NY Times News Service, WOLMI ISLAND, South Korea
When US troops stormed this island more than half a century ago, it was a hive of communist trenches and pillboxes. Now it is a park where children play and retirees stroll along a tree-shaded esplanade.
From a hilltop across a narrow channel, General Douglas MacArthur, memorialized in bronze, appears to gaze down at the beaches of Inchon where his troops splashed ashore in September 1950, changing the course of the Korean War and making him a hero here. In the port below, rows of cars, gleaming in the sun, wait to be shipped around the world — testimony to South Korea’s industrial might and a reminder of which side has triumphed economically since the conflict ended 55 years ago.
But inside a ragged tent at the entrance of the park, a group of aging South Koreans gather daily to draw attention their side of the conflict, a story of carnage not mentioned in South Korea’s official histories or textbooks.
“When the napalm hit our village, many people were still sleeping in their homes,” 76-year-old Lee Beom-ki said. “Those who survived the flames ran to the tidal flats. We were trying to show the American pilots that we were civilians. But they strafed us, women and children.”
Village residents say dozens of civilians were killed.
The attack, though not the civilian casualties, has been corroborated by declassified US military documents recently reviewed by South Korean investigators. The documents say that on Sept. 10, 1950, five days before the Inchon landing, 43 US warplanes swarmed over Wolmi, dropping 93 napalm canisters to “burn out” its eastern slope in attempt to clear the way for US troops.
The documents and survivors’ stories convinced a South Korean commission investigating long-suppressed allegations of wartime atrocities by Koreans and Americans to rule recently that the attack violated international conventions on war and to ask the country’s leaders to seek compensation from the US.
The ruling was one of several by the government’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission in recent months that accused the US military of using indiscriminate force on three separate occasions in 1950 and 1951 as troops struggled against communists from the North and from China. The commission says at least 228 civilians, and perhaps hundreds more, were killed in the three attacks.
In one case, the commission said, at least 167 villagers, more than half of them women, were burned to death or asphyxiated in Tanyang, 140km southeast of Seoul, when US planes dropped napalm at the entrance of a cave filled with refugees.
“We should not ignore or conceal the deaths of unarmed civilians that resulted not from the mistakes of a few soldiers but from systematic aerial bombing and strafing,” said Kim Dong-choon, a senior commission official. “History teaches us that we need an alliance, but that alliance should be based on humanitarian principles.”
The South Korean government has not disclosed how it plans to follow up on the findings. And Major Stewart Upton, a Defense Department spokesman in Washington, said the Pentagon could not comment on the reports pending formal action by the South Korean government.
TABOO CRITICISM
Under South Korea’s earlier authoritarian and staunchly anti-communist governments, criticism of US actions in the war was taboo.
But after investigations showed that US soldiers killed South Korean civilians in air and ground attacks on the hamlet of No Gun Ri in 1950 — and after the US acknowledged the deaths but refused to investigate other claims — a liberal government set up the fact-finding commission in 2005. More than 500 petitions, some describing the same actions, were filed to demand the investigation of allegations of mass killings by US troops, mostly in airstrikes.
The recent findings were the commission’s first against the US and it is unlikely that the commission has the time or resources to investigate many more before it is disbanded, which may be as early as 2010.
The Wolmi victims’ demands for recognition tap into complicated emotions underlying South Korea’s alliance with the US.
“We thank the American troops for saving our country from communism, for the peace and prosperity we have today,” said Han In-deuk, chairwoman of a Wolmi advocacy group. “Does that mean we have to shut up about what happened to our families?”
The airstrikes came during desperate times for the US forces and for the South Koreans they came to defend.
The war broke out in June 1950 with a communist invasion from the north. In September, when the US military planned the landing at Inchon to relieve UN forces cornered in the southeastern tip of the peninsula, it decided it first had to neutralize Wolmi, which overlooks the channel that approaches the harbor.
“The mission was to saturate the area so thoroughly with napalm that all installations on that area would be burned,” Marine pilots said in one of their mission reports on Wolmi that was retrieved by the commission from the National Archives and Records Administration of the US.
They also reported that no troops were seen, “but the flashes observed on the ground indicated the intensity of the fire to be accurate enough to destroy any about.”
The reports describe strafing on the beach but make no mention of civilian casualties.
The Inchon landing helped UN troops recapture Seoul and drive back the North Koreans. But the tide turned again when China entered the war.
The other two attacks the commission ruled on, in Tanyang and Sansong, south of Seoul, occurred as communist forces barreled down the peninsula. As the allies fell back, they were being attacked by guerrillas they could not easily distinguish from refugees.
Fearing enemy infiltration, US troops stopped refugees streaming down the roads and told them to return home or stay in the hills, or risk getting shot by allied troops. On Jan. 14, 1951, the Army’s X Corps under Major General Edward Almond ordered the “methodical destruction of dwellings and other buildings forward of front lines which are, or susceptible of being, utilized by the enemy for shelter.”
It recommended airstrikes.
“Excellent results” was how US pilots summarized their strikes at Sansong on Jan. 19, 1951.
The same day, however, one of Almond’s subordinates, Brigadier General David Barr of the 7th Infantry Division, wrote to Almond that “methodical burning out poor farmers when no enemy is present is against the grain of US soldiers.”
At least 51 villagers, including 16 children, were killed in Sansong, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission says.
CIVILIAN ATTACK
The attack on Tanyang followed the next day, when survivors say US planes dropped napalm near the entrance of the cave where refugees had sought shelter.
“When the napalm hit the entrance, the blast and smoke knocked out kerosene and castor-oil lamps we had in the cave,” Eom Han-won, then 15, said in an interview. “It was a pitch-black chaos — people shouting for each other, stampeding, choking. Some said we should crawl in deeper, covering our faces with wet cloth. Some said we should rush out through the blaze. Those who were not burned to death suffocated.”
Like Eom’s family, most of the people were refugees who had been turned back at an US roadblock south of Tanyang, survivors said. In the days before the attack, the cave was packed with families. When the US warplanes flew in from the southwest, children were playing outside amid cattle and baggage.
That day, the 7th Division’s operations logs noted that 13 planes attacked “enemy troops” and “pack animals and cave.”
It reported “many casualties and got all animals.”
Eom, who rushed out of the cave into a hail of machine-gun fire from the warplanes but survived, said: “The Americans pushed us back toward the enemy area and then bombed us.”
He lost 10 family members.
Shortly afterward, South Korea’s 2nd Division reported 34 civilians killed and 72 wounded at Sansong, but “no enemy casualties,” prompting the US military to open an investigation. The investigators did not dispute the South Korean report but concluded that the airstrike was “amply justified.” They said that Sansong was considered an enemy haven and that its residents had been warned to evacuate.
The case appeared closed until several years ago, when, in the course of a South Korean television reporter’s investigation, villagers acquired a copy of the US military’s wartime report and read that they had been told to evacuate. They insist, and the commission agreed, that this was not true. They say the village that the North Korean troops passed through was elsewhere and was never bombed.
Regarding the Wolmi attack, the commission said that while it recognized the need for the landing at Inchon, it could find “no evidence of efforts to limit civilian casualties.”
Wolmi survivors said the North Korean officers’ housing was about 300m away from their village. They say the US pilots, whose mission reports noted “visibility unlimited” and firing altitudes of as low as 30m, should not have mistaken villagers, including many women and children, for the enemy.
They said the US troops later bulldozed their charred village to build a base.
“If you say these killings were not deliberate and were mistakes, how can you explain the fact that there were so many of these incidents?” asked Park Myung-lim, a historian at Yonsei University in Seoul.
The victims’ grievances found an outlet in 2005, when some left-leaning civic groups tried to topple the MacArthur statue. But Wolmi survivors said they did not join the protest for fear they might be branded anti-American.
“We consider MacArthur a hero to our country, but no one can know the suffering our family endured,” said Chung Ji-eun, an Inchon cab driver whose father died at Wolmi. “Both governments emphasize the alliance, but they never care about people like us who were sacrificed in the name of alliance.”
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath