August 17, 2000

Détente or Detention? U.S. presence in Koreas is outdated
Summit's success should force rethink of U.S. role in Korea, study argues

WASHINGTON-South Korean president Kim Dae Jung may have declared that "the danger of war on the Korean peninsula has disappeared," but how is Washington reacting? By looking forward to keeping troops there in perpetuity, observes Doug Bandow in a new study from the Cato Institute. That, he argues, is a huge mistake.

In "Korean Détente: A Threat to Washington's Anachronistic Military Presence?" Bandow, a Cato senior fellow and nationally syndicated columnist, examines the rationale behind the U.S. military presence on the peninsula and finds it wanting. As inter-Korean relations have improved beyond all expectations, "Washington's objective appears to be to preserve the U.S. military presence in Korea at all costs," Bandow says. Although a lasting peace is far from guaranteed, Bandow notes, the Republic of Korea, with twice the population of the North and an economy 30 times larger, is quite capable of defending itself without the help of its American babysitter.

Why then would Washington want to keep the troops in place? "Stability"-a code word for containing China and restraining Japan-is the oft-cited rationale. But, Bandow asks, what use are the U.S. troops in Korea when "America would hardly be so foolish as to fight a ground war against China? Why would we try to restrain Japan, when it should be pushed to do more militarily, not less?" And, he asks, what good could troops in Korea be when the "greatest threats to regional stability are internal: a Muslim insurgency and political corruption in the Philippines, democratic protests and ethnic conflict in Burma, and economic, ethnic, nationalist, and religious discord in Indonesia"?

While some people in the Republic of Korea would cling to a U.S. military presence, that sentiment is not shared by much of the population. As Bandow points out, the future of inter-Korean relations "should be determined by the two Koreas." He concludes that the evolving relationship between the Koreas should also transform the relationship between the ROK and the United States. "After a half century of sometimes tempestuous patron-client relations, it is time the two countries forge a friendly relationship between equals."

"Korean Détente: A Threat to Washington’s Anachronistic Military Presence?"