US troops and Korea

By Choi Sung-jin

For most Koreans, including those as old as 70, the presence of American troops here has been a routine scene since their birth.

Particularly, for people who lived in towns and districts where large U.S. bases were located ― Yongsan, Dongducheon, Uijeongbu, Pyeongtaek, etc., ― the U.S. military was part of their lives and a way of making a living.

For old conservatives, the U.S. military presence has been a sacred part of the bilateral alliance that protects South Korea from North Korean threats and provocations. For progressive nationalists, the U.S. troops were occupying forces and the symbol of Seoul's diplomatic subordination to Washington.

Whenever U.S. leaders talk about troop cuts ― let alone withdrawal ― the entire nation is thrown into raucous turmoil amid fierce debates between pros and cons. It was no exception early this month when The New York Times reported U.S. President Donald Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare options for downsizing the number of American troops in South Korea.

President Trump's reported instruction, which came just weeks before he holds a historic meeting with North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, astonished many people on this side of Pacific. Conservative opposition leaders here said, “Look, Pyongyang's tactic to drive a wedge between Seoul and Washington has begun to work, even before Kim Jong-un made clear his plans to denuclearize the communist state.”

President Moon Jae-in hurriedly attempted to calm jitters about alleged troop cuts. Cheong Wa Dae said news that the White House was considering drawing down troops was “not true at all.” Officials in Washington also tried to put out the flame. Defense Secretary Jim Mattis said the U.S. troop presence in South Korea would not be part of any bargain with North Korea. “That's not something that would be on the table in the initial negotiations,” Secretary Mattis was quoted as saying.

South Korean conservatives' worries about losing American protectors could, however, prove to be groundless. Currently, the side that wants the U.S. troop cuts or withdrawal most is China, to realize its dream of firming up its hegemony in this part of the world.

North Korea does not seem to be dying to see American soldiers leave the Korean Peninsula. North Korea's founder Kim Il-sung, the grandfather of the current leader, hinted as early as in 1992 that Pyongyang wants U.S. troops to stay here as a “regional stabilizer” even after unification of the peninsula.

Kim Jong-il, the father of Kim Jong-un, also reaffirmed North Korea's need for a U.S. military presence as a check against China, during his summit with Roh Moo-hyun in 2007. Kim Jong-un himself made it clear when he met with President Moon last month that Pyongyang would not call for a U.S. troop withdrawal even if they sign a peace treaty.

South Koreans, who are used to American soldiers as part of their daily life, have not many reasons to demand their departure, not least because of the presence of large military powers, including Japan and Russia. That leaves U.S. isolationists, such as President Trump, standing next to Beijing in wanting to pull their troops out of the peninsula.

The real estate tycoon-turned-politician who puts forth his “America first” slogan in diplomacy seems to have raised the issue out of economic concerns. Since his campaign days, Trump has stressed the need to withdraw troops from here for at least three reasons.

First, the American military presence had not kept the North from becoming a nuclear threat. Second, the U.S. troops in South Korea are mainly aimed to protect Japan. Third, and most important, the U.S. is not adequately compensated. The U.S. leader allegedly raised this issue in the run-up to negotiations with Seoul over how to share the cost of stationing the troops. South Korea pays $800 million a year, about half of the price, but Trump wants Seoul to shoulder almost the entire financial burden.

However, South Koreans know they are not the unilateral beneficiaries of the U.S. troops here. Washington is stationing 28,500 soldiers not just to deter the North's provocations but to maintain its military superiority over China in East Asia and the West Pacific.

One has only to look at the new integrated U.S. base in Pyeongtaek, the most massive U.S. military base overseas. With a total area of 14.68 square kilometers, five times larger than Yeouido, the base creates the economic effect of 18 trillion won ($16.6 billion). It is “Little America” in Korea, complete with military installations, residences, schools, recreational facilities and even a U.S. Army prison ― with the address of the state of California. The Seoul government has financed almost all of its construction cost but why has the U.S. built such a vast facility if it is going to withdraw its troops?

So the conservatives here can rest assured ― U.S. troops will be here at least for the next couple of decades. Contrary to the argument of conservatives whose dependency on the U.S. has become second nature; however, having foreign troops stationed in one's country is nothing to be proud of, and harmful for its economic ― and mental ― health.

If South and North Korea sign a peace treaty and stick to it, the rationale for the U.S. military presence here will be weakened sharply. If the two Koreas maintain a de facto unified state and seek and win the status of a permanently neutral country by persuading the surrounding powers, they will need no foreign soldiers on the peninsula.

There was a time when Koreans calling for the withdrawal of U.S. troops were punished in violation of the anti-communist National Security Law. That must be a story from a long time ago. Only when Koreans, especially conservatives, eliminate “Cold War” thinking from their heads, can a unified strong Korea take the first steps forward toward leading a “normal” life.

Choi Sung-jin is a Korea Times columnist. Contact him at choisj1955@naver.com.