In recent years South Korea has begun to develop regional
ambitions. Seoul is creating a blue-water navy and deploying
international peacekeeping troops. The Republic of Korea
increasingly sees itself sitting alongside the world’s most
powerful nations.
Unfortunately, the ROK government appears to have
neglected its most important duty: defending its people. Last March
North Korea sank a South Korean warship. Days ago Pyongyang
unleashed a deadly artillery barrage against a South Korean
island.
On both occasions all the ROK did was
fulminate.
Granted, in the first case Seoul cut off what little
bilateral trade remained between the two countries and demanded an
apology. In the second instance the ROK fired back. It also changed
the rules of engagement for the future and planned to bolster its
island garrisons. Still, the effect was about the same as just
talking. Pyongyang responded predictably, blaming the South and
threatening to rain destruction down upon its enemies.
Worse, as ROK President Lee Myung-bak publicly worried
lest South Koreans “let our guard down in preparation for another
possible North Korean provocation,” his nation again hid behind
Miss America’s skirt. President Barack Obama sent an aircraft
carrier strike group to demonstrate “resolve” and professed
America’s usual determination to stand by its helpless ally —
“shoulder to shoulder,” as he put it.
It is a shocking situation.
Not North Korea’s misbehavior. The Stalinist dictatorship
has morphed into the world’s only communist monarchy. Just two men,
father and son, have ruled since the so-called Democratic People’s
Republic of Korea was formed in 1948. Now “Dear Leader” Kim Jong-il
is attempting to pass power on to his youngest son, “Brilliant
Comrade” Kim Jong-un.
The Kim family’s crimes are many: starting the Korean War,
suppressing political, civil, and religious liberties, establishing
a brutal gulag system, starving millions through imposition of an
incompetent socialist state, and maintaining a permanent state of
war. Firing off some artillery shells and killing four South
Koreans is minor compared to the DPRK’s other
activities.
Slightly more outrageous is China’s willingness to abet
the North’s aggressions. After the latest incident, Beijing did not
criticize Pyongyang. Instead, Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao called for
all sides to show “maximum restraint.” That was a bit like urging
the Germans, Soviets, and Poles to act responsibly in September
1939 after the Nazis and Communists invaded Poland. Still, while
China’s conduct is disappointing, it hardly is
surprising.
What is truly shocking is the ROK’s continuing dependence
on America.
The Korean War ended in 1953. Since then the South has won
the intra-Korea contest. The ROK raced past the North economically
and now has upwards of 40 times the latter’s GDP. South Korea has
succeeded in hi-tech production, benefits from twice the
population, and possesses global diplomatic clout. In fact, Seoul
even has stolen away North Korea’s allies, trading far more with
China and Russia. In contrast to 1950, the latter two countries
would not likely back Pyongyang in a fight.
Yet the DPRK possesses a bigger military. Although the
North’s soldiers are ill-trained and its equipment is antiquated,
the Kim government obviously still is capable of striking with
deadly effect. Why hasn’t the South put its resources to better
military effect? Because it doesn’t have to.
So long as America offers a security guarantee, maintains
a tripwire troop presence on the peninsula, and promises to do
whatever is necessary to protect the ROK, the South Koreans have
little incentive to take over their own defense. Granted, it’s a
bit humiliating to constantly beg Washington for aid: it would be a
bit like the U.S. going hat-in-hand around the world asking for
help to defend against Mexico. Still, better for Seoul to get the
gullible Americans to pay its defense bill than to have to cover
the cost itself.
Making the ROK’s behavior even more outrageous has been
Seoul’s attempt to buy off Pyongyang while relying on American
military support. For nearly a decade the so-called “Sunshine
Policy” emphasized aid to and investment in the North. Seoul even
effectively bought a summit between the late President Kim Dae-jung
and the North’s Kim Jong-il. Although the Lee government has cut
back on subsidies for the North, Seoul has not closed the Kaesong
industrial park, an important source of hard currency for
Pyongyang. Nothing changes even as North Korea kills the South’s
citizens. Should war break out, some of the weapons fired at U.S.
soldiers would have been effectively paid for by America’s allies
in the South.
North Korea’s presumed nuclear capabilities add a more
dangerous dimension to tensions on the peninsula, but America’s
troop presence only worsens the problem by conveniently giving the
Kim regime 27,500 nuclear hostages within easy reach. Moreover, the
best way to get Beijing’s attention would be to suggest that
Washington might eventually decide to respond to the North’s
provocations by standing aside if South Korea and Japan want to
build corresponding nuclear arsenals. That would give the residents
of Beijing’s Zhongnanhai an incentive to clamp down on the
DPRK.
With Uncle Sam effectively bankrupt, Americans
increasingly will have to debate how much they should spend on
“defense.” The answer should be: as much as is necessary for
defense — of America. But no more for the defense of prosperous
and populous allies, such as South Korea.
Today the U.S. protects countries that are well able to
protect themselves. The result is not just to further impoverish
debt-burdened Americans. It also is to reduce American security.
After all, the U.S. would be far more secure if its allies were
militarily strong and self-assured. Yet Washington’s security
guarantees have turned friendly Asians and Europeans into a gaggle
of helpless weaklings and wimps. U.S. allies espouse grandiose
geopolitical ambitions but under-invest in defense — and when
conflict threatens, scamper to Washington wailing for
relief.
This behavior wouldn’t matter much if evil had passed
away. But as we see in the Korean peninsula, the lion has yet to
lie down with the lamb. The era of perpetual peace is not yet
here.
Unfortunately, Washington’s military commitments may help
deter conflict, but they insure American involvement if war breaks
out. Taking that risk was necessary during the Cold War. But no
longer. In Korea, for instance, only U.S. intervention could have
prevented a North Korean victory in 1950. That is not the case in
2010. Americans no longer have anything at stake that warrants
risking involvement in another conflict on the Korean
peninsula.
The time is long past when Washington could play Globocop.
We should start by bringing home the troops from Korea.
