"Here For A Different Reason"
I had a chance encounter with another young American in Ulsan (visitor, not resident) this weekend that reminded me of a controversial/contemporary issue on the peninsula I had yet to address in this forum. He made the correct assumption that I was an EFL instructor and said "I bet I'm here for a different reason than you are," after which I made the correct assumption that he must be part of the U.S. military presence on the peninsula. Sure enough, he was an airman visiting from the Osan Air Base south of Seoul, an expert in missiles and bombs who is about to be promoted to the rank of staff sergeant. We chatted briefly at one of the foreigner bars in Ulsan that I sometimes (reluctantly) find myself in, and although we had diametrically opposed views on the military and the ongoing colonization of Iraq, he told me some news that I thought was worth remembering: the current Korean Prime Minister wants to evict all U.S. personnel from the peninsula.
Currently, the States have over 30,000 personnel (troops, support, and their families total somewhere around 37,000) in Korea at 22 different bases and camps under the "United States Forces Korea (USFK)" umbrella (in Korean, Ju-han Miguk). The military presence dates back to 1945, the end of the Japanese colonial government and the occupation of the peninsula by the Soviet Union north of the 38th parallel and the U.S. to the south. The two superpowers arbitrarily divided the peninsula into separate occupation zones and supported "ideologically appropriate" regimes in their respective zones, leading to the rise of Lee Seung-man in the south and Kim Il-sung in the north and sowing the seeds of the (inevitable at this point) Korean War. During the war and its aftermath, Cold War politics "necessitated" the U.S.'s military commitment in the south in the eyes of many American international relations eggheads, especially after the successes of Mao Tse-tung to the west. The two successive military dictatorships that ruled in the south until the late 1980s welcomed the U.S. presence as it helped ensure their grip on power. However, ever since Korea has begun moving away from its totalitarian past, the U.S. military's presence has been an issue up for debate. Of course, there are many in the new generation of I.R. eggheads in the States, most of whom have the ear of the current U.S. regime, who believe that it is absolutely necessary to maintain a presence on the peninsula in order to keep tabs on the "nuclear North" and on the "growing danger" posed by China. However, popular support among Koreans for the U.S. military has certainly suffered, as evidenced in pop culture by last summer's blockbuster "Gwoemul" ("The Host") about a monster born of a river polluted by an American base (based on an actual event, at least the pollution part) and in another Korean movie that I wish I knew the title of where the protagonist is attacked and brutalized in an alleyway by a trio of very drunk and very malicious U.S. soldiers. There is also the 2002 incident when two teenage Korean girls were crushed to death by an armored vehicle during a military training exercise, and the subsequent acquittal of the soldiers tried for the deaths by a military court. Not to mention the countless complaints of sexual and physical abuse of Koreans at the hands of American troops over the years (in no way am I saying these individuals are representative of the other, law-abiding members of the USFK, but I am saying that the actions of these few have provoked some significant anger among the Korean public and helped to create a not-so-friendly caricature of U.S. troops stationed here).
Unfortunately, I have not been able to verify the claims of the airman I met this weekend. According to him, the new (as of 2006) Prime Minister, Han Myung-sook (incidentally, the first Korean female Prime Minister) isn't a fan of the U.S. presence and would like to see it reduced and possibly ended as early as 2012. The Prime Minister's role in Korean politics is largely ceremonial and so it's unlikely that her plan, if it does exist, will be implemented, especially given the current stirrings of fear (real and imagined) about the intentions of Kim Jong-il in the north. Still, her opinion is indicative of the the U.S. military's loss of face here since its days as the "savior" of the south in the years following the war.
Currently, the States have over 30,000 personnel (troops, support, and their families total somewhere around 37,000) in Korea at 22 different bases and camps under the "United States Forces Korea (USFK)" umbrella (in Korean, Ju-han Miguk). The military presence dates back to 1945, the end of the Japanese colonial government and the occupation of the peninsula by the Soviet Union north of the 38th parallel and the U.S. to the south. The two superpowers arbitrarily divided the peninsula into separate occupation zones and supported "ideologically appropriate" regimes in their respective zones, leading to the rise of Lee Seung-man in the south and Kim Il-sung in the north and sowing the seeds of the (inevitable at this point) Korean War. During the war and its aftermath, Cold War politics "necessitated" the U.S.'s military commitment in the south in the eyes of many American international relations eggheads, especially after the successes of Mao Tse-tung to the west. The two successive military dictatorships that ruled in the south until the late 1980s welcomed the U.S. presence as it helped ensure their grip on power. However, ever since Korea has begun moving away from its totalitarian past, the U.S. military's presence has been an issue up for debate. Of course, there are many in the new generation of I.R. eggheads in the States, most of whom have the ear of the current U.S. regime, who believe that it is absolutely necessary to maintain a presence on the peninsula in order to keep tabs on the "nuclear North" and on the "growing danger" posed by China. However, popular support among Koreans for the U.S. military has certainly suffered, as evidenced in pop culture by last summer's blockbuster "Gwoemul" ("The Host") about a monster born of a river polluted by an American base (based on an actual event, at least the pollution part) and in another Korean movie that I wish I knew the title of where the protagonist is attacked and brutalized in an alleyway by a trio of very drunk and very malicious U.S. soldiers. There is also the 2002 incident when two teenage Korean girls were crushed to death by an armored vehicle during a military training exercise, and the subsequent acquittal of the soldiers tried for the deaths by a military court. Not to mention the countless complaints of sexual and physical abuse of Koreans at the hands of American troops over the years (in no way am I saying these individuals are representative of the other, law-abiding members of the USFK, but I am saying that the actions of these few have provoked some significant anger among the Korean public and helped to create a not-so-friendly caricature of U.S. troops stationed here).
Unfortunately, I have not been able to verify the claims of the airman I met this weekend. According to him, the new (as of 2006) Prime Minister, Han Myung-sook (incidentally, the first Korean female Prime Minister) isn't a fan of the U.S. presence and would like to see it reduced and possibly ended as early as 2012. The Prime Minister's role in Korean politics is largely ceremonial and so it's unlikely that her plan, if it does exist, will be implemented, especially given the current stirrings of fear (real and imagined) about the intentions of Kim Jong-il in the north. Still, her opinion is indicative of the the U.S. military's loss of face here since its days as the "savior" of the south in the years following the war.
posted by TSF in Ulsan | 8:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home