Today Lance Dickie has an opinion piece in the Seattle Times, Show a little respect for our steady Korean ally. Some of the issues he’s gone horribly awry on factually are Japanese popular opinion on Dokdo/Takeshima, U.S.-ROK relations, ROK forces deploying with U.S. forces, South Korea’s position on U.S. regional flexible deployments (i.e., the China-Taiwan conflict scenario), the U.S. position on Kaesong products, and U.S. visas for South Koreans.

The piece is lightly peppered with a few actual facts. For example, there is tension between Korea and Japan over Dokdo/Takeshima and the East Sea/Sea of Japan issues, FTA talks are on the agenda, and the author’s name is indeed Lance Dickie.

Let his editorial serve as an example of what one can look like if they insist on publishing opinions on topics where one relatively ignorant or fails to do the most basic fact-checking (others have also noticed). Headline analysis, reading the first bolded paragraph of CNN articles, and a couple weeks of ‘study’ make experts not. Of course I’m exaggerating, he’s probably not based his opinions on only just headlines, etc., but you wouldn’t know it from what he’s written.

The article starts off with a bizarre, condescending sounding question posed to Alexander Vershbow, U.S. Ambassador to South Korea:

Another annoying report reminds us that American students are horrible at world geography. So here is a question for Alexander Vershbow, U.S. ambassador to the Republic of Korea, who is visiting Seattle today:

Name the body of water off the eastern coast of the Korean peninsula, and, for bonus points, identify the disputed islets located there. Vershbow is welcome to consult with Lee Tae-sik, Korean ambassador to the United States; both are in town for joint appearances hosted by the World Affairs Council.

What is the point here? Is Dickie trying to imply that Vershbow, like many American students, is a tad ignorant of the issues? He moves on the this weeks headline issue:

The Japanese are so upset [over Dokdo/Takeshima] they can barely watch reruns of their favorite South Korean import, “Winter Sonata,” a TV soap opera.

Wrong. It is Korean who are, generally, “so upset” (perhaps “berserk” is more accurate), while the Japanese are relatively ambivalent about the issue, if they are even aware.

The following makes me wonder if there is some other South Korea on Earth:

South Korea has been a steady ally faithfully honoring a military partnership, for decades sending a contingent of troops anywhere U.S. foreign policy has put U.S. soldiers in harm’s way. It is a show of respect worthy of respect.

South Korea simply is ready to move beyond the expectations of a dutiful treaty signatory, and not be taken for granted. Oooh, there is a relationship killer. (emphasis added)

A “steady ally faithfully honoring a military partnership”? South Korean president Roh has, among other serious setbacks, a) killed joint development of OPLAN 5029 (what to do in the event of a complete North Korean collapse) on the grounds that such planning might offend North Korea; b) refused to join the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI); c) attempted to forbid U.S. forces in Korea to deploy in the event of a China-Taiwan conflict (something he has no authority to do), and even; d) offered to let North Korea inspect USFK facilities to verify they are nuclear free (again, no authority to do so)!

South Korea has sent, “a contingent of troops anywhere U.S. foreign policy has put U.S. soldiers in harm’s way”? The more accurate statement is that ROK forces have been in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq, which leaves out a lot of places U.S. forces have been. The ROK troops in Iraq were sent only after much hand wringing debate about what the U.S. would do if they didn’t, and only extremely begrudgingly after that. Then South Korea tried to subtract the cost of that deployment from what it pays USFK in Korea! My definitions of “steady,” “faithful,” and “ally” are apparently quite different than Mr. Chomsky’s Dickie’s.

Another test is under way as the U.S. negotiates a free-trade agreement with its seventh-largest trading partner. . . Where does the Kaesong Industrial Park across the border in North Korea fit into the talks? Does the U.S. view the 16,000-acre plan as appropriate economic aid?

This is a non-question, the U.S. position has been clear for months; products from Kaesong are made in North Korea and therefore are not to be included in a U.S.-ROK FTA, period. An elementary student using Google could probably get that right (Mr. Dickie did not).

One response to South Korea’s friendship and the reality of $70 billion in bilateral trade would be to add South Korea to the countries in the U.S. visa-waiver program. Right now, hundreds of thousands of South Koreans suffer through expensive and time-consuming visa applications and interviews for relatively short stays in the United States.

Quit the Third World treatment of a friend who is fractionally away from satisfying the statistical standards of visa rejections to qualify. U.S.-ROK relations are strained, and this is one annoyance that could be eliminated.

The Visa Waiver Program (VWP) is not some arbitrary punishment or reward system for U.S. allies; it is based on specific criteria that countries must meet to qualify. The refusal rate for non-immigrant visas must not exceed 3 percent – South Korea’s has remained at nearly 4 percent. Therefore South Korea does not meet the minimum standards for the VWP.

So, Ambassador Vershbow: Please remind us of the name of that body of water to the right of the Korean peninsula.

An open invitation to Mr. Dickie – explain exactly what you mean by the above comment, and describe your fact-checking process. Thanks.
—–