When South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun meets US President George W. Bush in Washington today, relations between their two nations will be worse than at any time since Americans and South Koreans fought, bled and died together in the Korean War that ended in 1953.
The North Korean nuclear threat will be high on the summit's agenda, but the fundamental, underlying issue will be: "Can and should the deeply troubled alliance between the US and South Korea be salvaged and, if so, how?"
The responsibility for reviving US-South Korean bonds will rest on both presidents, but Roh must decide first whether that would serve South Korea's interests. If the Koreans say no, there would be little that the US could do about it; alliances can't be built on sand.
ILLUSTRATION: YU SHA
If the Koreans say yes, it would be up to Bush to respond positively. Given his attention on Iraq, the "war on terror," the Arab-Israeli conflict and domestic issues, it is an open question as to whether he values the alliance with Seoul enough to make the effort. A small and discouraging clue is in the arrangements for the meeting: Roh will meet Bush in the White House, take part in a working lunch and fly home. No state dinner, no chats with Congressional leaders, none of the pageantry that often surrounds a visit by an allied leader.
Roh's spokesman, Kim Man-soo, sought to put the best face on it, saying Roh would "focus his attention on substantive consultations" and would "attend no other events than the summit talks."
Evidence of the endangered alliance, based in the Mutual Defense Treaty of 1953, dots the landscape. Both sit atop divided nations but from opposite sides of the political spectrum, Bush a conservative, Roh a progressive, which influences their respective decisions.
On North Korea, Bush sees the North's leader Kim Jong-il as an implacable enemy. Roh, reflecting views of younger Koreans, prefers to accommodate -- some say appease -- Kim, whom he sees as an errant brother. Bush has taken a hard line in negotiations to persuade Pyongyang to give up its plans to acquire nuclear arms that would threaten US forces in Asia, Alaska and Hawaii. Roh and many South Koreans doubt that the North would use those weapons against them.
The Bush administration wants "strategic flexibility" for the 32,500 US troops in the South to be able to deploy to missions elsewhere. Roh has made clear that his government will not permit the US to use South Korea as a base for missions it does not approve of.
Roh has asserted that Seoul should seek to be a "balancer" between the US and China as Beijing acquires more military, economic and political power in Asia. American critics ask how a supposed ally can strike a balance with a potential adversary.
US military planners in Seoul drew up a contingency plan designated 5029 under which US and South Korean forces would move into economically stricken North Korea to establish order if the North's regime imploded. Roh's government killed the plan.
Japanese officials let it be known that Tokyo could not pass US intelligence reports to Seoul because the Americans don't trust Roh's government. South Korean spokesmen blasted the Japanese for the revelation -- but didn't deny it.
Roh has suggested that South Korea no longer needs US forces for defense.
"We have sufficient power to defend ourselves," he said. "We have nurtured mighty national armed forces that absolutely no one can challenge."
In 12 policy goals Roh set for his five-year term in office that began in 2002, little of security or foreign policy was declared, beyond platitudes, and nowhere was the alliance with the US mentioned.
Behind these disputes is a rampant anti-Americanism that has begun to have a backlash. Every week or so thousands of South Koreans demonstrate near the US embassy or US military headquarters in Seoul that look like prisons behind thickets of barbed wire.
US Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld has said several times: "We will not stay where we are not wanted."
South Koreans sometimes say this is part of an identity crisis that causes them to strike out against Americans, Japanese and anyone else they think has crossed them.
"The South Koreans fight over what they hate," said a South Korean scholar who asked not to be named, "not over what they stand for."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
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