Only if...
Sometimes it is sad to read a reasonable piece in newspapers, because it reminds me how exceptionally intelligent people can be blinder to the world than the dumbest. David C. Kang’s article “A Better Korean Strategy” in Monday’s Washington Post is just such a piece. Everything Kang suggested is reasonable and noble. If they were all done, we would have a safer, more prosperous and just world. What he did not take into consideration is the global political and military ambitions of the US. If indeed with genuine help from the US the two Koreas successfully reunite, there will be no need for the 35,000 or so US soldiers stationed in South Korea. With projecting military power the guiding principle of long term US military strategy, they would not want to lose their largest and most well armed ground presence in East Asia. So, militarily it is to the US’s interest to keep Korea divided. Also, Kang correctly stated the increasing resentment for the US’s influence in South Korea. It seems unlikely if the Koreas reunite, the new country will move closer to the US politically, militarily and economically. The country that would reap these benefits would most likely be China to whom, for geographical and economic reason, South Korea has move closer in the past decade. Without the existence and continuing irritation of North Korea, there would be no real reason for any country in East Asia, other than Taiwan perhaps, to prioritise their relationship with the US over others. Kang has clearly mistaken what is good for Korea with the desire of the US.
posted by Unknown at 1:34 a.m.
2 Comments:
"Without the existence and continuing irritation of North Korea, there would be no real reason for any country in East Asia, other than Taiwan perhaps, to prioritise their relationship with the US over others."
Why not Japan? Declining population, politically estranged from neighbors whose power only increases... Japan shouldn't fear China so much, but a unified Korea has as much chance of becoming a batshit-crazy outpost of nationalism as it does of becoming a reasonable power. Add nuclear weapons to the mix and suddenly Japan needs to cleave much closer to the Yankee.
"Kang has clearly mistaken what is good for Korea with the desire of the US."
You said, brother.
Japan may need to cleave much closer to the Yanks in many ways but I don't see much chance for it militarily unless Japan suffers debilitating defeats first. What Japan wants right now, perhaps more than anything else, is to change the constitution to reestablish a proper military force. They will want less Yankee military presence, on land at least, so that they can have a more equal military partnership with them. The real latent danger in East Asia right now is not really North Korea but East China Sea, with everybody claiming the same possibly natural gas rich island chain there. The situation will only worsen, unless somehow the three countries all become less nationalistic rather than more, in the next decade or so. Nobody really want US in any fight for resources. Regardless which senario, I only see a dramatic decrease of US military presence in East Asia; unless, of course, US cut relationship with China and station troops in Taiwan. But then, if that happens, WWIII won't be far off.
Post a Comment
<< Home