The South Korean navy has begun to remake itself from a coastal patrol force intended to foil North Korea into a blue water fleet able to project power onto the high seas, which has implications rippling out from Seoul to Singapore.
In late May, the navy launched its first AEGIS destroyer, a high-tech ship designed to fight other ships, chase submarines and defend against aerial attacks.
Two more AEGIS destroyers are to be added over the next five years, at a total cost of US$3.4 billion, with three more possible after that.
Beyond that are plans for nine smaller destroyers, the same number of frigates, 32 corvettes, and more than 100 other patrol ships, minesweepers and logistic vessels to be built over the next 15 years.
Two large amphibious ships, and maybe a third, will each carry a battalion of 750 marines and 15 helicopters. Added to that will be 23 landing craft.
For missions under the sea, the South Koreans plan to acquire 36 diesel-electric submarines. In the air, the navy plans to obtain eight to 16 P-3C anti-submarine planes and nearly 60 helicopters. A new base is on the drawing board for the island of Cheju at the southern tip of the peninsula to give the new fleet access to the East China Sea and the Pacific Ocean.
The reasons for the buildup of the Republic of Korea Navy (ROKN) are many. At the launch of the new destroyer on May 31, President Roh Moo-hyun suggested that national pride was a priority for a Korea that he hopes will be reunified one day soon.
"South and North Korea will not keep picking quarrels with each other forever," the president said.
Looking to a reunified Korea, he said: "We have to equip the nation with the capability to defend itself. The AEGIS destroyer we are dedicating today could be the best symbol of that capability."
Roh returned to a theme that has marked his presidency for four years, which is to have South Korea rely less on the US for security.
"We have to build up an adequate ability in all areas that constitute war power," he said, "so that we will be able to defend ourselves without fail."
The name of the new ship, King Sejong the Great, is emblematic. Ruling from 1418 to 1450, King Sejong is best known for having fostered a simplified form of writing that enabled all Koreans to read and write. But he also sent Korean forces to fight Chinese in Manchuria and Japanese pirates.
Today, South Koreans are divided between those who would retain the alliance with the US forged in the Korean War and those who seek independence or a tilt toward China.
Many naval officers, having operated with the US Navy for years, favor a continued alliance.
"The Korean Navy," said an admiral, "should build a force that can support the ROK-US alliance."
Those officers, however, appear to harbor the same antipathy toward Japan as most of their compatriots and suggest that their new fleet may one day confront Japan, which ruled Korea with an iron hand from 1910 to 1945. At the very least, they see Japan as a rival whose fleet they aim to match.
US officials, who consider their alliance with Japan vital to their security posture in Asia, privately lament the Korean attitude toward Japan.
Some have urged the Koreans to put the past behind them and to dismiss what one called "the myth that Japan is going back to the militarism of the 1930s."
US officials suggested that the US would applaud the ROKN's plan, provided the South Koreans continued to operate with the US Navy and resolved their differences with Japan.
As it has expanded over the last three decades, the South Korean economy has come to depend heavily on imports and exports.
That trade is seaborne because South Korea is cut off from Asia by the demilitarized zone that splits the peninsula. Korea imports, for instance, 78 percent of its petroleum from the Middle East through the Malacca Strait and the South China Sea in Southeast Asia, which are vulnerable to pirates and terrorists.
"There is no doubt," concluded a naval officer, "that the ROK's future prosperity depends on the use of the sea. Building a naval force to defend this maritime domain is becoming a key issue in the ROK's future national security strategy."
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii.
Yesterday’s recall and referendum votes garnered mixed results for the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). All seven of the KMT lawmakers up for a recall survived the vote, and by a convincing margin of, on average, 35 percent agreeing versus 65 percent disagreeing. However, the referendum sponsored by the KMT and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) on restarting the operation of the Ma-anshan Nuclear Power Plant in Pingtung County failed. Despite three times more “yes” votes than “no,” voter turnout fell short of the threshold. The nation needs energy stability, especially with the complex international security situation and significant challenges regarding
Most countries are commemorating the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II with condemnations of militarism and imperialism, and commemoration of the global catastrophe wrought by the war. On the other hand, China is to hold a military parade. According to China’s state-run Xinhua news agency, Beijing is conducting the military parade in Tiananmen Square on Sept. 3 to “mark the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II and the victory of the Chinese People’s War of Resistance Against Japanese Aggression.” However, during World War II, the People’s Republic of China (PRC) had not yet been established. It
Much like the first round on July 26, Saturday’s second wave of recall elections — this time targeting seven Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers — also failed. With all 31 KMT legislators who faced recall this summer secure in their posts, the mass recall campaign has come to an end. The outcome was unsurprising. Last month’s across-the-board defeats had already dealt a heavy blow to the morale of recall advocates and the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), while bolstering the confidence of the KMT and its ally the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP). It seemed a foregone conclusion that recalls would falter, as
A recent critique of former British prime minister Boris Johnson’s speech in Taiwan (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” by Sasha B. Chhabra, Aug. 12, page 8) seriously misinterpreted his remarks, twisting them to fit a preconceived narrative. As a Taiwanese who witnessed his political rise and fall firsthand while living in the UK and was present for his speech in Taipei, I have a unique vantage point from which to say I think the critiques of his visit deliberately misinterpreted his words. By dwelling on his personal controversies, they obscured the real substance of his message. A clarification is needed to
RSS