The issue of cleaning up pollution on U.S. military bases must not harm the U.S.-South Korea alliance. Likewise, Korea must not be left with the burden of the cleanup just because of the alliance. A mutual confidence becomes justified when each side carries out its obligations, and an alliance grows solid when it is built on confidence. One worries that the self-serving attitude on the part of the U.S. about the question of how to deal with the contamination is going to hurt that confidence.
Back in April, when Washington and Seoul were in the midst of negotiations over how to deal with pollution on U.S. bases, United States Forces Korea (USFK) abruptly informed the Korean government of its own version of plans to return land it has been using. When discussions between governments do not work out, the military meddles in the matter? As a sovereign nation, we find this turn of events displeasing.
The international principle when it comes to environmental pollution is that the polluter bears the burden. The U.S. applies that principle domestically, and so the federal government returns to states land used by the American military only after it deals with any contamination. According to a 1994 study, 57 percent of land on military bases in the U.S. handed over for other uses was environmentally unsuitable. To correct this, the study found, the federal government will pay 32 trillion won (32 billion USD) by 2004 and will pay an additional 3 trillion won by 2032.
The USFK is scheduled to return to the Korean government 62 locations by 2011, and conduct surveys of 1.45 million pyeong (4.8 million square meters) of land on 15 U.S. bases. The Ministry of the Environment says that 5 percent of the land to be returned has been polluted by oil, harmful chemicals, or heavy metals, making it inappropriate for use as farmland or parkland. The reason for the big difference between the 57 percent of land polluted by the military in the U.S. and the 5 percent polluted in Korea is not because USFK bases are less polluted. It is because the standard for measuring harmful substances in Korea is one fifth of what it is in the U.S.
Such is the case, and the U.S. still says it is not going to bear responsibility. It says so while citing the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) between the two nations, which states that the U.S. has no obligation to return used land to its original state. However, in an agreement between the U.S. and Korea adopted in May 2003, there are outlines for the joint eradications of base contamination and U.S. payment of the cost of any cleanup.
Let us assume for a moment that the USFK is working in its own national interest. The Korean government’s approach has been simply pathetic. The Ministry of the Environment insists on the principle that the polluter should pay. The foreign and defense ministries, however, are pushing for concessions from the environmental ministry, emphasizing the importance of the U.S.-Korea alliance. They appear to believe you can buy confidence with money. Otherwise, how else would they think that spending 500 billion won on treating the contamination will strengthen the alliance? Why are they unaware of the fact that a coercive relationship always breeds contempt and indignation?
[Editorial] U.S.-S.K. alliance and base contamination |
