South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea

[webfact]

South Korea says it wants U.S. troops to stay regardless of any treaty with North Korea

By Christine Kim

 

A U.S. soldier stands guard in front of their Air F-16 fighter jet at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea, January 10, 2016. REUTERS/Kim Hong-Ji

 

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea said on Wednesday the issue of U.S. troops stationed in the South is unrelated to any future peace treaty with North Korea and that American forces should stay even if such an agreement is signed.

 

"U.S. troops stationed in South Korea are an issue regarding the alliance between South Korea and the United States. It has nothing to do with signing peace treaties," said Kim Eui-kyeom, a spokesman for the presidential Blue House, citing President Moon Jae-in.

 

The Blue House was responding to media questions about a column written by South Korean presidential adviser and academic Moon Chung-in that was published earlier this week.

 

Moon Chung-in said it would be difficult to justify the presence of U.S. forces in South Korea if a peace treaty was signed after the two Koreas agreed at an historic summit last week to put an end to the Korean conflict.

 

However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighbouring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday.

 

Presidential adviser Moon Chung-in was asked not to create confusion regarding the president's stance, Kim said.

 

The United States currently has around 28,500 troops stationed in South Korea, which North Korea has long demanded be removed as one of the conditions for giving up its nuclear and missile programmes.

 

However, there was no mention in last week's declaration by Moon Jae-in and North Korean leader Kim Jong Un of the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea. Kim and Moon Jae-in pledged to work for the "complete denuclearisation" of the Korean peninsula.

 

U.S. troops have been stationed in South Korea since the Korean War, which ended in 1953 in an armistice that left the two Koreas technically still at war.

 

Moon Jae-in and Kim have said they want to put an end to the Korean conflict, promising there will be "no more war" on the Korean peninsula.

 

(Reporting by Christine Kim; Editing by Paul Tait)

 

-- © Copyright Reuters 2018-05-02

[AsiaHand]

I don't blame them as The US troops are the only thing that is keeping the North form invading and taking over the South.

[bristolboy]

6 hours ago, AsiaHand said:

I don't blame them as The US troops are the only thing that is keeping the North form invading and taking over the South.

Nonsense

Could South Korea's Army Stop an Invasion by North Korea?

In the last seventy years, the Republic of Korea Army (ROK Army) has evolved from a constabulary force into one of the largest, most powerful, technologically advanced armies in the world. This remarkable evolution is entirely due to the original 1950–53 invasion and war by neighboring North Korea. This existential threat has never truly gone away, with North Korea consistently threatening—and preparing for—a second, successful invasion.

http://nationalinterest.org/blog/the-buzz/could-south-koreas-army-stop-invasion-by-north-korea-22435

 

[lannarebirth]

It is good that this is addressed now and by South Korea rather than America. It takes the onus off the US for scuttling the talks when they don't acquiesce to this presumed demand.

[baboon]

6 hours ago, AsiaHand said:

I don't blame them as The US troops are the only thing that is keeping the North form invading and taking over the South.

How can you invade your own country? The north and south of Korea are an artificial divide brought about by outside powers.

[heybruce]

14 hours ago, baboon said:

How can you invade your own country? The north and south of Korea are an artificial divide brought about by outside powers.

In that case there is a long running civil war between a northern side that wants to impose a brutal communist dictatorship and a southern side that is an imperfect but prosperous democracy.  The US has sided with the southern side.

 

Of course the fact that both North and South Korea have UN representatives and conduct their affairs independently of each other indicates that they really are two distinct countries, even if some people don't want to admit it.

[baboon]

51 minutes ago, heybruce said:

In that case there is a long running civil war between a northern side that wants to impose a brutal communist dictatorship and a southern side that is an imperfect but prosperous democracy.  The US has sided with the southern side.

 

Of course the fact that both North and South Korea have UN representatives and conduct their affairs independently of each other indicates that they really are two distinct countries, even if some people don't want to admit it.

But two distinct countries not of their own making. They did not ask to become a pawn in a proxy war or to be divided. This was imposed on them through no fault of their own.

[heybruce]

6 minutes ago, baboon said:

But two distinct countries not of their own making. They did not ask to become a pawn in a proxy war or to be divided. This was imposed on them through no fault of their own.

There are a lot of "distinct countries not of their own making".  Most of them want to remain as distinct countries, not be forced into some new country not of their own making.

[dorchester]

The US should leave.The saying freedom isn't free is a crock. Got a problem just call uncle sam. The south should grow a set of twins and defend there own country

[heybruce]

2 minutes ago, dorchester said:

The US should leave.The saying freedom isn't free is a crock. Got a problem just call uncle sam. The south should grow a set of twins and defend there own country

The south should defend itself against a nuclear armed North Korea?  That would require South Korea acquiring nuclear weapons, which could trigger a nuclear arms race in east Asia.  Do you think that is a good idea?

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

There are a lot of "distinct countries not of their own making".  Most of them want to remain as distinct countries, not be forced into some new country not of their own making.

Well, you would have to ask the Korean people themselves what they want. I believe most wish for reunification but of course achieving that would be something of a nightmare...

[heybruce]

22 minutes ago, baboon said:

Well, you would have to ask the Korean people themselves what they want. I believe most wish for reunification but of course achieving that would be something of a nightmare...

I suspect that, if asked, most (all?) South Koreans would reject unification under North Korean rule, while Kim Jong Un, the only opinion that matters in the north, would reject any other form of unification.

[bristolboy]

33 minutes ago, baboon said:

Well, you would have to ask the Korean people themselves what they want. I believe most wish for reunification but of course achieving that would be something of a nightmare...

Most Young S.Koreans Don't Believe in Reunification

Only four out of 10 South Koreans believe reunification is necessary, a poll by Seoul National University finds. The poll reveals that people in their 20s and 30s are the most opposed to reunification of any age group.

Among those in their 20s, 41.4 percent are in favor, and among 30-somethings 39.6 percent...

.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/01/27/2018012700289.html

 

[baboon]

2 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I suspect that, if asked, most (all?) South Koreans would reject unification under North Korean rule, while Kim Jong Un, the only opinion that matters in the north, would reject any other form of unification.

Indeed. This is why ideas such as two federations have been touted and could possibly work.

Kim Jong Un certainly has the primary voice in the north, but one never knows if his Generals might one day do a Prayuth - there have been rumours of coup attempts before - so there are a good number of people he needs to keep on side too....

[baboon]

11 minutes ago, bristolboy said:

Most Young S.Koreans Don't Believe in Reunification

Only four out of 10 South Koreans believe reunification is necessary, a poll by Seoul National University finds. The poll reveals that people in their 20s and 30s are the most opposed to reunification of any age group.

Among those in their 20s, 41.4 percent are in favor, and among 30-somethings 39.6 percent...

.http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2018/01/27/2018012700289.html

 

Yes, I was just reading a similar article, funnily enough. However bear in mind that is 'just' one demographic of one of the Koreas. I still suspect that a majority still want (some form of) reunification but I could be wrong.

[sammieuk1]

Trust is for last weeks cameras.

[heybruce]

19 minutes ago, baboon said:

Yes, I was just reading a similar article, funnily enough. However bear in mind that is 'just' one demographic of one of the Koreas. I still suspect that a majority still want (some form of) reunification but I could be wrong.

I agree that as a hypothetical most Koreans, including South Koreans, would favor some form of unification.  However the devil is very much in the "details", if you consider governance of the united Korea a detail. 

 

Even ignoring the question of who rules, there is the problem of the cost of unification.  Many South Koreans might re-think support for unification if presented with a realistic bill for bringing North Korea up to minimum standards of income, health care, infrastructure, etc.  I think that as a share of GDP it would dwarf the cost of unifying East and West Germany.

Edited May 3, 2018 by heybruce

[baboon]

3 minutes ago, heybruce said:

I agree that as a hypothetical most Koreans, including South Koreans, would favor some form of unification.  However the devil is very much in the "details", if you consider governance of the united Korea a detail. 

 

Even ignoring the question of who rules, there is the problem of the cost of unification.  Many South Koreans might re-think support for unification if presented with a realistic bill for bringing North Korea up to minimum standards of income, health care, infrastructure, etc.

Agreed. The money issue is such a concern as to verge on the insurmountable. The DPRK economy is improving but still light years behind the South. If I was a young South Korean with no family on the other side and only knowing things the way they are now, I doubt I would want to dig deep to fund those loonies over there as I would likely see them.

 

Reunification will be Herculean and time I think is running out. Still, hoping for the best doesn't cost anything...

[lannarebirth]

The danger it seems to me, is that should reunification be attempted, China will be everywhere offering loans and assistance, which will be hard to turn down. In time China could flip Korea in toto into their sphere.  If they forego Chinese assistance they'll need a fairly large military presence to the north which is just going to piss off China even more.

[heybruce]

18 minutes ago, lannarebirth said:

The danger it seems to me, is that should reunification be attempted, China will be everywhere offering loans and assistance, which will be hard to turn down. In time China could flip Korea in toto into their sphere.  If they forego Chinese assistance they'll need a fairly large military presence to the north which is just going to piss off China even more.

I avoided the China factor, but it's safe to assume that China will do whatever it takes to prevent any re-unification that puts a prosperous, democratic Korea on its border.

[baboon]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

I avoided the China factor, but it's safe to assume that China will do whatever it takes to prevent any re-unification that puts a prosperous, democratic Korea on its border.

Nor will the chickenhawk / neocon element in the US want to give an inch either. The proxy war again. I don't have the answers, but the more both Koreas can settle their differences between themselves, the merrier I say...  

[MaxYakov]

"However, Seoul wants the troops to stay because U.S. forces in South Korea play the role of a mediator in military confrontations between neighbouring superpowers like China and Japan, another presidential official told reporters on condition of anonymity earlier on Wednesday."

 

Yeah, right! Nothing to do with the additional income and not having to finance self-defense forces, of course.