Experts differ on causes, agree there is a rift between Seoul and Washington
At a hearing on the South Korea-U.S. alliance, held at the U.S. House International Relations Committee on September 27, there was a general admission of differences between the views held by Seoul and Washington, but an overall move toward "a more mature and equal partnership," in the words of one participant. The committee’s chairman, Henry Hyde, stressed that there is almost no alliance in history which has endured through so many important turning points as the one between South Korea and the U.S. A key to maintaining the partnership is to remain faithful to one another, he said. Rep. Tom Lantos, Democrat of California, said that while Washington and Seoul are not best friends anymore, there still exists an economic, political, and security relationship and a broad common interest between the two countries. South Korea has a fundamentally different vision from the United States in terms of ways to accomplish the goal of a nuclear-free Korean peninsula, he said, but U.S. diplomats should closely cooperate with South Korea and its neighboring nations to find new and creative ways to achieve their common goal. Rep. Gary Ackerman, Democrat of New York, said that not only did President Bush mismanage policies on Korea, he also did wrong in pushing away the U.S.’s partner, South Korea. It has been impossible to maintain constant policies for South and North Korea due to division in the U.S. administration over the North Korean problem, Rep. Ackerman said. The U.S. decisions on realignment of the United States Forces Korea (USFK), changes in the military command system, and reduction of the USFK look a retaliatory measure rather than mutual agreement between the allies, he said.On the other hand, Rep. Dana Rohrabacher, a Republican from California whose father took part in the Korean war, said that the South Korean government does not seem to appreciate the sacrifices the U.S. has made. Seoul does not take issue with the North Korean human rights problem, he said, and it does not help North Korean defectors. He called these actions a betrayal of the blood shed by Americans 60 years ago. Experts held mixed views. Gordon Flake, executive director of the Mansfield Foundation, a Washington-based think tank, cited the North Korean threat, differences of view between Washington and Seoul on the South Korea-U.S. imbalance, and political conflicts caused from careless remarks between the two nations as reasons for problems in the South Korea-U.S. relationship. South Korea wants to make sovereign, strategic decisions regarding the alliance problem, while the U.S. tries to evaluate the partnership within a regional context, he said. Balbina Hwang, a senior researcher at the Heritage Foundation, said that the structure of the South Korea-U.S. alliance poses a dilemma for both sides. The deterrent provided by the United States has become a basis for South Korea to pursue a policy of engagement with the communist regime, she said, but it has also become a stumbling block for the accomplishment of any goals. After about 50 years, every relationship will suffer confusion or a crisis, Hwang continued. In consideration of the invaluable nature of the alliance, she said, the South Korea-U.S. partnership is worthwhile to preserve.
