After Trump's years of damaging the US alliance with South Korea, Biden fixes the main damaging issue in weeks.
See The Diplomat's (paysite) article, of March 8, 2021, at:
https://thediplomat.com/2021/03/south-korea-and-us-reach-agreement-on-defense-cost-sharing/
13 comments:
Utter Nonsense.
Biden will destroy foreign affairs with our strategic partners while selling us off to his Chinese sponsors. Anyone not supporting an America (or X minus China) First Strategy is basically a collaborator
Au contraire Anonymous
Behold March 14, 2021 at https://thehill.com/policy/international/543025-biden-lays-groundwork-for-high-stakes-china-meeting
"President Biden is preparing to confront China on a range of issues in the coming week as he seeks to reassert America's position on the global stage.
Secretary of State Antony Blinken and national security adviser Jake Sullivan are set to meet with their Chinese counterparts in Alaska in what will be the first high-level meeting between the two countries since Biden took office.
The meeting will follow an effort by the White House to demonstrate U.S. solidarity with its allies in the Indo-Pacific. Biden is seeking to work in solidarity with other countries to stand up to Beijing, in contrast with his predecessor’s go-it-alone approach.
The president wants to work with China on areas of mutual concern, such as the coronavirus pandemic and climate change, but not without pushing back on its crackdown on human rights, unfair trade practices and theft of U.S. technology.
Balancing those efforts will be challenging, and before he even took office Republicans sought to brand Biden as soft on China in comparison to former President Trump.
Biden on Friday met with the leaders of Australia, Japan and India, which together with the U.S. comprise the “Quad,” as all four nations experience rising tensions with China.
[And here's the key bit Anonymouse]
...“President Biden's statement that his administration will pursue ‘extreme competition’ with China has quieted skeptics who feared the new administration might revert to policies pursued in the Obama years that aimed to placate China to get its support on the climate change issue,” said Curtis, who is now a senior fellow at the Center for New American Security..."
Cheers
Pete
Just to point out denuclearization of the Korean peninsula has morphed into denuclearization of North Korea, which will never happen. It is already too late for that. Control may be a more feasible option.
That simple wording change carries strategic implications. Does it mean that ROK can now look at acquiring its own nuclear umbrella?
KQN
Hi KQN [at Mar 17, 2021, 8:57:00 AM]
Yes I wrote a couple of years ago - see https://gentleseas.blogspot.com/2018/05/north-korea-could-expect-another.html
- (when Trump seriously thought NK's Kim would de-nuclearize) how deluded Trump was.
I argued the NK had been invaded by pretty much everyone over the last 120 years (Japan, Russia, China, US and UN forces) so it was only to be expected NK would arm itself with a never-again-style deterrent.
The US or China assisting NK with nuclear weapons command and control, in the way the US assists Pakistan with a command-control model, sounds reasonable.
NK or China might go to major conventional war to dissuade SK from arming itself with nukes. I think, instead, the US reassures SK of nuclear umbrella frequently though quietly.
Regards
Pete
Lost in translation or is there a divide? US DOD press release says denuclearization of North Korea. ROK press release says denuclearization of Korean peninsula.
KQN
I don't know KQN. Could be intentional ambiguity.
"Denuclearization of South Korea (SK)" means little.
This is given at very short notice
US nuclear armed bombers, as well as US SSBNs and SSGNs (Tomahawks retrofitted with nuclear warheads)
could provide a nuclear umbrella for SK without actually having to situate these nukes on SK territory or in SK waters.
Pete
Hi Pete
On comment (Mar 18, 2021, 8:38:00 AM) and T. Suzuoki’s article
Chosun Ilbo explained “Denuclearization of North Korea”[1]. Abstract of Suzuoki’s article [2] is as follows. The US-Korea Ministerial Meeting held in Seoul on March 17th and 18th made the world aware that there is a deep gap between the two countries. The United States, which was trying to create a Chinese siege, repeatedly called for a democratic nation in front of media cameras [1, 2], but South Korea refused it. The United State has a trump card. If the United States does not lend the dollar in an emergency, South Korea could fall into a currency crisis [1].
[1] https://www.chosun.com/opinion/editorial/2021/03/19/VS7WW5CAD5H5LADZHGXO3V3NWY/
On the 16th, the US stated "complete denuclearization of North Korea" in a statement in a statement of diplomatic and defense ministers' talks with Japan. This phrase was also included in the statement of the "Quad" summit led by President Biden. Nevertheless, the absence of “denuclearization” only in the US-Korea statement can only be see as a request from the Korean side. This position can only be determined by the President. The USA side would not have been able to make a fricative sound in the first encounter with Korea. Instead, Secretary of State Blinken said at a press conference that “we must focus on the denuclearization of North Korea” and “cooperate with the alliance to denuclearize North Korea.”
[2] https://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2021/03221700/?all=1
[3] https://www.state.gov/secretary-antony-j-blinken-and-republic-of-korea-foreign-minister-chung-eui-yong-before-their-meeting/
(Secretary Antony J. Blinken and Republic of Korea Foreign Minister Chung Eui-yong Before Their Meeting)
Regards
Hi Anonymous [your Mar 23, 2021, 7:16:00 PM]
Overall it is promising that the Biden Administration has such good relations with South Korea (SK) compared to the Trump Administration's hostile bargaining with SK.
South Korea is being careful to work on a better defense relationship with the US while not greatly increasing tensions with already warlike North Korea (NK) or with China.
SK is more threatened bey China and NK than Japan is,
- Nuclear missiles from China or NK could hit SK faster and easier than hitting Japan.
- Also as SK is on the same landmass as China and NK. Tanks from China or NK could invade SK but cannot invade Japan (as easily).
__________________________
So SK has a different diplomatic relationship and wording of foreign/defence policy messages (to enemies and allies) than Japan has.
I liked this message at https://keia.org/the-peninsula/a-more-proactive-south-korean-foreign-policy/ of March 19th, 2021:
"Under the Biden administration, however, the rhetoric on the Quad alliance has focused on bringing together democratic institutions in the Asia-Pacific and countering China’s rise through promoting democracy. This shift has given South Korea more leeway in joining the initiative under the Biden administration in exchange for U.S. support on North Korea.
Up for renegotiation in 2019, the Special Measures Agreement talks were also complicated by the Trump administration, which originally asked for an 18 percent increase in South Korean burden-sharing and rejected South Korea’s offer of a 13 percent increase in April.
However, under the Biden administration, the negotiations were concluded less than two months after Biden took office, and Seoul agreed to a 13.9 percent increase, .9 percent higher than U.S. officials thought they would go. This is the biggest increase in South Korean cost-sharing since 2002."
Pete Comment: South Korea cannot become a Quad member very quickly. It will take years.
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
Recently, Voice of America (VOA), an American international broadcaster funded by the United States Congress, reported listed corruption and sexual harassment of South Korean public officials. Biden administration refused South Korea leftwing administration [1, 2].
Then, South Korean foreign minister visits China first, not USA [3].
[1] https://www.voakorea.com/korea/korea-politics/south-korea-human-rights
The U.S. Department of State's '2020 National Human Rights Report' is an exceptional case of corruption and sexual harassment of public officials in South Korea. In the 'Corruption' section, former Attorney General Cho Kook and National Assembly member Kim Hong-geol are mentioned, and in the section 'Sexual Harassment', the charges of former Seoul Mayor Park Won-soon and former Busan Mayor Oh Geo-don are listed in detail. Reporter Bae Sung-won reports.
[2] https://www.dailyshincho.jp/article/2021/03291701/?all=1&page=1
Biden's State Department reported admitted Moon Jae-in as a "human rights president ignoring human rights".
[3] https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20210331_18/
The ministry says the two will exchange opinions on bilateral relations and international affairs including the situation on the Korean Peninsula. South Korea's conservative Joongang Daily notes that it is unusual for one of the country's foreign ministers to visit China ahead of a trip to the US.
Regards
Thanks Anonymous [at Mar 31, 2021, 5:06:00 PM]
Another interesting perspective is from Assistant Professor Kuyoun Chung, Political Science Department, Kangwon National University, at Chuncheon, South Korea, writing at the East Asia Forum, March 31, 2021 https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/03/31/why-south-korea-is-balking-at-the-quad/ I've shortened full country names to SK, US, NK.
"Why South Korea is balking at the Quad
As great power competition intensifies, SK is coming under pressure to choose between the US and China. At the same time, recognising its waning dominance in the region, Washington is probing the willingness of allies and partners to join a like-minded democratic coalition in confrontation with China.
The anti-access environment — layered by Chinese anti-ship cruise and ballistic missiles, armed combat aircraft and submarines — is weakening the US capacity to maintain stability in the region.
China is realigning the US-led economic architecture to solidify its supply chains and increase the economic interdependence of other countries in the region. Hoping to become an indispensable player in East Asia, Beijing is also using its economic clout to weaken the cohesion of the US-led alliance system and bring US allies and partners closer to its orbit.
There is now a sense of urgency for the US to forge and strengthen a more extensive web of like-minded ‘Indo-Pacific’ democracies. Such a coalition would be instrumental in slowing down the pace of geopolitical flux and reinforcing the hard power behind the liberal order that the Biden administration intends to restore.
The Quad, comprising US, India, Japan and Australia — and QUAD-PLUS, intend to multilateralise the US-led hub-and-spoke bilateral alliance system and encourage spoke-to-spoke cooperation. This is what the United States envisions as part of a networked security architecture.
But US allies and partners in the region [especially SK] have been reluctant to join this effort. The uncertain end-state of US–China competition — as well as concern over potential Chinese economic coercion — are impacting their decision. While US–China competition continues to serve as an organising principle for US foreign policy under the Biden administration, the prospect of complete decoupling and disengagement between these two great powers seems remote.
Washington may need to take a more nuanced approach and carefully distinguish like-situated countries, which mostly worry about the risk of great power competition, from like-minded countries, which are more willing to resist the decline of liberal order. Though these two groups are not necessarily exclusive, they prioritise different foreign policy goals according to their primary concern, different threat perception, economic interest and the level of resilience to resist Chinese coercion.
The US needs to balance these potentially countervailing frames when mobilising allies and partners in the region to build a more inclusive and layered regional architecture. The Biden administration’s commitment to renewing US global leadership with strong reassurance measures will sustain this architecture, which was non-existent under the Trump administration’s ‘America First’ foreign policy.
Against this backdrop, SK, like other middle powers in the region, has hedged against the risk of great power competition and focused on its own foreign policy priority — NK.
SK’s Moon Jae-in administration prioritises foreign policy goals aimed at improving inter-Korean relations as a way to denuclearise the North’s nuclear weapons and sustain the peace process on the Korean Peninsula.
As long as North Korea is the core driver of SK’s foreign policy, Seoul needs to maintain a good relationship with China — NK’s main benefactor — to preserve the momentum of inter-Korean dialogue. This explains Seoul’s relatively accommodating foreign policy attitude towards China.
[MORE TO FOLLOW]
[FROM ABOVE]
China’s economic coercion during the THAAD deployment dispute in 2016 drove a wedge in US–SK relations and revealed Seoul’s economic vulnerability to China. The recent Chinese request for SK to join Beijing’s global data security initiative seemed another attempt to keep SK from joining the US Clean Network initiative.
Despite such pressure from China, Washington’s hope of building on the Quad or the QUAD PLUS with SK may not be immediately fulfilled. Another factor explaining SK’s reticence towards the Quad is that — for now — it does not want the Quad-plus, or even an expanded Quad, to serve as an instrument to develop a regional block that further accelerates the pace of decoupling.
[THIS IS VERY SIGNIFICANT]
SK’s lukewarm attitude towards the Quad-plus does not imply a diminishing commitment to the US–SK alliance. SK still wants to deepen bilateral relations with the US beyond the traditional military domains. SK is also likely to channel its support for the Biden administration’s forthcoming strategy on the Indo-Pacific, as it aligned its New Southern Policy with the Trump administration’s ‘free and open Indo-Pacific’ strategy.
But if China continues to encroach on SK’s vital security interests indefinitely, a time may come when Seoul is no longer a ‘weak link’ in the US-led East Asian security triangle."
[ENDS]
Regards
Pete
Hi Pete
South Korea is given the choice of USA or China.
Regards
Hi Anonymous [at Apr 2, 2021, 4:45:00 PM]
Regarding your comment: "South Korea is given the choice of USA or China."
No, you are not correct.
All countries have more complex foreign pollicies (than Either-Or) towards friends and potential enemies.
For example the US has a fiendship policy with Taiwan and a large trade policy with China.
Australia has strategic reliance on the US but more economic reliance on China.
South Korea also has strategic reliance on the US but a nuanced policy that minimises tension with China.
Regards
Pete
Post a Comment