[Straits Times] Time for American forces to bid farewell to Seoul

By Doug Bandow, For The Straits Times

THE United States has kept troops in South Korea for more than a half century, during which the Republic of Korea has gone from an impoverished, authoritarian state to a prosperous democracy.

Yet America's commitment remains essentially unchanged. Why?

It is certainly not because Seoul appreciates Washington's efforts. President Roh Moo-hyun recently complained that 'clinging to the crotch of the US' pants and hiding behind the US' ass' suggests his nation is too dependent on America.

Very true. It is time for Washington to end its defence guarantee to Seoul.

The US has begun reducing troop levels, as well as moving the bulk of its soldiers out of South Korea. Also, Washington recently agreed to turn over wartime command responsibility to Seoul in 2012.

These steps are welcome, but remain inadequate half- measures. America should initiate a much more rapid drawdown of all its forces.

Alliances are created for specific geopolitical purposes.

For instance, there was reason for the US to intervene in 1950 to prevent the South from being absorbed by Kim Il-sung's North Korea.

South Korea was an economic and political mess and had been denied American heavy weapons because of its threat to attack the North. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) was backed by China and the Soviet Union. With the Cold War raging, a geopolitical loss in Korea threatened to destabilise other nations.

The world looks very different today. The Cold War is over. Most East Asian states are allied to or friendly with the US. Moreover, South Korea has surpassed the North on virtually every measure of national power. Although Seoul's military is numerically smaller, it is qualitatively superior to that possessed by the North.

South Korea spends between three and four times as much as the DPRK on the military. The South's reserve capacity and potential support is even greater.

Why does the US still have troops in South Korea? The fact that it can well defend itself is reason enough to bring home US forces. But that is not all. As President Roh has indicated, many South Koreans now bridle at their dependence on Washington.

Moreover, most South Koreans no longer feel threatened by the North. The younger generation, especially, is more sceptical of America's role in North-east Asia, and more favourable towards China and North Korea.

Indeed, US officials have begun talks with Pyongyang intended to lead towards diplomatic recognition. After six years of refusing to negotiate with the North, the Bush administration's new Korean policy appears to be detente with its former enemy. War seems ever less likely, so America should reduce the chance still further by removing the only forces positioned to come into contact with Pyongyang.

For some alliance advocates, the defence of Korea long ago ceased to be an argument for defending the South from the North. Instead, they argue that US forces serve a 'dual use' function.

That is, a garrison that protects the South serves other purposes in the region.

But Japan is not going to attack either Korea. It is hard to imagine Washington sending its Korea-based army division to intervene in a small regional squabble. Rather, the only plausible alternative mission is 'containing' China.

It is a dubious goal. Whatever the course of US-China relations, American participation in a ground war against China seems inconceivable.

Nor is the South willing to become a base for US operations against China. Two years ago, President Roh said that Washington would require his government's permission to use its Korean-based forces elsewhere in the region, and that South Korea would not be drawn into a needless war. The conservative opposition seems no more likely to allow America to turn the South's nearby neighbour, a potential regional or global superpower, into a permanent enemy.
Indeed, the US has no need to 'contain' China, which is decades away from military equality with America. Moreover, if the two nations' interests clash, it will be over Washington's continued domination of East Asia, which is not worth a war.

It is up to America's allies to defend their own interests. The US need not be a constant meddler in East Asia, concerned with day-to-day geo-political controversies. Rather, it should look on from afar, prepared to back up allied states in the unlikely event that a hegemonic power threatens to dominate Eurasia.

The US-South Korea alliance has fulfilled its purpose. It no longer serves the interest of either country. It is time for Washington to schedule a geopolitical retirement party.

The writer is a former special assistant to ex-president Ronald Reagan and the author of Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire (Xulon Press).