This is a critique of the recent LA Times article presenting an erroneous view of the THAAD affair in South Korea:
From a crab shack to Hyundai, China’s wrath over a U.S. missile defense system still weighs on South Korea, By VICTORIA KIM NOV. 19, 20202 AM; https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2020-11-19/south-korea-china-beijing-economy-thaad-missile-interceptor
The THAAD incident demonstrated not so much the undue commercial influence of China on current South Korean policy as the reemergence of traditional Korean foreign policy values formulated to retain sovereignty amongst overbearing and more powerful competing great powers in the region. The reappearance of such an outlook in South Korea after more than 125 years of domination by foreign powers reflects the true emergence of democracy and independence. This has been reflected in the long sought removal of the US presence in Yongsan in central Seoul, (site of the old Japanese imperial garrison), and the removal to Pyongtaek of US military bases and forces from the traditional bases and operating areas north of Seoul and close to the DMZ. Similarly, the current administration of South Korea is not going to lock itself into an anti-China Indo-Pacific alliance which will further restrict its freedom of action to adopt policies seen to be in its national interest.
First of all, it was the prior pliable, corrupt conservative administration of Park Geun-hye that agreed to allow the installation of THAAD launchers in South Korea. The LA Times article focuses it's critical remarks implicitly on the current democratic South Korean administration which acted to block the erection of any additional THAAD batteries. This occured after a vehemently opposed local reaction and the strong Chinese reaction arose during the installation of the first unit in Seongju, South Korea. By way of comparison, Japanese communities objected to installation of anti ballistic missile systems on land in their own country, and the central government stopped the development and construction of AEGIS ashore facilities in July 2020. (The US claims it is only suspended).
What Americans need to keep in mind, is that South Korea is no longer a military dictatorship which will automatically submit to the dictates of US military commands or "diplomats" concerning South Korean defense policy. Nor is the current representative government merely a conservative successor of the corporate chaebol and militarist interests remaining from the dictatorship period of the 20th Century. This is evident in the democratic Moon adminstration's resistance to extortionate US military cost sharing demands for a greater than 400 percent increase in the ROK contribution. It is also manifest in the ongoing contest over when and whether operational control of the ROK armed forces during wartime will ever be transferred to South Korea.
It should be noted that the LA Times estimate of the damage to the South Korean economic interests as a result of the THAAD incident is placed at the low end of estimates. The US made no effort to mitigate these losses but to the contrary followed with extortionate demands on military cost sharing and extended military commitments beyond the scope of the current alliance to the entire Indo-Pacific. There are also technical questions about the effectiveness of the THAAD system and whether its high altitude detection envelope doesn't in fact leave most of South Korea undefended from North Korean missiles with the Korean military in the position of having to purchase and construct other ABM systems anyway. This suggests that Chinese accusations that the system is actually more likely to be directed against China than North Korea are well founded. What the LA Times article also leaves out is that US defense planners and Pentagon representatives have been promoting the notion of deploying US offensive intermediate range missiles in allied countries in the Asian theater. This discussion revealed the true intention of US planners and their complete disconnect from political and economic realities on the ground, not only in South Korea, but in East Asia generally.
No comments:
Post a Comment