South Korea Abandonment Fears

Throughout the history of the alliance, South Korea has faced abandonment fears stemming from the possibility that their great power sponsor would remove its troops from the Korean peninsula and end or weaken the alliance. South Korea’s fear is a reasonable reflection of historical events. In 1950, Kim Il Sung’s decision to invade South Korea depended on his belief that the United States would not come to Seoul’s rescue. Even today, South Korean fears of abandonment persist despite the current strength of the alliance. The United States is a global actor with a variety of interests that make it difficult to maintain focus on any one relationship, no matter the importance. Since the involvement of the United States covers the globe, it often has to react to unplanned circumstances that take attention away from declared policies and long-term strategies. Two times that ROK abandonment fears were especially acute were during the Nixon and Carter administrations.

  1. a) The Nixon Doctrine and the Opening to China

On November 3, 1969, on a stopover in Guam and during the Vietnam War, President Nixon delivered the three points of the Nixon Doctrine. The three points were:

  • “First, the United States will keep all of its treaty commitments.
  • Second, we shall provide a shield if a nuclear power threatens the freedom of a nation allied with us or of a nation whose survival we consider vital to our security.
  • Third, in cases involving other types of aggression, we shall furnish military and economic assistance when requested in accordance with our treaty commitments. But we shall look to the nation directly threatened to assume the primary responsibility of providing the manpower for its defense.[i]

Of the three points in the Nixon Doctrine, point three was the most important, because it signaled that the United States was shifting the primary security burden to its Asian allies. Nixon added in the same speech “Asia if for Asians… We must avoid the kind of policy that will make countries in Asia so dependent upon us that we are dragged into conflicts such as the one we have in Vietnam.”[ii] More than just a speech, this policy resulted in the reduction of U.S. Military personnel in Asia from 727,300 in 1969 to 284,000 in 1971 and in South Korea from 63,000 to 43,000.[iii] Then South Korean President Park Chung Hee saw this military withdrawal as sign of U.S. disengagement, telling his aide Kim Seong Jin that it was “a message to the Korean people that we won’t rescue you if North Korea invades again.”[iv]

The withdrawals were not the only reason for President Park’s concerns at the time. In the years before the Nixon Doctrine, during the Lyndon Johnson administration, the United States had reacted passively to several North Korean provocations directed at both South Korean and U.S. personnel. One prominent example was the January 21, 1968 attack by North Korean commandos against the Blue House aimed at assassinating President Park. This state directed attack and attempted assassination against the head of an allied state resulted in no meaningful U.S. counteraction except to warn President Park not to retaliate against North Korea.[v] Even when North Korea acted against U.S. citizens, it refused to retaliate forcefully against North Korea. The most famous example of this is North Korea’s capture of the USS Pueblo two days after the Blue House attack. The USS Pueblo was a U.S. naval intelligence ship that North Korea captured while it was sailing in international waters.  During the capture, North Korean forces killed one U.S. sailor, and in captivity, and even tortured, the remaining crew of 82 for 355 days. In spite of this, instead of retaliating, the United States issued an apology to the DPRK to ensure the crew could return home.[vi] For South Korea, the lack of U.S. reaction to North Korea’s provocations caused doubts about the seriousness of the U.S. security guarantee, and signaled to the North Koreans that the alliance was weak.

President Nixon gave South Korea even more reason for concern during his détente with communist China. During the Korean War, the U.S. intervened because they saw North Korea’s invasion as a part of larger communist aggression, which justified spending U.S. lives and resources to turn it back. It was a major policy change to go from fighting Chinese communist “volunteer forces” in 1950 to sending secret delegations to Beijing to discuss possibilities of cooperation, and one that caused unease in Seoul about U.S. commitments to standing up to communist forces on the Korean peninsula. This threatened the relevance of the anti-communist U.S.-ROK alliance, as well as opened the possibility that the PRC would ask for concessions harmful to the ROK’s security, such as Chinese Premier Chou Enlai’s request to Henry Kissinger to remove all U.S. forces from the Korean peninsula.[vii]

The Nixon administration’s handling of the ROK during these years led President Park to later write, “this series of developments contained an almost unprecedented peril to our people’s survival.”[viii]  During the early 1970s, this fear of abandonment had real consequences, such as President Park’s decision to pursue a clandestine nuclear weapons program, including negotiating with France to buy the technology necessary to create plutonium for a nuclear weapon. The ROK only quit the nuclear program after the U.S. discovered it in 1976.[ix]  Another outcome was President Park’s Yusin reforms, which he started in 1972 and included the imposition of martial law, dissolution of the National Assembly and the banning of all antigovernment activity. This policy led to abuses such as jailing and torture of political dissidents and opposition figures. One of the reasons given for the Yusin reforms was the fear of U.S. unreliability and external threats that necessitated tighter domestic control.[x]

South Korea is a small country, and during Nixon’s presidency was still relatively poor and weak. However, despite this, during the Vietnam War, the ROK proved their commitment to the U.S.-ROK alliance by sending 312,853 soldiers to fight alongside U.S. forces, more than any other U.S. ally did.[xi] It is understandable that strategic interests dictate U.S. foreign policy, rather than a sense of warm feelings towards South Korea, especially South Korea under the rule of an authoritarian leader like Park Chung Hee. However, this neglect can have serious implications negatively affect U.S. strategy in East Asia. If President Park had been successful in building a nuclear weapon, it would have effected security calculations of every other power in the region, and would have harmed the overall goal of U.S. nuclear nonproliferation. President Nixon’s options in Asia were constrained by the failure of U.S. strategy in Vietnam, so the removal of U.S. troops from the Korean Peninsula as well as the caution demonstrated in response to North Korean provocations were arguably prudent responses to reality. However, the lack of attention towards a partner that had fought and died alongside the United Sates in Vietnam was shortsighted and weakened the U.S.-ROK relationship during President Park’s time in office.

  1. b) President Carter and the Threat of Total Withdrawal

President Nixon created his policies based on a reaction to the failed Vietnam War and they affected all U.S. allies in Asia. In addition, Nixon did not call for a total withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea. President Carter (1977-1981) took a different approach towards South Korea by calling for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops from South Korea. President Carter used the call to withdraw as part of his presidential campaign, and his desire to withdraw American troops came from, at least partially, his repulsion towards the human rights record of ROK President Park.

Similar to the Nixon Administration, President Carter neglected ROK concerns and interests when developing his plan to withdraw troops from South Korea. In this case, President Carter developed his plan without consulting the ROK, and even, through Vice President Mondale, notified Japan of his intention to withdraw U.S. troops from Korea one month earlier than notifying the ROK.[xii] This lack of consultation deeply angered President Park, and even resulted in a tense meeting in 1979 when Carter came to visit South Korea for a summit. During a meeting at the summit, Park lectured Carter for forty-five minutes about why pulling all the troops out of South Korea was ill advised, despite Carter’s staffers telling him earlier that Carter did not wish to speak about the troop withdrawal issue at the summit, deeply angering Carter.[xiii]

One reason why Seoul is so concerned by the prospect of a complete U.S. troop withdrawal was the importance of the tripwire function U.S. troops play on the Korean peninsula. If there are U.S. troops in South Korea, than North Korea would kill them in any invasion. If North Korea kills U.S. troops, than it will ensure that the United States will become involved in fighting North Korea and pushing them out of South Korea again. If President Carter had successfully withdrawn all U.S. troops from the ROK, it would have removed the tripwire function, signaling to the DPRK that U.S. support was no longer guaranteed. While Carter insisted that the U.S. would maintain its treaty obligations, would provide air coverage, and would help the ROK build up their forces, after the Vietnam War, it was unlikely that the U.S. people were willing to support another large-scale ground war in mainland Asia.

Ultimately, despite Carter’s absolutist goals, during his time in office he only withdrew about 3,000 U.S. troops from the ROK.[xiv] Carter predicated his withdrawal plan on the belief that South Korea would be able to defend itself from another DPRK invasion. Ultimately, it was the discovery that this assumption was false that prevented the withdrawal from taking place. During the Nixon administration and the first part of the Carter presidency, the U.S. intelligence community had predicted that ROK and DPRK forces had reached a rough parity so that neither side would be able to successfully invade the other. Part of this judgment was based on how little attention U.S. intelligence officials paid to North Korea during the Vietnam War, as well as the difficulty in obtaining good intelligence from a closed state such as North Korea. [xv] This assessment changed due to the work of John Armstrong, an Army officer who was assigned to analysis intelligence about North Korea during this time. Armstrong discovered that North Korea’s military was far stronger than had been previously assumed. Armstrong’s work influenced Army generals, members of Carter’s own bureaucracy, and Congressmen, who then put pressure on Carter to reconsider the withdrawal.[xvi] Three weeks after Carter’s trip to Seoul, his National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski announced that the U.S. would postpone further troop withdrawals until 1981, and would depend on “credible indications that a satisfactory military balance has been restored.”[xvii] The deadline was made meaningless when Carter lost the election for his second term and Ronald Reagan became president.

  1. c) Modern Day Fear of Abandonment

After President Carter, no other U.S. president has attempted to withdraw all the U.S. ground troops from South Korea. However, this does not mean that the ROK fear of abandonment has disappeared, or that it is not possible for the U.S. to change their alliance policy in ways that affect ROK security. One recent example of this is Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld’s announcement in 2003 that he intended to withdraw or relocate U.S. forces in 2013, believing them to be an outdated remnant of the Cold War. The reasoning that Rumsfeld offered was similar to that of President Carter, with Rumsfeld pointing out that since South Korea had a power economy and a better-equipped military, Seoul had “all the capability in the world of providing the kind of up-front deterrent that’s needed.”[xviii] The Iraq War was highly unpopular in South Korea, however the threat of the U.S downgrading alliance ties was enough to convince the South Korean government to send ROK forces to Iraq when the United States requested it.[xix] However, as the Nixon Doctrine demonstrated, ROK participation in U.S. wars does not guarantee strong ally relationships and a downgrading of the alliance may still occur. For example, in 2004, the U.S. moved 3,600 U.S. troops from South Korea to Iraq.[xx]

For the United States, it is important to be aware of abandonment fears of its allies. Awareness of these fears does not mean that U.S. strategy should be held hostage to them, but like in all relationships communication is important. Rather than consult with the ROK, President Nixon and Carter made plans that had serious implications for ROK security unilaterally and even let other parties know before South Korea. ROK feelings of insecurity can result in outcomes that are not in the United States best interest, such as President Park Chung Hee’s secret plan to build a nuclear weapon. For the ROK, it is important to realize that the U.S-ROK alliance is not an iron clad guarantee, but a relationship that the ROK needs to tend carefully. President Carter was clear that Americans found President Park Chung Hee’s human rights violations repugnant and that this divergence in the U.S. and ROK government’s values was a cause in the planned troop withdrawal. While currently, the ROK is a liberal democratic country that is closely aligned to the United States, maintaining close relations should remain a priority and should not be taken for granted. However, no matter how much communication and relationship building the United States and the ROK commit to, as the weaker partner in the relationship it is likely that the ROK’s abandonment fear will play an important role in the alliance as long as it exists.

[i] Richard M. Nixon (November 3, 1969). “President Nixon’s Speech on “Vietnamization”

[ii] Ibid

[iii] Victor Cha, Alignment Despite Antagonism: The United States-Korea-Japan Security Triangle, 61.

[iv] Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (New York: Basic Books, 2001), 13.

[v] Victor Cha, Alignment Despite Antagonism: The United States-Korea-Japan Security Triangle, 63.

[vi] Colin Schultz, “The Time the U.S. Nearly Nuked North Korea Over a Highjacked Spy Ship,” Smithsonian Magazine, January 28, 2014, http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/time-us-nearly-nuked-north-korea-over-highjacked-spy-ship-180949514/?no-ist

[vii] Don Oberdorfer,12.

[viii] Ibid,14.

[ix] Jungmin Kang and H.A. Feiveson, “South Korea’s Shifting and Controversial Interest in Spent Fuel Reprocessing,” The Nonproliferation Review, Spring 2001.

[x] Victor Cha, Alignment Despite Antagonism: The United States-Korea-Japan Security Triangle, 114.

[xi] James Sterngold, “South Korea’s Vietnam Veterans Begin to Be Heard,” The New York Times, May 10, 1992, http://www.nytimes.com/1992/05/10/world/south-korea-s-vietnam-veterans-begin-to-be-heard.html

[xii] Victor Cha, Alignment Despite Antagonism: The United States-Korea-Japan Security Triangle, 150.

[xiii] Don Oberdorfer,106.

[xiv] Ibid, 108.

[xv] Joe Wood, “Persuading a President: Jimmy Carter and American Troops in Korea,” Harvard Kennedy School Case Study, 1996, http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB431/docs/intell_ebb_002.PDF

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Don Oberdorfer,106.

[xviii] David Ensor, “U.S. May Withdraw from South Korea,” CNN, March 6, 2003, http://www.cnn.com/2003/US/03/06/korea.us.troops/

[xix] James Brooke, “South Korea May Send Troops to Iraq, but at a Price to U.S.,” New York Times, October 7, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/07/international/asia/07CND-KORE.html

[xx] Josh White, “U.S. Troops Moving From S. Korea to Iraq,” Washington Post, May 18, 2014, http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A34653-2004May17.html

Advertisements

About Leon Whyte

I'm a recent graduate of the Fletcher school of Law and Diplomacy. My interests include Pacific Asia and Security. I am looking for related opportunities.
This entry was posted in International Relations, Korea and tagged , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s