The public tiff between US President George W. Bush and South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun in Australia the other day was not much more than a momentary spat but it did underscore the continuing decline in relations between the US and South Korea, which are supposedly allies.
It has become increasingly clear that Bush and Roh don't like each other much and that their respective administrations don't trust each other. In policy, the two capitals have fundamentally different ideas on how to treat North Korea, Washington taking a hard line while Seoul comes close to appeasing Pyongyang's dictator, Kim Jong-il.
Moreover, a Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, nicknamed KORUS, is in trouble in the US Congress and Seoul's National Assembly, both of which must ratify it. It was signed in June after months of contentious negotiations in which each side sought to best the other with "take it or leave it" provisions before reaching a compromise.
Beyond the government in Seoul, the younger generation of South Koreans has turned ever more anti-American and wants US troops -- which will be down to 25,000 by the end of this year -- to be further reduced if not completely withdrawn. US military leaders, needing every soldier they can get for Iraq or other contingencies, are only too willing to leave South Korea.
To add to the storm, North Korea -- with its decades of experience of playing the Soviet Union and China off against each other to their own benefit in the 1960's and 1970's -- is now manipulating the US and South Korea against each other.
Amid this dismal standoff is one stabilizing element: US and South Korean military officers both assert that they are getting along well as they stand guard against a threat from the North. Privately, however, they each confess that they are hoping a political leader not in the mold of Roh is elected in December and takes over in February.
This latest political squabble broke out unexpectedly during a press conference in Sydney during the APEC forum when Roh tried to push Bush into saying something the US president didn't want to say.
After routine remarks by both presidents, Roh said: "I think I might be wrong -- I think I did not hear President Bush mention a declaration to end the Korean War just now. Did you say so, President Bush?"
Bush replied, testily: "I said it's up to Kim Jong-il as to whether or not we're able to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War. He's got to get rid of his weapons in a verifiable fashion. And we're making progress toward that goal. It's up to him."
Roh persisted: "I believe that they are the same thing, Mr. President. If you could be a little bit clearer in your message, I think."
Bush, annoyed: "I can't make it any more clear, Mr. President. We look forward to the day when we can end the Korean War. That will happen when Kim Jong-il verifiably gets rid of his weapons programs and his weapons."
On the free-trade agreement, the president of the Korea Economic Institute, Charles Pritchard, was quoted recently on the hurdles it faces in Congress. He said several lawmakers had said they would oppose the KORUS.
The disparity between Roh, Bush and Kim over an agenda for next month's summit meeting of the North and South Korean leaders scheduled is striking. Roh has stated that his top priority is a peace treaty ending the Korean War of 1950 to 1953. Kim is reported to be seeking recognition of North Korea as a nuclear weapons state.
Bush, who will watch from the sidelines in Washington, has said that his first priority is to persuade the North Koreans to give up nuclear weapons.
Not much room for a meeting of the minds there.
Richard Halloran is a writer based in Hawaii
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS