Posts Tagged ‘KORUS’

DEFEND SOUTH KOREA?

Monday, April 8th, 2013

The great rule of conduct for us, in regard to foreign nations, is, in extending our commercial relations, to have with them as little political connexion as possible.” -President George Washington (1796)

The United States of America has been travelling a historic road to ruin by squandering its wealth in order to maintain its military hegemony. The most recent victim of this time-honored journey to disaster was the Soviet Union, which imploded not politically, not militarily, not socially, but economically. Neo-liberal detractors notwithstanding, the foreign policy of President Ronald Wilson Reagan represented an outstanding example of military success as described centuries ago in The Art of War by Sun Tsu; the President won without firing a shot.

How? By bankrupting the enemy through American strength not American weakness.

The consequence? The end of the so-called Cold War, otherwise known by some as the Long Peace, to be replaced by a host of smaller but even more dangerous threats to America, the most recent being the bellicose behavior by the egregiously misnamed Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (aka/North Korea).

From a scientific perspective, behavior occurs in a context and ultimately is a function of its consequences. Unfortunately, behavior often is a function initially of its antecedents, in which case the subsequent consequence commonly is disaster. In formulating our response, we Americans best had bring our behavior under the control of its consequences not allow it to fall prey to the antecedents that occasion it.

ANALYSIS

Context

Beginning in 1950, American forces have been defending the Republic of Korea (aka/ South Korea). Since the truce in 1953, the real economic cost to The USA has remained clouded but minimally is in the tens of billions (adjusted for inflation). Today, whereas the South Korean government contributes substantially to the maintenance of American military installations in Korea, the American taxpayer contributes the remainder, ironically borrowing the money from The People’s Republic of China, which, in turn, has a military treaty with North Korea. This peculiar arrangement represents the American idea of foreign policy.

In return for American protection, despite the recently enacted Korea-US Free Trade Agreement, the South Koreans promote predatory exporting of goods to The USA while blocking imports from The USA. In fact, the lopsided trading only has worsened since implementation of “KORUS”.

Until KORUS, South Korea effectively used an overt battery of obstacles to American imports; including bans, tariffs, taxes, and regulatory barriers, especially with regard to automobiles. Even after KORUS, during 2012, South Korea exported to The USA 704,700 cars; whereas, America shipped to South Korea only 22,600.

Meanwhile, the trading deficit with South Korea continues increasing. During August 2012, for example, the deficit more than doubled from the year before . . . from $740 million to $1.6 billion. What would President Washington say?

To add insult to injury, since 1953, anti-American sentiment has increased among the population in South Korea, its proponents often using isolated events involving American troops to promote the antipathy. Predictable is the hiding of such sentiment when North Korea rattles its nuclear sabers, as Kim Jong-un currently is doing.

Conversely, unpredictable is Kim Jong-un’s behavior. Who is he . . . as a person? What is he . . . in his role as supreme leader of North Korea? Where is he . . . mentally?

Reared controlling virtual weapons on video-games, he now controls real weapons in the North Korean nuclear arsenal. Remaining an enigma, his persona is a matter of mere speculation with the most authoritative, Western expert being the mentally erratic and behaviorally unpredictable, former basketball-player, Dennis Rodman. To what extent does Kim Jong-un’s behavior reflect cool, calm, mature, reasoned cognition? His choice of an American ambassador of good-will might make one wonder.

The foregoing description of South Korea is not intended as an indictment of that rump-nation or its people. On the contrary, they deserve praise for their achievements.

Any indictment is directed at those Democratic and Republican politicians, bureaucrats, and their supporters who have planned and executed what passes for American foreign policy. It is those Americans who created the context in which the South Koreans merely operated to their advantage and to our detriment.

Antecedent

North Korea threatens to invade South Korea and, should America indicate its intent to intervene, to attack American installations in the nearby Pacific.

Behavior

The American government, typically at a loss for a coherent foreign policy, initially responds in a bellicose fashion with words and “war-games” then begins to retreat . . . then reverses . . . or does it?

Consequence

As yet, unknown. Thus far, the financial markets have shown little response, if any.

RESOLUTION

Problem

An excess of bellicose behavior by North Korea against South Korea in which The USA, by treaty, has obligated itself to become involved militarily.

Goal

Constitutionally, to have protected American interests. Politically, with Mr. Obama II in office, unknown.

Plan

Unclear. At the moment, it appears to be to honor the treaty.

The question arises, however, To what extent should The USA continue to expend its dwindling economic resources by extending military protection to other nations; in this case, South Korea?

In 1914, an isolated assassination became the antecedent for World War One. Could a similar isolated, relatively trivial event become the antecedent for a nuclear conflict with North Korea, possibly involving China? If so, is it in the national interests of The USA to intervene in behalf of South Korea? What political, economic, or social benefits does South Korea confer upon The USA? Some might answer, “With friends like them, who needs enemies?”

So, can a case be made not to intervene . . . to let the South Koreans defend themselves? The future of humanity may rest with the answer.

The Cold War with its threat of international Communism long has passed. Accordingly, whatever our decision, should we not be asking ourselves, Given the multitude of violent conflicts erupting internationally, are we to involve ourselves in each and every one? If not, which? Is there even an answer? Fortunately, yes . . . one scientifically-based and scientifically-driven (www.inescapableconsequences.com).

Ah, but in this particular case, if we Americans decline to defend South Korea, economic predator that it may be, are we not placing ourselves into further jeopardy, given North Korean nuclear weapons and missiles? No, not necessarily.

Sadly, the two moments of truth already have passed. The first began in 1950 when we Americans allowed a politically-weakened President Harry S. Truman to bow to the emerging trans-nationalists by entering into an undeclared war in Korea via the newly-created United Nations. The stage for the second was set in 1992 when we Americans elected a deceitful draft-dodger as President . . . Bill Clinton {Let us not forget Jennifer Flowers, ClintonCare [See Healthcare Reform D.O.A. (1994).], and Monica Lewinsky.}. Given President Reagan’s defeat of the Soviet Union, Mr. Clinton promised us an economic “peace dividend”. His means included gutting our military.

In 1953, we Americans failed to win in Korea . . . the first time that America had not won a military conflict since 1812. Had we followed General MacArthur’s advice to pursue victory, advice for which he was fired by President Truman, we should not have faced the second moment of truth forty years later. Would the Soviet Union have intervened? History has confirmed the answer . . . No!

That second moment of truth occurred in 1994 when we Americans discovered that the North Koreans also had been deceiving the American people . . . their deceit involving developing their nuclear capability. What did Mr. Clinton do? Yak and feed. Had we destroyed their nuclear installations, would China have retaliated? Unlikely. Firstly, the Chinese could not launch a nuclear attack against The USA. Secondly, the Chinese could not win a non-nuclear war. Instead, of punishing the enemy for their threatening deceit, he rewarded them with “humanitarian aid”; thereby, promoting their further development of weapons by which to destroy us. Today, we face the frightening consequence of Mr. Clinton’s behavior.

So, now what to do? Rely on the Chinese to resolve the situation-in-question on our behalf?

The Chinese are our self-admitted adversaries, if not enemies, who view, possibly justifiably, America as in “terminal decline”. To what extent will they support us against their geographical buffer . . . their military and political ally, North Korea? Even were they disposed to do so, to what extent can they control that ally? Apparently, even they do not know.

An alternative option to that of defending South Korea is to cancel our military treaty, withdraw our troops from the Korean Peninsula, and warn the North Koreans publicly that, should we even have reason to believe that they are continuing to develop the means of delivering their missiles to American shores, including Hawaii, we will attack without warning and destroy them to whatever extent that we deem necessary. It is a warning that we also might deliver to Iran and others, as need be.

Would the rest of the world regard this move as a sign of weakness? No, not necessarily . . . not if we divert the monies that we have been squandering via losing foreign adventurism into domestic defense of the homeland and not if we stop treating internal enemies, barbarians within our gates, as it were, as though they are patriotic friends.

Unfortunately, this alternative contains a potential obstacle in the person of Mr. Obama II, an individual of dubious background who never owned a business, never held a job in the private sector, never served in the military, and whose primary advisor has a history of Marxist affiliations; yet, who has become President twice-elected. How much more predictable in this situation is Mr. Obama’s behavior than Kim Jong-un’s? If so, what might that behavior be?

In 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev, General Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, recognized the steely resolve of President Reagan during their meeting at Reykjavik, Iceland. Does Barack Hussein Obama II possess such resolve in defending American national interests? If so, would Kim Jong-un recognize it? If not, the aforementioned plan is fatally flawed; in which case, either we Americans shall meet the demands of the little tyrant in Pyongyang and continue our “yakking” while he continues enhancing his nuclear arsenal, or we shall risk strategic nuclear war.

Measurement

Should Mr. Obama II possess such resolve, and should he put the aforementioned option into play as a plan, we must measure continuously North Korean military capability and act accordingly. Scientifically, we have the means. Societally, do we have the will? If not, shall we not prove the Chinese assessment of us correct?