Next month, 3,000 South Korean troops will leave for Iraq. The mission will be to help in post-war reconstruction but the clear message will be Seoul putting it out for Washington in a strong show of support for South Korea's main ally and protector -- the US.
And the opportunity to show this loyalty -- after the Americans and the British, the Koreans will be the coalition's third-largest troop formation -- could not have come at a more crucial time in the wake of Washington's announcement that up to one-third of its 36,000-strong garrison in South Korea is to be withdrawn.
The US cutback, scheduled to be complete by 2006, is part of Washington's "global posture review." Already 3,600 personnel are preparing to leave for Iraq and although Seoul had expected a reduction, the speed and scale of the proposals have come as a surprise particularly as North Korea remains belligerent.
Ironically, many in the south blame US President George W. Bush's "axis of evil" rhetoric and his administration's own belligerence for the worsening situation in the peninsula which, as recently as last week, saw Pyongyang threaten further nuclear testing.
The US military in South Korea forms the US' second-largest foreign garrison, after Germany, and most are posted close to the demilitarized zone, which has divided the two Koreas since the end of the Korean War. With the world's third-largest standing army on the other side of the zone, and the Americans talking withdrawal, the South Koreans are waking up to a new reality.
Cost, for one thing. The US has promised compensation with US$11 billion in military equipment, but a report earlier this month by a South Korean Ministry of Defense think tank has estimated the cost of filling the subsequent "security vacuum" -- following the proposed US troop reduction -- at US$180 billion over 20 years, which amounts to more than double current levels of military spending.
But at a deeper level, the South Koreans are perhaps rethinking their whole approach to the US with their historic anti-Americanism becoming less and less strident as they realize support for their old ally is the price they must pay for their continued security.
Speculation has been that Washington has finally had it with the strong and, until recently, unrelenting anti-Americanism running through South Korean society and that a petulant Pentagon has finally withdrawn its hand after getting it bitten once too often.
Lee Sung-hoon, a former South Korean defense minister, and many others, certainly believe this might be the case, in part at any rate. He and others see the Pentagon's new position as a response to the widespread anti-US feeling demonstrated by the South Korean public in recent years.
And here is the heart of the South Koreans' dilemma -- their love-hate relationship with the US. Seoul has put its troops where its mouth is. But a 100,000-name petition said South Korean soldiers should not be sent to the Middle East.
In a comment in the Korea Herald, Lee wrote diplomatically: "I would not deny that there are loud anti-American voices being raised among Korean people, but we should note that most Koreans show confidence in the United States and believe that the United States Forces in Korea ... are absolutely needed."
South Korean students stage political demonstrations across the country each summer. Until recently the issues were clear and consistent: reunification with North Korea and the removal of all US forces from the South. But the enemy is not so obvious any more. This year's "Yankee go home" shouts were much quieter.
"Maybe we won't be able to survive without America," explains Park Mi-sun, a student at Seoul National University and a committed marcher.
"If (the US troops) leave, it will be dangerous for us," she said.
Does she like America?
"No! But these days we must accept it," she said.
Even the decision to send South Korean troops to Iraq prompted only a meager march of around 2,500 students.
"We know it's right to dispatch the soldiers," says another student. "We need a good balance between the US and Korea."
Or, as Lee writes: "I believe that if we take faithful actions with regard to the US, they will understand the current situation of South Korea, their friend for more than 50 years."
South Korea is being held to ransom, and in a dangerous world this is increasingly seen as the price for protection. As an editorial in Chosun Ilbo, the South Korean national daily, put it: "If we could live without protection from a powerful, arrogant nation, we would do it."
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past