(Contributed)
(Above: South Koreans burn an effigy of Japanese PM Shinzo Abe in 2013 following his visit to the notorious Yasakuni Shrine)
The United States’ preoccupation with China in the
Asia-Pacific has been responsible for a massive wave of militarism. China,
however, is not their sole regional consideration.
The US also pays special attention to countries pursing
favourable diplomacy and trade with China; they are regarded with suspicion.
The Korean peninsula, therefore, is an important
consideration for US diplomatic positioning.
Korea has been a major consideration in recent high-level
diplomatic meetings between the US and Japan.
However, the US has under-estimated those regarded as
clients and failed to understand and accurately assess the dynamism of
Korean-Chinese and Korean-Japanese diplomacy.
The problem, for the US, is a logical outcome of
aggressive foreign policy, symptomatic of imperialist arrogance.
The rapid rise of China has tilted the balance of forces
across the Asia-Pacific. The US has increasingly sought to regain a perceived
loss of their traditional hegemonic position. Their response has been waged at
two levels: economic and militarily.
Both levels of US foreign policy are encompassed within
the Global Transformation of Defence and Security (GTDS) regional planning inherited
from the previous Bush administration when Donald Rumsfeld was Defence
Secretary.
It included the transformation of Japan from a
client-type state into a fully-fledged northern regional hub for 'US interests'
with Australia as a southern counterpart. The GTDS has nearly been fully
implemented, with the Japanese pacifist constitution being conspicuously
sidelined to serve US foreign policy. The US developed the GTDS as a means by
which China could be contained and encircled, restricting its ability to
dislodge traditional US hegemonic positions.
South Korea rejects US
plan for ballistic missiles
(Above: Anti-THAAD protesters in Seoul on March 17, 2015)
US military strategy has faced a number of
problems linked to their failure to accurately assess the intricate nature of
Asian diplomacy and the historical legacy of the Second World War and Japanese
aggression toward the region. Matters recently came to head.
In October last year the US casually announced
they were considering placing 'an advanced missile defence system in South
Korea'. Two days later a diplomatic statement from Seoul, declared, 'there have
been no bilateral discussion on the deployment of a THAAD system to South
Korea'. The matter was then allowed to be conveniently shelved for future
reference amid the highest levels of the South Korean administration of
President Park.
In March, however, a further statement from
the Park administration noted 'the ROK were not keen to host US ballistic
missile systems for fear of upsetting China', and 'a spokesman for the South
Korean Defence Ministry had noted that other countries should keep out of South
Korean security policy debates'.
Further discussions would appear to have
taken place within the higher levels of President Park's administration, and,
eventually, the following official statement was released: 'South Korea's
Defence Ministry on Monday affirmed and confirmed it will not be acquiring the
US advanced defence system'.
China-South
Korea relations improve
Three important factors had been overlooked
by the US.
China has become the major trading partner
for South Korea. An example of the high-level diplomacy taking place between
the two countries can be seen by the four-day state visit by President Park to
China in June, 2013. She was accompanied by 71 South Korean business leaders
and the official outcome was, 'to bolster bilateral ties'. Extensive Chinese
investment is also used for the joint Korean Kaesong Trade Park where 123 ROK
companies and 800 staff employ 53,000 DPRK workers.
Secondly, in January, President Park
announced her administration was willing to reopen high-level diplomatic
relations with Pyongyang without any preconditions. She also stated, 'my
position is that, to ease the pain of division and to accomplish peaceful reunification,
I am willing to meet with anyone'. The statement was also accompanied by the
US$2.7 million aid money to the DPRK and a stated willingness to resume
cross-border visits for families in both countries.
The statement clearly riled the US which seeks,
at all times, a strategy of permanent tension toward the DPRK. A peaceful
resolution of problems on the Korean peninsula does not form part of Pentagon
military planning. It also raises questions about the continued US military
involvement in South Korea after peace is achieved.
Thirdly, Japan-Korean diplomatic relations
remain in a state of tension: South Korean people have a lasting memory of the
atrocities which took place during the Japanese occupation of their country and
Second World War period. The development of the GTDS has heightened fears of a
resurgence of Japanese nationalism and militarism.
Japan’s
aggressive nationalism
(Above: South Koreans protest Abe's refusal to apologise for Japanese war crimes)
Moves by Japan to nationalise about 280
remote islands which have served for generations as markers for regional
shipping-lanes has been interpreted as the resumption of aggressive foreign
policy, unleashed by the reinterpretation of their pacifist constitution which
accompanied the country's incorporation into the GTDS. The Korean people are
not alone. Most Asian countries were content to have Japan kept in military check
with a constitution which prevented aggressive nationalism. Serious questions
now arise.
Likewise, a statement from the Japanese
education ministry that they were planning to revise teaching manuals and
textbooks about disputed islands from the 2016 academic year has thrown
Japanese-South Korean diplomacy into direct hostility. Tokyo regards the
disputed Takeshima islets as 'our inherent territories', and says 'it is
necessary to help students understand that for the nation there is no
sovereignty issue that needs to be resolved'. The islets, however, remain at
the centre of a long-time ownership dispute with Seoul.
US and
Japan relegating South Korea’s importance
And for a clear view of future US foreign
policy toward the Asia-Pacific region, a recent ANZ Bank report, ASEAN: The Next Horizon, released in the
first half of the year, provided an assessment of economic prospects. It
suggested three sub-divisions will develop: Myanmar, Cambodia and Laos, with a
large youthful workforce for 'new production platforms'; Thailand, the Philippines
and others 'competing as the most cost-effective mid-value manufacturing
centres’; Singapore and Malaysia 'as dominant finance, technology and design
hubs'.
Korea, however, was hardly referred to in the
report. It was as if it had been assessed as not forming part of the bigger
US-led picture of the region in the future.
And finally, when Japanese Prime Minister
Shinzo Abe addressed both houses of the US parliamentary system in early May,
he 'pointedly relegated South Korea to a clause about enhancing cooperation
which also took in ASEAN'.
Throughout the period of the high-level
diplomatic manoeuvring between the US and Japan, they had difficulty contacting
President Park who was officially, 'recuperating from a stomach ailment
following a South American tour'.
Perhaps President Park also learned a few
political lessons about the past excesses of US power and imperialist arrogance
from leaders in the southern half of the Americas.
Their conspicuous 'de-coupling' from US-led
trade and financial deals may well have provided the South Korean leader with
food for considerable thought.
No comments:
Post a Comment