso Publishing Company, attempt to justify Japan's past military wrongdoings and degrade the history of its neighbors. Lee stressed Japan should step up efforts to squarely face its past and seek to solve the problem of its skewed historical perception. He also said the Seoul govenrment will monitor how the Japanese government will screen its text books next year. This has been the duty of the ROK embassy for the past ten years that we know of. Though Lee praised praised "intellectuals, parents and civic groups in Japan who have pointed out the problems of right-wing textbooks and have expressed concerns about the possibility of souring relations with neighboring states," it is the ROK embassy and ROK NGO activist groups that are doing the monitoring.

According to NGO activists in the Alliance for Asian Peace and History Education (a coalition of 80 activist groups), in a move sure to fan anti-Japanese sentiment in South Korea, a new Japanese school textbook seriously distorts Japan's colonial rule of the Korean Peninsula in the early part of the 20th century. Japan's Education Ministry was set to screen in April new middle and high school textbooks to be used beginning next year. A history textbook written by right-wing nationalists is under close scrutiny in South Korea. According to some Japanese conservatives, the mood has changed so that "outside influences" (meaning Korea and China) are no longer affecting the decision process for Japanese historical text book selection.

The 2005 revised edition of a controversial Japanese middle-school textbook compiled by the country's Society for History Textbook Reform goes even further than the 2001 edition in "distorting" history according to the Korean side. The revised text denies that the Japanese forced Koreans to adopt Japanese names during the colonial period and bolsters passages claiming Japan aided in Korea's modernization. (Actually the process was voluntary, but to NOT do so meant that you would be deprived of education, basic rights and employment status. The Korean language was NOT taught in the schools, but it was taught in academies outside the school system.) The edition excises all mention of "comfort women" - or Chongshindae in Korean - or Korean and Chinese resistance to the Japanese draft, while highlighting Japanese deaths during the Pacific War, portraying Japan as more victim than aggressor.

Supposedly the revised text repeats the "myth" that classical Japan wielded military influence on the southern part of the Korean Peninsula. This deals with the "Minimata" graineries and supposed ties between the Kaya "tribes" and Japan. In recent years, the excavations of the Kaya "tribes" have been found them to be much more advanced than the Korean historians were willing to admit before -- but that is something the Koreans "distort" on their own. The Minimata Graineries that are described in European and US textbooks dating from the 1920s up to the present -- so expect claims of these "errors" too. The new textbook claims Japan had "no choice" but to occupy the Korean Peninsula at the turn of the 20th century because it threatened Japan. This would be hard to defend -- except that Korea had invited in the Chinese and these forces posed a threat to Japan. The Japanese routed the Chinese and chased them out of Korea. The textbook also claims that Korean history began with the establishment of Chinese administrative regions by the Han Dynasty in the late 2nd century B.C., one of which -- Daebang-gun -- was located near Seoul. This claim could be batted around ad infinitum, but the rich historical excavation sites to dispel the myths all lie within North Korea -- forbidden territory.

In describing Japan's pre-modern diplomatic relations, the text deals with the country's relations with Korea's Chosun Dynasty alongside those with Okinawa and Hokkaido, two regions that are now Japanese territory. By doing do, the text insinuates that Korea, too, was part of Japan. In a way, it was as the Chosun Dynasty sold out to accept "prince" and "princess" titles in the Japanese court.

The NGO activists claim the book also portrays the Russo-Japanese War and the Japanese invasion of Manchuria as unavoidable responses to Russian and Chinese provocations. Depending on which side of the fence you sit, both sides are correct. Too bad the Korean historians can't accept the truth that the REAL truth is somewhere in the center.

However, a statement in an editorial in the Chosun Ilbo on 12 Mar 2005 says it all -- "But it is the pathetic diplomatic prowess of our own government that is largely to blame for a situation where Japan's rightwing organizations can launch wave after wave of provocation and the Japanese government looks on with the controls switched off. By approaching Japan with a naive trust in its essential decency and without any leverage against it, our government has awakened an ancient Japanese instinct: to stamp on a man if he looks easy to handle." In other words, it is all right for Koreans to be racist and make inflamatory remarks slandering the government of Japan and Japanese people because they do not subscribe to the ONLY RIGHT HISTORY -- the Korean revisionist history.

An editorial in the Donga Ilbo on 15 Mar 2005 stated that, "The rightist movement in Japan almost seems inevitable, as a post-war generation relatively free from the responsibility of the WWII emerged as leaders of Japanese society after the 1990s. This generation of leaders feels that Japan should be able to say what it has to say as an “ordinary country” just like the other countries, and get treatment befitting its economic prestige in the international community. Shinzo Abe, acting secretary-general of the LDP and a leading next-generation politician in Japan, Shoichi Nakagawa, Minister of Economy, Trade and Industry and Shigeru Ishiba, former Minister of State for Defense, are taking the lead in an effort to increase military budget for the Self-Defense Forces and to begin revisions of the peace constitution." This is fact -- and the truth is that the feeling of "responsibility" for WWII "atrocities" does not work on this new breed of Japanese politicians and negotiators.

All of this rhetoric on the Korean side is because South Korea, just like China, has always been worrying about any sort of remilitarization, projection of military power and social conservatism. In the early 1990s, Seoul harshly criticized Japan's participation in United Nations peacekeeping operations, despite its own participation in them. But the situation drastically changed at the end of 2001, after terrorist attacks on the US and the subsequent US attack on Afghanistan. As a US ally, it was difficult for Seoul to criticize Tokyo self-righteously for modifying its self-defense posture, even though Tokyo remains unwilling to look squarely into its past wrongs. So now Roh appears to be using historical issues with Japan as a counterweight against a more military posture in Japan.

On the touchy issue of Tokdo (Takeshima), when the Koreans issued a stamp commemorating Tokdo as a Korean possession, the Japanese did the same in response. The islands was seized by Korea in 1952 and occupied with a sentry ever since. Japan claims the islands were ceded to Japan by the last rulers of the Chosun dynasty at the turn of the century. Japan wanted the matter to go to the International Courts but Korea refused.

On 23 Feb 2005, the Chosun Ilbo reported that the ROK and Japan could be set for another diplomatic clash over the Tokdo islets. The local council in Japan's Shimane Prefecture presented a bill calling for a Takeshima Day to be designated to mark the 100th anniversary of what it says was its legal annexation of the islands now administered by Korea. The ROK Foreign Ministry in a statement expressed strong regret over the Japanese provincial government move which it said infringed sovereignty over the Tokdo islets, which "clearly belongs to Korea by virtue of history, geography and international law." At first the Seoul government was going to take no action because a government reacting to a local council regulation was considered "inappropriate." Later it stated it would send a protest letter to the Japanese government if the Shimane council passed the resolution -- since the letter would be forwarded to the Japanese National Assembly. A committee was formed of the cabinet members and president to formulate a strategy to handle the situation.

South Korea filed an official complaint over remarks by Japan's ambassador that Dokdo, a cluster of uninhabited South Korean islets in the East Sea, belongs to Japan. A new wave of anti-Japanese anger has been rising in South Korea since Japanese Ambassador Toshiyuki Takano told a meeting with foreign journalists on Wednesday that Dokdo, which is called Takeshima in Japan, "is historically and legally Japan's territory." About 200 riot police were deployed to protect the Japanese Embassy in central Seoul. In mid-March, the ambassador was called home for consultations after protests heated up at the Japanese Embassy.

It is not the first time that Japan has claimed its sovereignty over the islets, but Seoul is taking the envoy's remarks seriously this time as they were seen as a direct slap in South Korea's face. The uninhabited islets lie halfway between the Korean Peninsula and Japan. Since 1954, South Korea keeps a small maritime police detachment on the islets as a symbol of its ownership. Despite strong economic and political ties between Seoul and Tokyo, anti-Japanese sentiment is still strong among South Koreans who suffered under Japan's colonial rule in 1910-45. The two countries established formal ties in 1965. The territorial dispute goes back to the early 17th century when historical documents show that Korean and Japanese fishermen occasionally clashed in the area.

When Japan began a process to annex the Korean Peninsula as a colony in 1905, its central government ordered its prefectural government of Shimane to issue a notice to claim ownership over the islets. The Shimane Prefecture notice became the pillar of Japan's territorial claim. The local government seeks to designate Feb. 22 as Takeshima Day, marking the 100th anniversary of the posting of the notice. (NOTE: In the end, the ROK government chose to not officially respond to the municipality's actions.)

South Korea counters that the prefecture's notice ignores Korea's centuries-old ownership claims. Historical records show that in 512, Korea's Shilla Kingdom conquered a small nation called Usanguk that governed Ulleung Island and Dokdo. South Korea so far has maintained a low profile on the dispute, fearing that it might escalate into a major international territorial row.

"Does one need to repeat saying his wife is his wife? No words are necessary," President Roh Moo-hyun said in a meeting last year. South Korean officials believe that a string of Japanese claims to the islets is Tokyo's coordinated efforts to make it an international dispute and bring it to the international court.

South Korea insists the Dokdo islets has been listed as its territory in history literature since the 5th century. A Japanese geography book, the "Great Japan Geographical Dictionary" written by Dr. Yoshida Togo (1864-1918) at the beginning of 1900, states that there were three major disputes between Korea and Japan over the Dokdo islets - in 1621, 1699 and 1883. According to Korean interpretation, it says that in each of the disputes, the then Japanese emperor admitted "the island is a part of Korean territory" and announced "Japanese people do not go to Takeshima because the island is a part of Korean territory." However, there are other documents that state pitched battles between Japanese and Korean fisherman occurred repeatedly over the years. The Korean NGO groups have even gone so far as to state that the CIA Fact Book is biased towards the Japanese as it claims Tokdo/Takeshima/Liancourt Rocks is a disputed area. The answer to these groups is that they need to look at the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty which has a US Congressional caveat that states that if hostilities break out over the Liancourt Rocks (among others) initiated by the ROK, the US will NOT come to its assistance. The Japanese wanted the matter to go to the International Courts, but the ROK has repeatedly refused as it had seized Tokdo in 1954 -- and killed one Japanese activist attempting to land on the islet with mortar fire. For its part, Japan claims that Taekshima has been its territory since the 17th century according to its literature. In addition, the Japanese claim the last Chosun rulers ceded the territory to Japan PRIOR to the colonization of Korea.

Then Roh opened his mouth and stuck his foot in it. On 1 Mar 2005, the Joongang Ilbo reported that marking the 86th anniversary of the March 1 Independence Movement, President Roh Moo-hyun demanded that the Japanese government offer a formal apology and further compensation to its Korean victims. No ROK president has made such a demand since Japan paid compensation when the two countries restored diplomatic relations in 1965. "Korea and Japan have a common destiny to open the future of Northeast Asia," Mr. Roh said at the Yu Gwan-sun Memorial Hall in Seoul. "What is needed are the sincere efforts of the Japanese government and people. They will have to find out the truth of the past and make apologies and compensation, if necessary." "Japan must make the truth of the past known and offer sincere apologies and, if necessary, pay compensation. Only then can we be reconciled," said Mr Roh. "Japan should take a more positive attitude with a belief that before it is a legal issue, this is an issue of universal ethics in a human society and a matter of trust between neighbours," he said, indicating that Tokyo should follow the example of Germany.

Believe it or not, many Japanese feel that they have apologized and expressed regret on many occasions. In addition, although South Korea, China and others waived war reparations and Tokyo has no legal obligation to compensate war victims, including men forced to work as laborers and comfort women, not a few Japanese have tried to make efforts to compensate in some way for their ancestors' crimes. (See List of Japanese War Apologies and Asian Times, Roh reopens Japan's war wounds By Kosuke Takahashi for an excellent Japanese article on this issue.)

The Japanese government argues that any reparations were dealt with under post-war peace treaties. The Choson Ilbo on 2 Mar 2005 reported that the Japanese government downplayed remarks by President Roh Moo-hyun. Japan's Chief Cabinet Secretary Hosoda Hiroyuki told a press conference, "I understand [Roh's comments] were that the two nations needed to work a bit harder." But the island nation's media devoted extensive and largely sympathetic coverage to Roh's remarks in his March 1 Independence Movement Day address.

In Korea, the newly released details of the normalization treaty have only enraged South Korean public opinion further. In January 2005, Seoul declassified documents revealing that South Korea's post-war government agreed to accept an $800m economic package as reparations from Japan when the two countries established diplomatic ties in 1965. Roh's statements started to inflame Japanese public opinion. (SITE NOTE: These "new" revelations are really old news that Park Chung Hee recieved massive amount of monies as war reparations that was funneled directly into the nation's push to industrialize. Those that greedily complain now and feign lack of knowledge are really stating, "I didn't get my share of the pie." The Japanese position is that these monies under the 1965 Normalization Treaty settled the reparations accounts once and for all.)

The public uproar in South Korea over claims by neighboring Japan to the Tokdo islets was having a negative effect on tourism. Travel agencies said that the number of Japanese coming to South Korea had fallen off sharply compared to last year, with some companies estimating a worst-case annual drop of up to 40 percent.

Soon after the poop hit the fan, the Foreign Minister Ban Ki-Moon backpedalled that Roh was speaking metaphorically and that he didn't intend to reopen negotiations of the 1965 normalization treaty. Ban stated that treaty had opened an era of exchanges that benefitted both nations in an attempt to smooth the ruffled Japanese feathers. "The South Korean-Japanese treaty has served as the basic framework for bilateral ties in various aspects over the past 40 years," Foreign Minister Ban said. "It is not realistic to negotiate the treaty again." But the row over Tokdo and the Japanese comfort women still lingers on.

"We have control over Dokdo, so we don't want to make trouble. Japan wants to make trouble because they have a problem with the status quo," said Kim Byung-ryull, a Seoul National University professor and author of "Dokdo or Takeshima." "A similar situation appears between Japan and Russia over four islands currently controlled by Russia," Kim said. "Japan has made attempts to raise an issue with the islands -- Shikotan, Kunashiri, Etorofu and the Habomai islets -- while Russia does not want to respond to it." (NOTE: The Russians offered two of the islands to Japan and would discuss the other two at a later date. The Japanese refused this offer. The claim of the Japanese government is based on the Japan-Russian Treaty of Trade and Friendship concluded in 1855. This was the first treaty that Japan and Russia officially concluded. Both countries had been engaged in exploring the Kuril Islands for 200 years. The Second Article of the Treaty provided that the boundary line was demarcated between Etorofu (Iturup) and Urup, and "all the Island of Etorofu belongs to Japan, all the Island of Urup and the Kuril Islands to the north of it (Urup) belongs to Russia" in the Japanese text. The Japanese consider Shikotan and Habomai the coastal islands of Hokkaido, situated out of the Kuril volcanic group, and previously under jurisdiction of Hokkaido.) "The same is the dispute over Senkaku Islands. They are under Japanese control. China constantly tries to raise an issue with it, and Japan remains silent," he said. (NOTE: From 1885 on, surveys of the Senkaku Islands had been thoroughly made by the Government of Japan through the agencies of Okinawa Prefecture and by way of other methods. Through these surveys, it was confirmed that the Senkaku Islands had been uninhabited and showed no trace of having been under the control of China. Based on this confirmation, the Government of Japan made a Cabinet Decision on 14 January 1895 to erect a marker on the Islands to formally incorporate the Senkaku Islands into the territory of Japan. It was not until the latter half of 1970, when the question of the development of petroleum resources on the continental shelf of the East China Sea came to the surface, that the Government of China and Taiwan authorities began to raise questions regarding the Senkaku Islands. Furthermore, none of the points raised by the Government of China as "historic, geographic or geological" evidence provide valid grounds, in light of international law, to support China's arguments regarding the Senkaku Islands.)

In addition, on March 8 and 9, a Japanese aircraft and marine patrol attempted to penetrate the Korea Air Defense Identification Zone (KADIZ) near the disputed Dokdo Islets on Tuesday morning. According to the newspapers, South Korean Air Force jets sortied over the Dokdo islets in the East Sea to send away the Japanese civilian plane that was going to "invade" or "intrude" on Korean airspace. The Japanese plane belonging to the Japanese newspaper Asahi Shimbun neared Tokdo but stayed outside of Korean airspace after F-5 jets were scrambled. They claimed they had officially requested a fly over of the island to take pictures -- but permission was denied by the ROK government -- and had altered their flight accordingly.

Japanese air controllers sent the plane's flight schedule to South Korean authorities, according to Seoul's foreign and national defense ministries. The aircraft then left Osaka. Seoul said it was forced to scramble four jet fighters to intercept the plane. Four warnings were issued before the aircraft turned away. In Osaka, Asahi Shimbun officials said the plane departed Osaka Airport at Itami at 9:10 a.m. with three crew members, a reporter and a photographer. At 9:40 a.m., while off the coast of Shimane Prefecture, the plane was notified by Osaka Civil Aviation Bureau that South Korean authorities did not grant permission for it to enter the airspace. So the pilot altered course accordingly, they said. The flight was dispatched to report the situation around the island. A flight schedule with the planned route and timetable was submitted to the bureau beforehand, according to the daily. The aircraft did not enter Seoul's air-defense identification zone, remaining over international waters and within a flight zone governed by Tokyo air controllers, an Asahi official said. Takuji Tanaka, The Asahi Shimbun's managing editor of the Osaka head office, said. ``We turned around before reaching the South Korean air-defense identification zone because we were informed that South Korea was refusing entry. We did not enter the zone, and we did not go against international aviation rules.

As to the SDF patrol plane, "...the Japanese military responded to a request from South Korea to identify the plane only after the plane had headed home." No jets were scrambled. On 17 Mar an RF-4C plane from Japan's Self Defense Forces came as close as 10 miles (16 kilometers) to the South's Korea Air Defense Identification Zone, a military zone surrounding the country's airspace, around 12:20 p.m., officials at the Joint Chiefs of Staff said. Although the aircraft stayed within Japanese airspace, the Korean military says the fast-approaching plane ignored two warnings, telling it to stop and confirm its position before responding to a third warning and returning to Japan. In response, two Korean military aircraft were dispatched.

Protest at Japanese Embassy and Shredding of Flag (13 Mar 2005)
(NOTE: Unlike the US, the Japanese flag was only recently approved as the National symbol and caused a furor when Japanese schools were mandated to fly the flag by the Education Ministry. Japanese do not view this flag in the same way the Americans do.)

On 13 Mar a veterans group of individuals who claimed they were trained to infilitrate North Korea staged a protest in front of the Japanese Embassy. Shirtless, the individuals sat with the pictures of two Korean freedom fighters in front of them. There was failed attempt by members of a human rights organization, Hwalbindan, to enter the Japanese Embassy. In a rally that followed the protest, two persons, identified as Park Kyung-ja, 68, and her son Cho Seung-gyu, 40, each cut off their smallest finger in protest against the recent moves by Japan. (NOTE: This was in Yonhap News, but it was deleted later because it does give Koreans a slightly fanatical look.)

Protest of Unification NGO groups, comfort women, etc. outside Japanese Embassy (16 Mar 2005)

On 16 Mar 2005 South Korea filed an official complaint over a SYMBOLIC Shimane prefectural ordinance to designate Feb. 22 as "Takeshima Day," the date when the Japanese prefecture issued a notice claiming Tokdo/Takeshima as part of its territory 100 years ago. To the Japanese, the ordinance was intended to raise awareness of Japan's claim to the rocks. To the Koreans, this is a claim on Tokdo. The Shimane notice issued a 100 years ago is the backbone of Japan's claim over Tokdo, but South Korea says the argument is groundless, because it was made when Korea's Joseon Dynasty (1392-1910) was deprived of its diplomatic powers by Japan.

Toshinao Urabe, deputy chief of the Japanese Embassy in Seoul, was called in to hear the complaint in a meeting with Deputy Foreign Minister Song Min-soon. Song also rapped Japan's central government for its "passive" attitude, the official said, referring to the fact that Tokyo did little to defuse the dispute. The central government of Japan has largely kept a low profile in the dispute, insisting that it cannot meddle in a local government's business. In Tokyo, South Korean Ambassador Ra Jong-yil met Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Shotaro Yachi and filed a similar protest.

Outside Shimane's legislative building in the city of Matsue on 16 Mar 2005, Choi Jae-ik, a Seoul city Assemblyman, was stopped by Japanese police in the act of trying to cut off one of his fingers with a knife. In Seoul, police buses were parked the length of the Japanese Embassy's front wall to keep protesters away. Several groups of up to 50 protesters shouted slogans asking their government to take a stronger stand against Japan. Anti-Japanese sentiment is sweeping across South Korea, as Tokyo has increased its attempts to lay claim to Tokdo.

Meanwhile, on 17 Mar 2005, Japanese media reported on Korea's strong reaction to the passage of the bill while expressing concern that the dispute may damage 40 years of diplomatic ties. The Asahi Shimbun reported that the passage of the bill reflected the frustration of Japanese fisherman, seeking more fishing grounds around Tokdo. Another Japanese daily, the Yomiuiri Shimbun, urged a renegotiation of the fishing zone the two countries drew up around the islands. Currently the Tokdo fishing grounds are for joint use, but the Japanese fishermen complain the area is so crowded with Korean boats it is impossible to fish there. Several groups of Korean residents have demanded that the New Korea-Japan Pact on Fishing in 1999 be abolished at this time.

North Gyeongsang Province meanwhile said it was cutting its sisterly relationship with Shimane Prefecture, as it had threatened to do should the bill pass. Gyeongbuk Province Governor Lee Eui-geun asserted at the news conference that Japan’s intrusive action in the “Korea and Japan Friendship Year” was a betrayal, showing a “honeyed tongue, but a heart of gall” expression.

The city of Jinju in the province said it was canceling several planned exchanges with the city of Matsue in Shimane Prefecture, including a women’s marathon scheduled for March 20, a July exchange of civil servants, and an exchange of local government officials. Residents of Ulleungdo who commemorate October 25 as the “Ulleung-gun Residents’ Day” every year, decided to take the lead in protecting Dokdo after declaring October 25 as “Ulleung and Dokdo Island Day,” beginning this year.

There were nationwide protests calling for severing ties with Japan on Wednesday. Former "comfort women" and members of the Korea Chongshindae Council, Korea Freedom League, Pan-Citizen Alliance to Defend Dokdo, Citizens’ Alliance to Stop North Korean Nuclear Weapons and other civic groups staged a series of protests in front of the Japanese embassy in Seoul. A delegation of student presidents from 13 universities in Busan, Ulsan and South Gyeongsang Province also demonstrated in front of the Japanese Consulate in Busan.

In a SYMBOLIC gesture, the ROK stated that visits to Tokdo were permitted. A group of National Assembly representatives were to visit the island to make a symbolic gesture.

Maritime Police guard Tokdo (16 Mar 2005)

As part of the SYMBOLIC announcement to allow visitors to Tokdo, the National Police Agency (NPA) announced that it was considering “repairing the Dokdo pier to allow the approach of a 500-ton ship in case average citizens are allowed to visit the islets.” The Dokdo pier was built in 1997 and underwent repair in 2003, but needs further construction to allow visitors on the islets. The NPA is also planning to repair the handrails along the pier’s passageways and build a shelter in preparation for bad weather conditions. In addition, the NPA decided to replace the garrison’s old .50-caliber heavy machine gun with the K-6 machine gun, a new model made in Korea, by this April. The NPA is reviewing plans to expand the Dokdo barracks to accommodate more guards than the current limit of about a platoon. It now seems probable that the head of Korea’s national security will pay a visit to Dokdo for the first time since NPA officers started guarding the islets in April 1956.

The U.S. is remaining neutral, with the embassy in Seoul saying in a press "U.S. policy on the Dokdo/Takeshima Island issue has been and continues to be that the United States does not take a position on either Korea's claim or Japan's claim to the island." It made the statement by way of denying local press reports that U.S. officials favored Japan's claim. In the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty, the US Congress made a caveat on the Treaty that if hostilities broke out over the Liancourt Rocks (Tokdo/Takeshima) among other disputes islands, the US would NOT come to the aid of Korea. (See pg 898 and pg 900 of the 1949 Comments of Sebald & McArthur on reconsideration of giving Liancourt Rocks to Japan.)

The Kyunghyang Shinmun on 14 Mar quoted an aide to Roh as saying President Roh Moo-hyun dubbed Japan's new claim to South Korea's easternmost islets of Dokdo as a "fresh act of aggression" which necessitates reconsideration of South Korea's traditional amicable relationship with Japan. The statement was supposedly made in a weekly meeting with senior presidential aides and secretaries at Cheong Wa Dae. Cheong Wa Dae on 17 Mar denied that report. "The report is not correct," Roh's deputy spokesman Kim Man-soo said, without elaborating. "We cannot confirm things that were discussed in a closed-door meeting."

As a footnote, a ROK state gas company, Korea Gas Corp., stated on 17 Mar that the Tokdo Waters were believed to have large amounts of gas hydrates. Thus the justification for defense is not simply emotional or fisheries claims but not potential resources. Again the operative word was "believed." Surveys conducted since 2000 showed that the sea around Tokto might contain substantial amount of gas hydrate, a semi-solid form of natural gas. "Gas hydrate is hailed as the next energy source and this could be well one of the reasons Japan is trying to lay its hands on it," said an official.

As another footnote, government censorship has entered the picture. South Korea's Internet content regulator said on 17 Mar it was requiring Daum Communications Corp. to shut down five pro-Japanese Web sites following Japan's fresh claim to the South Korean islets of Tokdo. "Those sites have a possibility of harming youngsters' physical and mental health by distorting historical facts and undermining international friendship," the Information Communication Ethics Committee, affiliated with the Ministry of Information and Communication, said in a statement.

The dispute is reaching irrational stages. Elementary School students are being taught special subjects on Tokdo as "Our Land." In the aftermath of the territorial dispute, a friendship sports match between Japan and South Korea was canceled. The Korea Rugby Union notified its Japanese counterpart on 17 Mar that a university competition scheduled for 20 Mar would now not take place. Lakehills Country Club, which operates two golf resorts in Yongin, Gyeonggi province, and Jeju Island, said on 17 Mar that it will ban Japanese visitors from using the facility. Civic groups called on the public to stop buying from Japanese vehicle makers Mitsubishi, Kawasaki and Isuzu and electronics maker Fujitsu. The companies were accused of supporting the publication of nationalistic history textbooks in Japan. The spreading protest also saw 53 employees of the Independence Hall of Korea, a state-run museum commemorating Korea's liberation from the Japanese colonial rule, deliver an angry statement yesterday to the Japanese Embassy in Seoul. The statement reportedly charged that Japan was trying to change history. (NOTE: What is frightening are the signs are the same as in 2002 when the hate campaign was focused at Americans. What is also frightening is that the Koreans are doing so at a time when there has been an abrupt rise in neo-conservative nationalistic thinking amongst the younger Japanese citizenry. The Koreans are applying the old technique of accusing of past misdeeds from WWII, but the younger Japanese are saying they have apologized enough.)

On 17 Mar, Chung Dong-young, the head of the National Security Council, said that Japanese assertions of sovereignty over Tokto were tantamount to justifying the invasion of the Korean Peninsula by the Japanese Imperial Army 100 years ago. Relations between South Korea and Japan have been "seriously hurt" by the dispute, Mr. Chung said. Still, Mr. Chung tried to sound conciliatory, stating the government's willingness to continue efforts to improve economic, cultural and diplomatic ties despite the confrontation. In closing remarks he asked his fellow citizens to "refrain from insulting the other country or taking actions that violate courtesies between two nations."

The Associated Press on 17 Mar reported that Japan's foreign minister sought to mend fast unraveling relations with the ROK, acknowledging that Japan had to face the bitter feelings its past colonization still incites in its neighbor. "Our country humbly accepts the fact that in the past it caused great damage and pain to people from Asian countries, and it's necessary to face the feelings of the Korean people with deep understanding and sympathy," the statement said. "An emotional confrontation does not benefit either Japan or South Korea. We believe its necessary to keep the matter in perspective considering Japan-Korea relations as a whole," he said, calling for patience and tolerance.

It seems the Japanese government seems to be confused after facing an unexpectedly strong reaction from Korea about the Dokdo Day Act instituted by the Shimane Prefecture legislature. The Mainichi Shimbun reported on March 17 that there are some who are saying they “should have thought of a way to stop the legislation much earlier” within some parts of the foreign ministry. Despite numerous warnings from the Korean government, Japanese authorities said, “The central government cannot interfere with a local legislative agenda,” giving tacit approval to the legislation in actuality. On 17 Mar Japan Today reported that Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi called on South Korea to overcome anti-Japanese sentiments after Seoul invoked Japan's past colonial rule following a renewed territorial dispute. "We should deal with the situation in a forward-looking manner by considering how to develop friendship and overcoming emotional conflicts," Koizumi told reporters at his office. "There are issues of history to deal with, but we should not be mired in the past," he said.

---

Anti-war NGO Protest in Pusan Anti-War NGO activist headed by the Rev Moon protested in Pusan on 16 Mar 2005 after the arrival of the USS Kitty Hawk in port on 14 Mar. This is the reason for the "US Navy Go Home" signs. Other signs protest the RSOI/FE05 exercises.

However, the protest actually was more focused on protesting the SMA (Special Measures Agreement) dealing with the cost sharing formulas agreed upon in the SCM (Security Consultative Meetings). Under the Special Measures Agreement (SMA) instituted in 1991, South Korea paid $622 million in direct costs to support USFK. Gen. Leon J. LaPorte, USFK commander, testified to Congress earlier this month that South Korean government support equaled 40 percent of the command’s non-personnel costs. The current discussions on cost-sharing are going on because it could not be settled in the last SCM. The ROK wants is costs reduced because they feel they contributed to Iraq and that there are fewer troops than last year because 3,600 were removed permanently. In addition, under the LPP the returned bases means there is less cost. However, the US position was that the ROK had not paid its fair share for a long time and needed to increase its share. The ROK started contributing for the FIRST TIME in 1991 after the SOFA was renegotiated by the ROK insistence for the first time since 1963 because of the public outcry to gain control of prosecution US "criminals" -- soldiers falling under ROK jurisdiction for prosecution. The contentious C4I issue of ROK upgrade computer communication upgrade costs was dropped, but we are not certain of the details which could mean (1) the US picks up the bill for the ROK upgrades or (2) the ROK gets no upgrades and it continues as it is now.

In the end, the US agreed to reduce the ROK share by about $60 million, but it was still not finalized as of 17 Mar 2005. The SMA is being renegotiated with the view that the Global Positioning Strategy will impact the USFK forces which must trained to the same levels as other US forces -- and possess the same equipment as their counterparts. Unfortunately because it is a Combined Force Command (CFC), the ROK and US forces must interface -- which is the reason for the Foal Eagle portion of the RSOI/FE05.

The reason the Anti-War NGO groups want the SMA eliminated is that without it there would be no US troops stationed in South Korea. It is that simplistic -- and for the same reason, unrealistic.

---

Allegations of MPs Taking Payoffs from Bar Owners and Osan Protest (Mar 2005) An MBC TV program called "Sisa Magazine 2580" that aired on 27 Mar 2005 blew the whistle on the USFK in a surprising turn of events. The program ended with a snide comment that Gen LaPorte's zero-tolerance program should start at Osan dealing with the TEN MPs involved in a shake-down operation. It should be noted that many of the Korean TV exposes are not based entirely on fact and are simply sensationalism to entice viewer response. However, there does appear to be some truth in this story -- though it may have been exaggerated for sensationalism by the show.

The timing is perfect. It follows the Songtan (Osan AB) and Anjung-ni (Camp Humphries) bar owners being "forced" in Mar 2005 to pledge "in writing to keep prostitution and human trafficking out of their establishments -- and to blow the whistle on those who don't." It exemplifies the dissatisfaction with the USFK over the constant off-limit sanctions that have been applied -- and how they can turn the tables on the USFK and blow the whistle on the USFK town patrol. Our personal belief is that there is a lot more underhanded manuevers by the MPs/Town Patrol that has gone unreported as bar owners struggled to survive. Now with the latest USFK tactics, the bar owners have nothing to lose by blowing the whistle on the Town Patrol.

The Korean TV program's timing also matches President Roh's broadsides against the US by stating that the US forces in Korea would NOT be used as a regional security force without the permission of the ROK -- placing it on a collision course with the US. The media started publishing accounts of how the US-ROK alliance was at a crossroads -- and the US Congress was not all that happy with the relationship. The USFK was a hot topic as move to Pyongtaek was also a hot issue for discontent. The following is a Chosun Ilbo story on 28 Mar 2005:

USFK Shaking Down Local Businesses: MBC

U.S. military police officers are accused of extorting valuables or sexual services from businesses in Gijichon - or red-light districts that spring up near U.S. garrisons - MBC reported. The broadcaster's current affairs program "Sisa Magazine 2580" reported Saturday that 10 MPs patrolling the U.S. airbase in Osan, Gyeonggi Province were recently replaced because investigators learned they were blackmailing local businesses.

Through testimony from Gijichon businesses, U.S. personnel and Korean police, the program painted a picture of MPs openly extorting valuables and sexual favors from female staff of entertainment places in the area.

"Without paying a cent, they drank and demanded to sleep with newly arrived foreign women," one business owner said. "If we refused, they threatened to make us 'off-limits.'" Being declared off-limits can be the death-knell for local businesses as it means U.S. soldiers are barred from entering. The authority to declare a place off-limits rests with the military police.

Another business owner said he bought an MP a US$5,000 watch and a US$40,000 car.

The program also raised suspicions that U.S. soldiers were colluding with gijichon business owners to bring in foreign women through paper marriages. It said with tighter laws on illegal foreign residents, U.S. soldiers were making money by inviting prostitutes from abroad into the country under the pretext of marriage or engagement.

The U.S. soldiers implicated in the corruption are currently under investigation, the program said. "In order to report in detail on the criminal charges, we asked the U.S. military for interviews, but we were refused" by USFK authorities on the grounds that the matter was "under investigation," the production team said.

The Stars and Stripes posted an article on 31 March 2005 dealing with the bar owners that staged a protest in front of the main gate of Osan AB over this situation. However, if you read the article closely, the bar owners are not the ones who were protesting. It was the NGO activist group (Task Force To Oppose The Expansion of the U.S. Bases in Pyongtaek) that is protesting the movement of the USFK from Yongsan/DMZ to Pyongtaek. This group has already held one protest march at Camp Humphries in early March. (See Protest.) This is a VERY SMART manuever on the part of the bar owner's as they get their point across -- and still keep their hands clean by not being the actual protestors.

We suspect that this will expand to a Korea-wide campaign by NGO activist groups to embarass the USFK -- though not necessarily in support of protesting the USFK "zero-tolerance" campaign aimed at putting the camptowns out of business. It will be simply a method to embarass the USFK. We anticipate similar exposes in other areas -- especially hard hit areas like Itaewon or Uijongbu or A-town. If there was the slightest impropriety on the part of the Town Patrols, they had best be worried. Past violations are also open books now that the gloves have come off.

Demonstrators outside Osan Air Base, South Korea, on Tuesday protest what they say were shakedowns of local Korean bar owners by U.S. Air Force security police responsible for patrolling the off-base bar district. (Franklin Fisher / S&S)

Bar owners say U.S. Forces Korea police solicited bribes, sexual favors

Air Force removes member of Osan 'town patrol'

By Franklin Fisher, Stars and Stripes
Pacific edition, Thursday, March 31, 2005

OSAN AIR BASE, South Korea — Base officials here have reshuffled the Air Force police team that patrols the off-base bar district amid allegations some of its members shook down Korean bar owners for bribes and sexual favors, officials said.

The airmen raised the threat of having the bars put off-limits to U.S. troops, according to South Korean media reports and a civic group that mounted a protest rally outside the base Tuesday.

Air Force Office of Special Investigations agents are probing the allegations, officials said.

"The investigation is ongoing and may implicate several others," stated a news release issued Tuesday by U.S. Forces Korea. The shakedowns reportedly involved 51st Security Forces Squadron airmen assigned to the "town patrol" that patrols the bar district outside the Osan Air Base main gate.

The Air Force on March 2 announced that an "Airman" from the 51st Security Forces Squadron "was taken into custody for alleged unprofessional conduct while serving as a member of the Osan town patrol."

Stars and Stripes on Tuesday requested, but did not receive, an interview with 51st Security Forces commander Lt. Col. Randall Richert or others in the line of authority over the squadron.

Without naming a suspect in the case, the USFK release Tuesday said the town patrol member taken into custody March 1 is currently in "confinement" at Camp Humphreys "awaiting charges."

About 10 protesters staged a peaceful 30-minute rally across the street from the base main gate Tuesday. Some held a banner while speakers' remarks blared from a sound truck. Scores of blue-clad South Korean riot police were on the scene.

After the demonstration, Kim Yong-han, who represented what he called the Task Force To Oppose The Expansion of the U.S. Bases in Pyongtaek, said bar owners had told him of occasions when town patrol members would enter a bar and pretend to notice a violation of some type, in some instances of health or fire safety codes. They then would mention that the ostensible violation was grounds for making the bar off-limits, Kim said.

Some owners, said Kim, would offer a bribe — at times in the form of sexual favors.

If town patrol members deem an establishment unsafe for U.S. military personnel or believe it is a venue for prostitution, human trafficking, underage drinking or other illicit activity, they can recommend that Osan Air Base authorities declare it off-limits to U.S. military personnel.

The South Korean newspaper Joong Ang Daily on Tuesday quoted one shop owner as saying: "If your club is tagged 'off limits' it's like a death sentence. Most shops here are exclusively geared toward U.S. personnel. One month is enough to put a club out of business."

---

Go to Protests: January-May 2005.Go to Protests: April-June 2005. Go to Protests: July-September 2005. Go to Protests: October-December 2005.

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

---