|
Controversy over attempts to topple a statue of U.S. general Douglas MacArthur in Incheon on Thursday saw lawmakers engage in a heated historical debate over a U.S.-Japanese agreement many believe ended Korea¡¯s independence 100 years ago. The immediate occasion was Thursday¡¯s parliamentary audit of the Korean Embassy in the U.S.
Ruling Uri Party Rep. Kim Won-wung said the MacArthur statue should be seen in a long historical perspective going back beyond the Korean War and the division of the country to Japanese colonial rule. ¡°The source of Korea¡¯s modern misfortunes is the U.S-Japan treaty sealed on July 29, 1905, [the secret Taft Katsura Agreement] which acknowledged Japan¡¯s control of the Korean Peninsula,¡± he said. Late though it is, he said Korea should protest against the agreement and initiate as formal repeal of the treaty. ¡°Seoul and Washington need to correct the errors of the past,¡± he said.
In response, main opposition Grand National Party lawmaker Park Gye-dong said there was no such thing as a Taft-Katsura Agreement; all that happened was an exchange of opinions between the U.S and Japan. It is wrong to blame the U.S for Japan¡¯s colonization of Korea, the outbreak of the Korean War and the division of Korea, all based on a non-existent secret treaty, Park said. He said Korean textbooks contained a ¡°historical error¡± in describing the agreement as such.
Meanwhile, the Korean Embassy in Washington said a new U.S. doctrine that would update rules governing use of nuclear weapons to reflect a pre-emptive strategy first announced by the Bush White House in December 2002 was merely a final draft devised by the Joint Chiefs of Staff. The so-called Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations ¡°is not yet the Bush government¡¯s official doctrine,¡± said Kwon Hang-geun, a military attaché to the embassy. ¡°But once approved after circulation, it will be used as guidelines for field commanders dealing with nuclear weapons. The doctrine permits pre-emptive attacks against countries deemed likely to use weapons of mass destruction or possess threatening conventional weapons, even if they are not members of the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.¡±
(englishnews@chosun.com )
|