|
Evans Revere, U.S. Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs told a seminar co-sponsored by the Chosun Ilbo the dreaded ¡°strategic flexibility¡± his government envisages for the U.S. Forces in Korea would also mean that American troops stationed elsewhere in the region can hurry to Korea in an emergency; and Victor Cha, the White House National Security Council Asia director, said pretty much the same things to back up his contention that strategic flexibility ¡°is not a one-way street.¡±
These American explanations are profoundly at odds with what our own government has told us strategic flexibility is all about. President Roh Moo-hyun said in March, "What is certain is that our people will not be embroiled in conflicts in Northeast Asia against our will. This is a firm principle on which the country cannot yield." That remark was interpreted as a clear objection to turning the USFK into a regional expeditionary force, and Chong Wa Dae even dubbed it the "Roh Moo-hyun doctrine."
The government has thus far highlighted only its objections to deploying the USFK in conflicts in Northeast Asia, but kept mum on the trade-off that American soldiers from elsewhere could be shipped to the Korean Peninsula if they are needed. That has given rise to a perception that strategic flexibility means nothing but sacrifices for Korea to secure U.S. interests. There is a need to find out if we were deliberately misled, if it was a result of ignorance, or whether there was something else involved that we don¡¯t know about.
It is surely contradictory to expect the dispatch of U.S. troops to the Korean Peninsula from other regions in an emergency but oppose deployment of the USFK if they happen elsewhere. How does that square with this administration¡¯s pet idea of an "equal alliance"? It is a diplomatically impossible formula to expect something for nothing. These are matters the government will have to answer.
Needless to say, there is no reason we should blindly accept every single U.S. request. They have to be closely examined and thoroughly studied. But the question is whether it is wise for the government to take such a firm stand against the proposal and leave itself no room for diplomatic ambiguity in a delicate matter that goes to the heart of the alliance.
On the day the seminar opened, Christopher Hill, now Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and Pacific Affairs, told the New York Times, "The Korean Peninsula has seen many invasions and battles, and sometimes wars of annihilation.¡± He said if he were a Korean, he would want a close alliance with a far-away power, given how much good alliances closer to home have done the country. The remark makes us ponder once again how Korea, sandwiched as it is between regional giants, should pick and manage its alliances.
|
