Tremors from the upheavals in Eastern Europe have begun to reach the Far East. The Christmas revolution against Romania's Nicolae Ceausescu came as a particular shock to "Great Leader" and fellow Stalinist Kim Il Sung of the so-called People's Democratic Republic of Korea.
Yet the United States still treats the region as if it were 1953. Some 43,000 troops in the Republic of Korea provide a tripwire to ensure America's involvement in a new war; other forces throughout the Pacific stand ready to intervene should war break out.Under congressional pressure, the Bush administration talks of pulling out a few thousand troops, while desperately searching for new justifications for maintaining the status quo.
At a recent conference in Seoul, a Pentagon representative not only attacked congressional proposals to bring home 10,000 to 40,000 soldiers, but also rejected a proposal for the ROK to do more because "it would call into question the presence of U.S. troops in Korea."
In short, we shouldn't expect the Koreans to do more because if they did people in the United States might wonder why our forces were still needed.
After North Korea's invasion of the South in 1950 brought war, there was nothing to prevent the South's collapse except the presence of American troops. The South suffered from political and economic chaos for another decade, but in the 1960s the economy took off, and in recent years no other country has grown faster. Since 1987, the South has been moving toward genuine democracy as well.
The power balance on the peninsula has shifted dramatically against Pyongyang. While the South was surging ahead economically, the North was stagnating; Seoul now has a GNP upward of eight times that of its northern neighbor.
South Korea successfully competes in international computer, auto and construction markets, while the North has welshed on nearly $800 million in foreign debt and apparently faces domestic famine.
Internationally the North has lost support due to its terrorist attacks. Seoul, in contrast, has been recognized by three Eastern European states, is moving toward official relations with Moscow and trades more with China than does the North.
The South's growing capabilities should cause Washington to begin refashioning its defense commitment. But there are now more U.S. soldiers in Korea than when Ronald Reagan took office.
No one, least of all Korean and American defense officials, seems to think the South is unable to protect itself. In 1987, Seoul's then defense minister said his nation would achieve military parity with the North within two to three years.
And in August the U.S. commander, Gen. Louis Menetry, said that with Korea's ongoing military modernization program, "there should be stability on the peninsula without the U.S. being part of the equation in the mid-1990s."
How can anyone seriously argue that a country with twice the population and eight times the economic strength of its adversary, as well as an enormous technological edge, can't defend itself?
It's time for Washington to sit down with Seoul and work out a withdrawal program. It should be a gradual pullout developed in consultation with America's allies.
But the end result should be non-negotiable: The South would be responsible for its own defense. The U.S. troops should be phased out over a set period, say five years.
The gains from eliminating an unnecessary military presence, saving several billion dollars in subsidies, and improving America's competitive position all warrant dropping this outdated commitment.