Korea and the United States have issued a joint statement following their first strategic consultations in Washington D.C. What is most notable about the statement is that they have agreed on the concept of "strategic flexibility," which would involve having troops that are part of the United States Forces Korea (USFK) be used for operations outside the Korean peninsula as necessary.
The statement is significant in that it states some principles for the future of the U.S.-Korea alliance. Aside from being the "fortress of Northeast Asian stability," it will also work to "overcome challenges in the region and around the globe." That is basically the right direction. It also fits to have a strong U.S.-Korea alliance alongside the effort to construct a multi-party security cooperation framework in Northeast Asia and a peace regime on the Korean peninsula. However, the way the details are stated it has Korea accommodating the aggressive foreign policy of the Bush Administration, namely "promoting open and democratic systems and human rights around the world" and "strengthening cooperation on the war against terror." There needs to be careful examination of the details as the agreement is implemented.
Strategic flexibility was agreed to too hastily, since much about it is the result of American needs and there were many issues that should have been discussed first. Increased mobility for the USFK as pursued by the Bush Administration deeply relates to not only our own regional security strategy, but also the revision of the U.S.-Korea mutual defense treaty, changes in the combined forces command, transferring wartime operational control of the military, and the Koreanization of Korea's defense. Having strategic flexibility be so prominent presents various problems. The government is saying that this agreement is significantly only as a statement and that is not very likely that the concept will actually be applied, but that is an irresponsible attitude. So is the argument that all will be fine if the government finds agreement on the specifics.
Discussing security issues has the top priority. The right thing for the government to do would be to make progress on agreeing about the specifics that define the foundation of the future alliance instead of on strategic flexibility.
The Hankyoreh, 21 January 2006.
[Translations by Seoul Selection]
[Editorial] 'Strategic Flexibility' Too Hasty |
