At last month's U.S.-Korea Security Policy Initiative (SPI) meeting the U.S. pulled out the "threat card," saying U.S. troops could be withdrawn from Korea. The reason was that the Ministry of the Environment reversed its position on something that had been agreed. At issue is the question of who will pay the cost of the cleanup at U.S. installations being returned to Korea, where poisonous material contamination is some seventy times more than permissible levels. The survey of the 62 places that are scheduled to be returned is not over yet, but the cost of the cleanup is expected to be W500 billion. That would be a major burden for the Americans as well, so they surely want to have it shifted elsewhere.
The country finds this confusing. Is the US Army so insignificant that there could be talk of a withdraw simply because of the cost of dealing with pollution? The US Air Force and Navy will probably also talk about leaving over the cost of treating pollution on their installations as well. What reason is there to be obsessed with such a weak and trivial alliance? If the Korean government deceived the Americans, what was that supposedly about? Has the Korean government ever been independent enough to change its mind on something already agreed to with the U.S.? The environment ministry says it arranged things in a direction that respects environmental issues. However, it is said that National Defense Minister Yoon Kwang Ung, arguing from the American position, worked to influence the environment ministry. Whose side is the Ministry of National Defense on, anyway? The government needs to be transparent with what has taken place in the negotiations and with whatever has been done wrong.
In the U.S. the toxic contamination of land and subterranean water was so serious it caused cancer and there was a rapid increase in deaths, so they permanently moved local residents and then it took 22 years for the cleanup. That shows you how hard it is to bring a contaminated environment back to life. If the U.S. is not going to bear responsibility when it has contaminated the environment and caused death and disease in various forms of life, then one has to rethink the meaning of what an ally is.
The more complicated an issue, the more you need to be faithful to straightforward methods instead of threats. The first principle of environmental policy is "paying one's share for the pollution." That is a phrase from an American textbook.
The Hankyoreh, 17 April 2006.
[Translations by Seoul Selection]
