Korea Left Out of Condi’s List of American Allies in Pacific
by Brendon Carr
American media may have missed it, but you can bet your sweet bippy the Korean press—particularly the conservative press like the Chosun Ilbo—noticed the subtle way Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice described the Republic of Korea as somewhat less of an ally to the United States than Asia-Pacific stalwarts Japan and Australia:
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice calls South Korea a “global partner” but Japan and Australia “allies” in an article in the July-August issue of bimonthly journal Foreign Affairs, in what appears the latest manifestation of a subtle shift in America’s regional focus.
In a cover story entitled, “Rethinking the National Interest, American Realism for a New World,” Rice writes, “Democratization is also deepening across the Asia-Pacific region… This is expanding our circle of allies and advancing the goals we share.”
“We enjoy a strong, democratic alliance with Australia, with key states in Southeast Asia… and with Japan—an economic giant that is emerging as a ‘normal’ state, capable of working to secure and spread our values both in Asia and beyond.”
As for South Korea, it “too, has become a global partner whose history can boast an inspiring journey from poverty and dictatorship to democracy and prosperity,” she adds.
America’s great friends Russia and China are usually described as US “partners” in this kind of diplospeak, so Rice’s description ought to send a chill down the spine of everyone in Korea who cherishes the “alliance forged in blood” and the special treatment—in military affairs and in trade affairs too—that Korea has received for 50 years as a result.
I wonder how the latest beef protests may figure into US policymakers’ evaluation of the relationship. I don’t think Rice would have been writing for Foreign Affairs with knowledge of the late May events in Seoul. Yes, the Korea-US Free Trade Agreement is dead, dead, dead (good job, guys!), but is the dysfunctional ROK-US “alliance” also dead? Korea is in a bad neighborhood with China, Russia, and North Korea. If the US is ready to wash its hands of the Republic of Korea as an ally, the tax burden for Korean taxpayers is about to spike higher—because the free US defense umbrella is worth a hell of a lot to this country.
A factor leading up to the Korean War was Secretary of State Dean Acheson’s January 1950 speech where he left Korea out of the description of the American defense perimeter in Asia—his list of Asia-Pacific allies, if you will. These are interesting times indeed.
Comments
8 Responses to This Entry
Comments Policy: Comments to Korea Law Blog are moderated. This means abusive, or just plain stupid comments will be deleted. So don't be a jerk. It also means there may be some delay from the time you post a comment to the time it shows up here. If your comment wasn't against the policy, it will show up in a little bit.
-
About Korea Law Blog
Korea Law Blog is brought to you by Brendon Carr, an American lawyer working as a foreign legal consultant for more than 10 years in Seoul. (Brendon is not admitted as an attorney in Korea. But you knew that.) -
Contact Details
-
Tel. +82 (0)2 772 2734
Fax +82 (0)2 772 2800
Mobile +82 (0)10 8788 0750 -
Download My FREE Korea Employment Law FAQ
-
Korean Media
-
Blogroll
-
What is the Korean take on this? How do Koreans feel about being ‘down graded?’
Frankly, I am not sure as a Republican that even I can get behind the defense of South Korea any more. At the moment I had almost lost all hope, they went and elected someone with outstanding promise to be President, but the prevailing cultural sentiment seems to be against the US. If that MacArthur statue ever goes down, it’s over.
OT
Brendan,
I thought you might like this. You can substitute Republican for Libertarian and get the same result.
OLD VERSION: Republican Party
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the ant is warm and well fed.
The grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be responsible for yourself!
------------------------------
MODERN VERSION: Democrat Party
The ant works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter.
The grasshopper thinks the ant is a fool and laughs and dances and plays the summer away.
Come winter, the shivering grasshopper calls a press conference and demands to know why the ant should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others are cold and starving.
CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN, and ABC show up to provide pictures of the shivering grasshopper next to a video of the ant in his comfortable home with a table filled with food. America is stunned by the sharp contrast.
How can this be, that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so?
Kermit the Frog appears on Oprah with the grasshopper, and everybody cries when they sing, ‘It’s Not Easy Being Green.’
Jesse Jackson stages a demonstration in front of the ant’s house where the news stations film the group singing, ‘We shall overcome.’
Jesse then has the group kneel down to pray to God for the grasshopper’s sake.
Nancy Pelosi & John Kerry exclaim in an interview with Larry King that the ant has gotten rich off the back of the grasshopper, and both call for an immediate tax hike on the ant to make him pay his fair share.
Finally, the EEOC drafts the Economic Equity & Anti-Grasshopper Act retroactive to the beginning of the summer.
The ant is fined for failing to hire a proportionate number of green bugs and, having nothing left to pay his retroactive taxes, his home is confiscated by the government.
Hillary gets her old law firm to represent the grasshopper in a defamation suit against the ant, and the case is tried before a panel of federal judges that Bill Clinton appointed from a list of single-parent welfare recipients.
The ant loses the case.
The story ends as we see the grasshopper finishing up the last bits of the ant’s food while the government house he is in, which just happens to be the ant’s old house, crumbles around him because he doesn’t maintain it.
The ant has disappeared in the snow.
The grasshopper is found dead in a drug related incident and the house, now abandoned, is taken over by a gang of spiders who terrorize the once peaceful neighborhood.
MORAL OF THE STORY: Be careful how you vote , You could be Homeless.
Brendon,
Do you think Rice really mean to so sharply distinguish South Korea from Australia and Japan by her descriptions “partner” and “allies”? I no longer have a subscription to Foreign Affairs, and absent reading the essay in context, I am not sure if the difference in description really means much. Moreover, the Bush administration isn’t exactly known for subtle rhetoric (and neither is Rice), and why would Rice risk offending a long-time ally who finally has a pro-American President after 10 years of Leftist rule?
I am, as usual, of course open to correction, if further textual or extrinsic evidence can be presented.
Won Joon, thanks for dropping by.
I’m not exactly sure whether Rice intended a slap at Korea or not, but given how thoroughly-reviewed the Secretary of State’s writings for Foreign Affairs must be, I would tend to think it was a deliberate message.
However, if if this were unintentional, it’s still worrisome—Acheson is thought to have possibly left Korea out by mistake as well.
Won Joon:
The context is pretty much what’s given in the linked Dong-a article.
The entire Foreign Affairs article can be read here:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20080701faessay87401-p0/condoleezza-rice/rethinking-the-national-interest.html
The cited passage is on page 3.
Brendan,
I noticed it too and if I noticed it, I figure it sure as hell was intentional. I thought it was because she had a “beef” at the time, but that’s because I didn’t know it was before the beef incident. I think Condi will go down in history as one of the worst Secretary of State’s ever and this sort of thing will be a part of that. My complaint is not so much with her views of Korea, but rather with her way of expressing it. This was a slap at Korea and no matter what one thinks of Korea right now, the slap should have been more private.
Perhaps slaps have been given privately and ignored. I recall how Roh pretended not to understand Bush when the latter insisted on denuclearization as a precondition for a peace treaty, a longtime position that had no doubt been verified during summit talks, and the Korean interpreter had to massage Roh’s angry retort.