Should U.S. Military Keep Staying in South Korea - Essay Example

The presence of a foreign army within the borders of a sovereign nation appears to be a direct violation of the nation's sovereignty. The norm is that armies stay within their own borders and only in instances of war or as part of a multinational/regional force, cross their borders. The reason is that armies symbolize aggressive power, with the implication being that a foreign army in a sovereign territory is a potential threat to the nation's independence and undermines its sovereignty. It is with such a rationale in mind that countless of Iraqis, not to mention millions across the world, viewed the American military's entry into Iraq as an attack upon the nation's sovereignty. Contrary to the claims of the Bush Administration, they did not perceive of the U.S. military as a force of liberation and a symbol of freedom but as an aggressor who violated international laws through uninvited entry into a sovereign nation. While the Iraqi scenario is, arguably, typical of attitudes towards foreign military presence in a sovereign nation, the case of South Korea is somewhat different. South Korea is a sovereign nation whose sovereignty is not threatened by the U.S, military but ensured and protected through its continued presence. Despite the fact that some within South Korea are arguing in favour of the departure of the American military, the historical contribution of the U.S. military to South Korea and the role that it plays in the securitization of the nation support its continued presence. The majority of South Koreans, including President Roh and his government, are in favour of a U.S, military withdrawal from South Korea. The United States, according to Richard Halloran (2006), the military correspondent for the New York Times, is complying with the South Korean demand for withdrawal and has already begun phasing out its military forces in the country. The United States argues that its decision is based on a number of considerations. These include the Iraq and Afghanistan wars and the resultant pressure they have placed on US military forces; the United States' belief that South Korea is finally in a position to assume responsibility for its own national defence; and South Korean public opinion (Halloran, 2006). Indeed, a recent public opinion poll has indicated that the majority of South Koreans are strongly in favour of U.S. military withdrawal and both the President and the government have repeatedly expressed the imperatives of U.S. military withdrawal from the country (Holloran, 2006). It is for these reasons that the United States has commenced military withdrawal from South Korea. A review of the historical contribution which the United States military has made to South Korea's stability, national security and evolution into a democratic nation supports arguments against withdrawal. The history of the US military presence in South Korea stretches back to 1945 when, at the conclusion of World War II, the American forces liberated the Korean Peninsula. As Yang, a Korean political scientist and author of North and South Korean Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis explains, prior to the American military liberation of Korea, the Peninsula had suffered 35 years of brutal Japanese military occupation. During those thirty-five years, the Japanese attempted to obliterate the Korean identity, exploited the nation and abused its population and, more importantly, completely undermined and annihilated the very notion of Korean sovereignty. While conceding to the fact that the United States hardly attempted to intervene in this situation prior to World War II, the fact is that its eventual comprehension of the Japanese military threat motivated intervention in favour of the Korean Peninsula. Indeed, were it not for the United States' military, the Korean Peninsula is quite unlikely to have regained its sovereignty and independence as early as 1945 (Yang, 2004). In other words, US military intervention has played a profoundly constructive role in the country's history. Apart from its responsibility for the Korean Peninsula's independence, the United States' military is responsible for the country's continued independence and its evolution as a democratic nation. As Kim (2001), a Korean military historian, explains in his book, The Politics of Military Revolution in Korea, following World War II, the Korean Peninsula, as did several other areas, became one of the primary focal points of the Cold War. While the superpowers divided the Peninsula for their own self-interests and out of consideration for their own national security, above all else, the fact remains that the United States is responsible for the formation of South Korea in 1948 and, most importantly, for the evolution of the country into a stable and secure democracy, quite unlike the case with North Korea (Kim, 2001). The United States' military presence in the country securitised it from external threats, especially those levelled against it by North Korea, encouraged foreign direct investment in the country and, indeed, played a fundamental and undeniable role in the political and economic shape which the country has assumed (Kim, 2001). The implication here is, therefore, that the United States' military presence contributed to the country which South Korea now is, and the economic and political stability which the South Koreans now enjoy. While one may very well argue that the collapse of the Soviet Union and the subsequent permanent conclusion of the Cold War has eliminated the need for an American military presence in the country, this is not true. Communism has collapsed, the threat posed by the Soviet Union has been eliminated and the Cold War has ended but, South Korea still confronts a formidable enemy in the shape of North Korea. As Norman Friedman, an American military analyst and naval warfare scholar, explains in his article, "Just How Dangerous is North Korea," North Korea is an undeniable threat to the sovereignty, continued stability, democracy and economic well-being of South Korea. As its economic decline continues and the state continues to exhibit an inability to sustain itself, it turns its attention towards South Korea. It looks towards South Korea's economic stability and sees it as a partial answer to its economic crisis. In other words, North Korea has, one more than one occasion, insinuated that the division of the Peninsula is illegitimate and the two countries are a false creation, implying that forced unification is an option (Friedman, 2005). The fact of the matter is that South Korea has the military capability necessary for the carrying out of this threat. Furthermore, while Kang (2003) quite clearly states that a threat by North Korea does not necessarily mean that it will take action to carry out that threat against South Korea, it also does not mean that the threat should be, or even can be, taken lightly. North Korea is a military country and, indeed, has poured all of its national resources into the development of its army and in the acquisition of nuclear capabilities. South Korea, in comparison, is largely a non-military country whose resources were diverted towards economic growth and development. The implication here is that even though South Korea has a military, it is improbable that it can defend itself against a full-blown attack by North Korea (Kang, 2003; Friedman, 2005). Indeed, it is the presence of the U.S. military in South Korea which negates the north Korean threat and protects the country against any potential aggression from its neighbour. The withdrawal of the US military, within the context of this interpretation, implies the withdrawal of a significant part of South Korea's national defence and can undermine national security. Even though the United States and South Korea both argue that decades of military cooperation and alliance between them has left South Korea in a position where it is amply capable of defending itself, the fact is that this is an uncertain proposition. As Lee (2003) admits, the United States has trained the south Korean military and would definitely not want south Korea to be in a position where it can be overrun by North Korea. At the same time, however, Lee (2003) concedes to the fact that a confrontation between the two could have a catastrophic effect on South Korean society and economy. Added to that, a collapse of the North Korean regime, seen as imminent by several international affairs' analysts, will have a similarly negative impact on South Korea (Lee, 2003). From this perspective, US military presence in South Korea is essential for the negation of the North Korean threat and withdrawal could leave South Korea quite vulnerable to the military advances of North Korea. In the final analysis, South Korean sovereignty must be affirmed. At the same time, however, it must be stressed that the United States' military presence in the country has not threatened the country's sovereignty and, indeed, has contributed to its protection and assurance. If the United States was able to positively promote its interests in the region through a military presence in South Korea, South Korea similarly gained from the relationship. Indeed, despite south Korean public and official sentiments regarding the presence of the US military in the country, this military has played a fundamental role in South Korea's democracy, security, stability and economic well-being. A withdrawal, prior to the resolution of the North Korean threat could leave South Korea vulnerable. It is, thus, that the US military should stay in South Korea. Bibliography Friedman, N. (2005) Just how dangerous is North Korea U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings, 131(4), 4-6. Halloran, R. (2006) Phasing out US forces in South Korea. Real Clear Politics. Retrieved 20 March 2008 from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/printpage/url=http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/07/phasing_out_us_forces_in_south.html Kang, E.C.S. (2003) Restructuring the US-South Korea alliance to deal with the second Korean nuclear crisis. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(2), 309-325. Kim, S. (2001) The Politics of Military Revolution in Korea. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press. Lee, C.M. (2003) Reassessing the ROK-US alliance: transformation challenges and the consequences of South Korea's choices. Australian Journal of International Affairs, 57(2), 281-306. Yang, S. (2004) The North and South Korean Political Systems: A Comparative Analysis. Boulder: Westview Press. Read More