The Korean Commitment - "Now More Than Ever"
AUTHOR Major Paul J. Chase, USMC
CSC 1989
SUBJECT AREA - Foreign Policy
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Title: The Korean Commitment - "NOW MORE THAN EVER"
THESIS: The single most important factor in achieving
national interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance
of a healthy and vigorous alliance relationship. Although
some people advocate a major withdrawl of United States
military personnel from the Republic of Korea, we must con-
tinue their presence since this area is so vital to our
national interests.
ISSUE: Alliance relationships are the cornerstone to the
deterrence of hostile acts by aggressive nations. The
military alliance relationship the United States of America
enjoys with the Republic of Korea is significant and will
remain crucial in the 1990's. The fact that the Republic of
Korea is situated in such a strategic location coupled with
the fact that she is emerging on the world economic scene with
such great momentum is of national interest to the United
States of America. The declining defense budget within the
Department of Defense is driving some people toward the
opinion that the number of United States military personnel
stationed in the Republic of Korea should be drastically
reduced if not totally eliminated. The United States of
America has developed through the years a strategic policy of
forward deployment and guick response as a deterrence to
aggression by adversaries. The threat from communist North
Korea is real and the Republic of Korea is severely incapable
of defending herself against an attack without the support of
the United States of America.
CONCLUSION: Three key points must be considered prior to
reducing the United States military presence in the Republic
of Korea. The first is the negative signal it would send to
our allies worldwide. Secondly, the North Koreans would view
this as a weakening in the south and it could trigger an
invasion. And finally, it would surely decrease the readiness
posture of United States forces. We have a commitment to the
Republic of Korea and if the need arises we must be prepared
to guickly respond to the call. It has taken many years and
many lives to build the foundation on which our alliance
relationship now rests and to do anything to weaken this
alliance would be a severe injustice to those who have gone
before us and threaten the future generations. It is for
these reasons that we must view with grave concern any attempt
to soften our commitment to our strong ally the Republic of
Korea.
Thesis Statement
The single most important factor in achieving national
interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance of a
healthy and vigorous alliance relationship. Although some
people advocate a major withdrawl of United States military
personnel from the Republic of Korea, we must continue their
presence since this area is so vital to our national
interests.
OUTLINE
I. ALLIANCE RELATIONSHIPS
A. Cornerstone to deterrence
B. Precedence set for future support
C. Thesis statement
D. Mutual Defense Agreement 1950
II. KOREAN CONFLICT
A. June 1950 the stage is set
B. Bonding and the ROK/US alliance
III. STRATEGIC LOCATION
A. Supports Japan Flank
B. Guards SLOC's (Vladivostok)
C. Last non-Communist country East Asia land mass
D. Japan basing rights hinge on U.N. mission
IV. ECONOMICS
A. Industrial reorganization
B. Major trading partner
C. Top world economy by 1992
D. Olympic games testimony to success
E. Finances alone don't solve defense problems
V. DECLINING DEFENSE BUDGET
A. Reducing personnel costs - "Burden sharing"
B. Negative impact on world allies
C. Alliances are cornerstone of deterrence
D. Reduction of U.S. presence - "Severe injustice"
VI. ANTI-AMERICAN SENTIMENT
A. Media highlights student riots
B. Population favors strong ROK/US alliance
C. Alliance has stood the test of time
VII. FUTURE MILITARY COMMITMENT
A. 1990's need for caution
B. U.S. readiness posture in region
The Korean Commitment - "NOW MORE THAN EVER"
The United States of America must foster strong alliance
relationships in the Western Pacific region. History has
proven the need to project military power beyond the boundries
of the continental United States and recent developments in
the Pacific Theater confirm the reguirement to bolster our
alliances. Any trend toward isolationism would weaken ties
with our allies and could prove to be disasterous to national
interests.
Alliance relationships are the cornerstone to the deter-
rence of hostile acts by adversaries of both the United States
of America and our allies in the Western Pacific region.
Strength through unity sends a strong signal to all the
Western Pacific countries that we are serious in the support
we provide our friends. It took many years and many lives to
build the foundation on which our alliances now rest and as we
move into the 1990's we must strive to continue these efforts.
One of the most significant alliance relationships the
United States of America fosters in the Western Pacific region
is with the Republic of Korea. Korean-American relations
actually began in 1883 when Lucius H. Foote was assigned as
the Envoy Extraordinary and Minister Plenipotentiary of the
United States of America to Korea. This initial period of
alliance lasted until the middle of 1887, at which time the
Chinese government asked that the Charge' at Seoul, George C.
Foulk, be recalled for having encouraged the Korean government
in a course of action independent of China. When Minister
Foute arrived at Seoul in May 1883, the King of Korea "danced
with joy". The initial instructions which Foote had to deal
with were concerned with the concept of the independence of
Korea and extension of trade rights to American citizens.
(6:1-3) These same concepts are applicable today and the
current alliance relationship we enjoy with the Republic of
Korea is primarily based on events of the 1950 era.
The single most important factor in achieving national
interests in the Republic of Korea is the maintenance of a
healthy and vigorous military alliance. This alliance
relationship forms the basis of a strong deterrence to hostile
attack and enhances the readiness posture of United States
Forces. Although some people advocate a major withdrawl of
United States military personnel from the Republic of South
Korea, we must continue their presence since this area is so
vital to our national interests.
The United States of America established a mutual defense
agreement with South Korea on January 26, 1950. This agree-
ment was tested during the early morning hours of June 25,
1950 when the Army of Communist North Korea invaded South
Korea, and the world has never been the same since. (1:1)
The response to this aggression from North Korea was guick and
resolute by the United States as well as the United Nations.
It was very clear to President Truman that a Communist success
in Korea would only encourage further aggression elsewhere,
until no small nation would have the will to resist stronger
Communist neighbors. (4:49)
As soon as the President received word of the North
Korean invasion he sent a message to General MacArthur
directing him to evacuate the United States dependents and
noncombatants. MacArthur then authorized the Air Force and
Navy to take action to prevent the Inchon-Kimpo-Seoul area
from falling into unfriendly hands. The President also
ordered the U. S. Seventh Fleet to move north from the
Philippines to the strait between Formosa and China to fore-
stall attack in either direction and prevent the war from
spreading. America was rushing to the side of embattled South
Korea, but in that Inchon-Kimpo-Seoul area which MacArthur was
supposed to guarantee, the move was already too late. (4:49)
Early on in this conflict the United States of America
proved it would stand by and support its close ally. Thus,
the bonding and building of a strong military alliance
relationship was taking roots. Throughout the next three
years the United States of America would fight tooth and nail
with the South Korean people to defend their country from
Communist aggression. The following is a brief chronology of
significant events in the Korean War:
1950 -
25 June - North Korean Peoples Army crosses 38th
Parallel to invade South Korea.
25 June - U.N. Security Council calls for cease-fire
in Korea and withdrawl of North Korean troops.
27 June - North Korea refuses resolution; President
Truman orders U. S. Air and Sea Units to support South Korea.
30 June - President Truman orders U. S. Ground
Forces committed in Korea.
15 September - U.N. Forces land at Inchon.
28 September - Seoul recaptured by U. N. troops.
19 October - Pyongyang, capital of North Korea,
captured by U. N. Forces.
4 December - United Nations Forces in full retreat,
Pyongyang recaptured by Communists.
1951 -
4 January - Seoul again captured by Communists.
14 March - Seoul recaptured by U. N. Forces for
second time.
10 July - Truce talks begin and are off-again
on-again throughout 1951.
1952 -
2 December - President-elect Eisenhower tours Korea.
1953 -
27 July - Cease-fire agreement, Korean War ends.
5 August - Exchange of prisoners - "Operations Big
Switch" begins at Panmunjom.
In the decade that followed the Korean War, American
military assistance and economic aid flowed into South Korea in
extensive proportions. Cultural exchange also represented an
important line between our two peoples. Thus, the United
States of America became deeply involved in the complex prob-
lems of modernization faced by this troubled nation. We have
always been conscious - as have the Koreans - of the 38th
Parallel, which divides a people and a world. (7:IX)
South Korea and the United States of America are now bound
together in a mutual defense treaty. Should there ever again
occur an aggression from North Korea the United States of
America would automatically be at war.
Another important point to consider when discussing the
military alliance we share with the Republic of Korea is her
strategic location. The Korean Peninsula extends about 1,000
kilometers southward from the Northeast Asian continental land
mass. The Japanese Islands of Honshu and Kyushu are located
206 kilometers to the southeast across the Korea Strait (also
known as the Tsushima Strait) and the Shandong Peninsula of
China is found 190 kilometers to the west. The west coast of
the Korean Peninsula is bounded by the Korea Bay to the north
and the Yellow Sea to the south; the east coast is bounded by
the Sea of Japan (known in Korea as the East Sea). The 8,640
kilometer coastline is highly indented, and off the peninsula
lie some 3,579 islands, mostly along the south and west
coasts.
The northern land border of Korea is formed by the Yalu
and Tumen Rivers, which separate it from the Chinese provinces
of Jilin and Liaoning. At the end of World War II the
peninsula was divided into a northern zone occupied by Soviet
Forces and a southern zone occupied by United States Forces.
The boundry between the two being formed by the 38th Parallel
of latitude. Subseguently, two states - the Democratic
People's Republic of Korea (North Korea) in the north and the
Republic of Korea (South Korea) in the south - were establish-
ed. At the end of the Korean War in 1953 the boundry between
the two was formed by the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ). The DMZ
is a 4,000 meter-wide strip of land that runs along the line
of cease-fire from the east to the west coast for a distance
of 241 kilometers. (3:50-51)
The peninsula, contiguous to the two continental powers
of China and Russia adjacent to oceanic Japan, acted for a
long time as a land bridge through which continental culture
was transmitted to Japan. A peninsular location has both the
advantage of easy access to adjacent cultures and the dis-
advantage of becoming the target of aggressive neighbors.
(3:13) So it is easy to see that from a strategic standpoint
the Republic of Korea is a piece of key terrain that must not
be lost to Communist expansion.
The Republic of Korea is strategically important for
several other reasons. One is the sea lines of communication
out of Vladivosok are controlled by the Japanese and the
Republic of Korea through the open East Sea. Another is the
support the Republic of Korea provides to the flank of Japan.
And finally, the point that the Republic of Korea is the last
non-Communist country on the East Asian land mass makes it a
vital strategic area to not only United States of America
interests but also to Japan. The Japanese people still
remember their history and the strategic rivalry with Russia
which exploded in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-1905, won by
Japan. Under the peace treaty signed in September 1905,
Russia acknowledged Japan's "paramount political, military,
and economic interest" in Korea. Two months later Korea was
obliged to become a Japanese protectorate. Thereafter, a
large number of Koreans organized groups to engage in
educational and reform movements, but by then Japanese
dominance in Korea was a reality. Japan annexed Korea as a
colony on August 22, 1910. (2:12)
Some of the protection the Japanese provide to the
Republic of Korea today is in the form of United States basing
rights in their country. These basing rights hinge on the
fact that the United States is supporting the United Nations
Command in the Republic of Korea. Some feel that if the
United States of America made a major withdrawl of military
personnel and support from the Republic of Korea that it is
unlikely the United Nations would remain; therefore, the
potential loss of United States basing rights in Japan exists.
The strong economic growth the Republic of Korea has made
in the last several years is another significant factor which
must be considered when deciding the fate of the strong
military alliance we now share. Agriculture once occupied a
predominant share of Korea's industrial structure until the
recent industrialization of the economy. The Republic of
Korea is now one of the United States of America's major
trading partners. This fact is not hard to discover when
shopping for clothing, audio and video eguipment as well as
automobiles. The "Made in Korea" marking is slowly becoming
as routine as the "Made in Japan" or "Made in Hong Kong"
stamps.
Structural change in the Republic of Korea is reflected
in the composition of her export commodities. Export of
manufactured goods comprised 62.4 percent of the total in 1966
and thereafter, the portion increased substantially to 86.0
percent in 1971, 89.8 percent in 1976, and 95.4 percent in
1985. Heavy and chemical product exports made rapid strides
to occupy a larger and larger share in export composition.
The portion of manufactured goods increased to 58.2 percent in
1985 from 15.3 percent in 1966, primarily as a result of
increases in electronic production and shipbuilding. (3:369)
Emphasis was shifted from guantity-oriented to guality
oriented growth from 1980, and various industrial sectors were
subject to extensive reorganization. The heavy and chemical
industries in particular were restructured and the government
also discouraged overinvesting in these sectors. Industries
such as power generating facilities, telephone communications,
diesel engines, copper refineries, and heavy electrical
eguipment were also either restructured or programmed into
specialized production systems. (1:370) These dramatic
changes which are taking place in the Republic of Korea are
significant with regard to her status in the world economic
market. Many feel that the Republic of Korea will house one
of the top world economies by the year 1992. Economic
prosperity is on the rise and the world is watching as the
small, once war torn, country emerges on to the world scene as
an economic leader. The Republic of Korea has grown rapidly
in the last several years and will continue to progress
steadily into the next decade.
Another significant achievement the Republic of Korea has
made is successfully hosting the 1988 Summer Olympic Games in
Seoul. On September 30, 1981, the International Olympic
Committee meeting in Baden-Baden, West Germany gave Seoul the
nod in a 52 to 27 vote over the Japanese city of Nagoya. This
allowed the Republic of Korea to be the second Asian nation to
host the Olympics, following Japan. Seoul's success in
winning the bid for the Olympics was solid proof of her inter-
national recognition and of the Republic of Korea's capacity
and potential for growth as well as an incentive for the youth
of their nation to be proud of accomplishments they have made
in the athletic arena. As with most of the Olympic games, the
games of the XXIVth Olympiad in Seoul were not held without
political unrest. North Korea made strenuous efforts to
undermine Seoul's bid, but the Republic of Korea overcame
these obstacles. The Olympic Games were an overwhelming
success and some 13,000 athletes and officials from 161
countries competed. The games ran over a period that included
three weekends and two Korean national holidays. The games of
the XXIVth Olympiad provided the Republic of Korea a rare
opportunity to display to the world its own special cultural
talents and treasures making for international understanding
and friendship. The United States of America was surely proud
of her strong ally as the press reported to the world the
strong bonds we have between our two nations. The Olympic
games also provided a vehicle with which to show the vast
amount of the American public what a vital area the Republic
of Korea is to the United States of Americas national
interests.
Although the Republic of Korea is making great economic
and cultural strides her internal military establishment is
far inferior to that of North Korea. Finances alone will not
solve this imbalance in her ability to deter agression from
North Korea. The North started the Korean War in 1950 in the
hope of communizing the South, and their basic military
strategy has been basically the same ever since. In the
immediate wake of the Armistice Agreement in 1953, it began to
rebuld its military strength in a renewed pursuit of unifica-
tion through communization of the South by force. In 1962
their rearmament efforts were greatly stepped up when the
so-called four-point military policy, including "the arming of
the entire people" was adopted. North Korea has since been
frantically and ostentatiously expanding their military might.
(1:324)
Committed to a policy of peaceful unification, the
Republic of Korea has emphasized economic development and the
improvement of living standards to a greater extent than
armaments. This has resulted in the serious military imbal-
ance between the North and the South. The United States of
America provided a sizeable military presence during these
years of economic build up and thus allowed the Republic of
Korea to expand in other areas. The prospects for the
Republic of Korea to catch up militarily with the North are
bright, but it will take a few more years to do so. During
the next few years it will be critical to maintain the United
States military presence in the Republic of Korea.
The recent decline in the defense budget is driving a
trend toward the reduction of military expenditures wherever
possible. During this period of tight fiscal constraints it
has become apparent to some that if we reduce the number of
United States military personnel serving overseas we can
reduce the defense budget. There are those that feel by
making a major reduction of troop strength in the Republic of
Korea we can significantly reduce defense spending; but, we
must be very cautious when we look at ways to cut back on
military spending. The strategy of having forward deployed
units available to make a guick response to crisis is sound.
In many cases it is less expensive to house United States
forces in host nations than it would be to house them in the
United States of America and then deploy them as needed. The
loss in response time and the amount of assets available to
move the reguired force would far outweigh the cost of keeping
them permanently in a host nation.
A major reduction of United States military personnel in
the Republic of Korea would send a strong negative signal to
our allies throughout the entire world. Alliance relation-
ships are the cornerstone to the deterrence of hostile acts by
the North and must be maintained. It has taken many lives and
many years to build the foundation on which our alliance now
rests and as we move into the 1990's we must strive to con-
tinue these efforts. To do anything less would be a severe
injustice to those who have gone before us and weaken the
deterrent effect that this alliance so strongly portrays.
A growing number of anti-American riots by students in
Seoul suggests that the United States is meddling in the
affairs of the Republic of Korea and should stop. There are a
number of people in both the United States as well as the
Republic of Korea who believe that the American military
presence is the cause of this civil unrest; however, one must
realize that Seoul is a city of approximately 10 million
people and when a handful of students stage a confrontation in
front of the national press it may not be as significant as
the cameras show it to be. The vast majority of the Korean
populace still supports the United States military presence
and favors the continuation of our strong alliance relation-
ship. The healthy friendships we have forged in the Republic
of Korea have stood the test of time and should be maintained
today and into the future.
The Republic of Korea is emerging on the world scene as
both an economic power and as an ever increasing important geo-
graphical region; therefore, the United States must view with
concern the continued close military working relationsip that
exists between our two nations. Many feel that the Republic
of Korea should shoulder more of the economic burden for its
defense. Increased military spending by the Republic of Korea
would certainly bolster public opinion and be appealing but
with it might come an attempt to make a major reduction in the
American troop strength which would adversely effect our
alliance relationship.
Three key points must be considered prior to making any
major United States military personnel cuts in the Republic of
Korea. The first is the signal it would send to our allies
worldwide. A major decrease in American forces would show a
lesser commitment to our allies and soften the strong relation-
ships we have worked so hard to establish over the years.
Secondly, the deterrent effect would surely be weakened and
any weakness perceived by our adversaries to the north would
increase the possibility of a strike. Finally, and probably
one of the most important points would be the negative impact
our own personnel would suffer by a decreased readiness
posture. Training with our allies on their soil is a point
that shouldn't be taken lightly. If the need arises to defend
United States interests in the Republic of Korea we must be
fully prepared for a guick response. The only way to stay
alert is to continue the American military presence at current
strengths and show the world that we are ready, willing, and
able to counter any threat along with our allies.
Some may guest ion whether the threat from the North is
real or imaginary. As has been made clear time and time
again, the fundamental policy of the Republic of Korea toward
the guestion of the reunification of the divided land is that
there should be peace before unification. On the other hand,
North Korea has made no bones about its ultimate goal of
unifying the land through armed force. Its basic strategy is to
consolidate North Korea as a base for revolution in the South
pending the arrival of the "historial moment" when it will
create a second front deep in South Korea with guerrilla forces,
and at the same time launch a decisive thrust across the truce
line. (1:319) It is for these reasons that the United States
military presence is necessary. The tilting of the existing
power balance in Korea by a premature withdrawl of United States
troops would certainly prove an invitation to North Korea to
invade the South.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Alexander, Bevin. Korea - The First War We Lost. New York:
Hippocrene Books, 1986.
2. Bunge, Frederica, ed., South Korea - A Country Study.
Washington, D.C.: American University, 1982.
3. Korean Overseas Information Services, A Handbook of Korea,
Seoul: Seould International Publishing House, 1987.
4. Leckie, Robert. Conflict. New York: G. P. Putnam's Sons,
1962.
5. Marshall, S. L. A. The Military History of the Korean War.
New York: Franklin Watts, Inc., 1963.
6. McCune, George, ed., Korean-American Relations, Vol 1.
Berkeley, Los Angeles: University of California Press,
1951.
7. Palmer, Spencer, ed., Korean-American Relations, Vol II.
Berkeley, Los Anglees: University of California Press,
1963.
8. Rees, David, Korea: The Limited War. New York: St.
Martins Press, 1964.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
