Former ROK Defense Ministers Backlash Against Roh Admin
by Richardson ~ August 2nd, 2006. Filed under: Democracy, Korean Politics, ROK Miltary, U.S.-Korea Relations. 
The Roh administration’s mishandling of the U.S.-ROK alliance has resulted in a U.S. proposal for the ROK to receive wartime operational control of military forces much sooner than expected, by 2010 as opposed to the 2012 ROK proposal. This in turn has resulted in strong protests from 13 former South Korean Defense Ministers – from 1963 to 2003 – who recognize the potential consequences of a token USFK for South Korea. Although their reported comments focus on ROK security and do not expand on the larger arms race issue, the implications are obvious.
The split between the military culture and the Roh administration has widened into a dangerous chasm. Former defense minister Lee Sang-hoon is quoted as saying, “I’ve sought a meeting with Gen. [Bell], the commander of the U.S. Forces Korea. If I meet him, I’ll suggest that he ignores what the South Korean government says.” For those familiar with the military coups of South Korea’s past, the weight of this backlash carries an added significance.
Editorials from three leading newspapers continue to sound warnings.
Chosun Ilbo: 40 Years of Defense Experience Speak in One Voice
Ex-defense minister Lee Sang-hoon reportedly told Yoon to stop plans to agree a road map for the handover at the Seoul-Washington Security Consultative Meeting in October, and to stake his post on persuading the president to abandon the idea. Former defense minister Kim Sung-eun added Korea does not have the military intelligence power to exercise operational control on its own and needs U.S. support. Other former defense chiefs were unanimous in demanding to know why the government is going the way it is when the reverse course, of strengthening the alliance with the U.S, is the need of the hour.
[. . .]
The former defense ministers clearly see that a handover of operational control within a few years would cause havoc in our national security given our present security situation and the present capabilities of our armed forces. Once we take over control, Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command would be dissolved, and the USFK would either withdraw or remain as only a symbolic presence.
[. . .]
If the government nevertheless insists on pushing through with the handover of operational control in the hollow name of independence, the people will no longer recognize it as an administration that is taking care of their security. Will they too have to appeal to the international community, “This is not our government, so ignore what it say[s]” (emphasis added)
Joongang Ilbo: Put brains before guns
The Roh administration has made it seem as though our military will become completely independent as long as the wartime command responsibilities are returned. Concern from high-ranking U.S. military officers and Korean government officials that the Korean armed forces must first develop their military capabilities were simply ignored. Kim Hee-sang, the first Blue House senior secretary of national security, said in 2003 that the Defense Ministry was skeptical about obtaining wartime control. Yet the current government has been calling for acquiring the control without specific plans. It has been a hasty move on the part of the government, which seems overly enamored with ideas of “independence.”
[. . .]
A former defense minister, now a representative from the ruling Uri Party, said in the National Assembly that our national security is in a perilous state, and pointed out that reckless and imprudent attempts to regain wartime control have been the biggest cause of the situation. We urge Mr. Yoon to stop driving our national security further into chaos for the sake of trying to please the Blue House. While the ministerial post is fleeting, the nation itself is permanent. Mistakes in national security can be hard to redeem. (emphasis added).
Donga Ilbo: Military Chiefs Worried
Fifteen elders of the armed forces, including 13 former defense ministers and a reserve general visited the Ministry of Defense and met Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung yesterday. In that meeting, the veterans mainly expressed their worries over the Roh Moo-hyun administration’s breakaway from the Korea-U.S. alliance and a possible transfer of the wartime command on Korea’s military. They emphatically said, “Now is the time to strengthen the ROK-U.S. alliance, rather than secede from it.” The meeting was arranged at the request of the elders.
Baek Seon-yeop, a reserve general who fought in the Korean War, said, “The Korea-U.S. alliance, which has been the driving force behind Korea’s democratic and economic development, should not loosen or disintegrate under any circumstances.” He warned, “Further withdrawal of U.S. troops in Korea, the dismantlement of Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command, and downgrade of the rank of a United States Forces Korea commander to lieutenant general would put Korea’s defense at peril.”
[. . .]
Former defense minister Kim Seong-eun chastised the government for turning a blind eye to the reality saying, “For Korea to exercise wartime command solely, intelligence capabilities are essential. Do you think that the U.S. would continue to assist us in intelligence after the transfer of the wartime command?” Hearing what the elders said, one might have a suspicion that the current administration brought up the issue of the wartime command being not knowledgeable of even the basic nature of the alliance’s defense system.
Former defense minister Lee Sang-hun scolded the government saying, “Japan intends to create “Japan-U.S. Combined Forces” emulating the Korea-U.S. Combined Forces. Why is the Korean government trying to go backwards?” He emphasized, “If anything goes wrong with security, it is a recipe for a disaster. Therefore, we have to strengthen security even though that means we may err on the side of excessiveness.” (emphasis added)
The Roh administrations blazing incompetence and shortsightedness may be fomenting a dangerous antagonism with the military that could threaten the internal security of the country, as Roh’s policies threaten Korea’s regional security.
—–
August 2nd, 2006 at 9:35 pm
Current Defense Minister was very controversial appointment by NO who only hand picks “corded” cronies.
GNP protested puppet Yun’s appointment as Defense Minister and it went thru rare hearing followed by voting by lawmakers. Puppet Yun’s approval vote slightly edged rejection vote.
So no wonder the Defense Ministers from 1963 to 2003 or LAST 40 years are up in arms and in unity speak out againt yet another imbecile NO move.
Hey but then again, isn’t NO influenced by well infiltrated and deeply seated DPRK agents and out to please his sugar daddy MURDERER Kim? Now this explains why NO is INTENTIONALLY doing what sugar daddy wants - WEAKEN ROK armed forces.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:37 am
For the past year or two, I’ve had a recurring idea that maybe, just maybe, some people in the military would not like the direction the government is going. I’ve also wondered if they would, at some point, step in to stop it.
Looks like I’m not the only one.
August 3rd, 2006 at 8:57 am
As a retired U.S. Soldier with nine years in the ROK, I have been saddened by the way S.K. acts toward its \”protector\” America. I had once wanted to return to korea after retiring and work there. No longer do I feel this. I now watch and wait for a Korea that is free of the American involvment. I\’m Very tired of koreans burning my flag! 35.000 american boys died to keep the country free. It seems to me these day, that they died for nothing. Korea is ungreatful of American peoples sacrifice. Even today, troops do not wish to seperate from their familys for 365 days to serve in a country that does not want them there. The end is hopefully near! The south will no longer be able to blame the U.S. of A for their troubles. Instead they will complane to K.J.I. if he will allow it. Or to P.R.C. if they allow it. Good luck S.K., and may all your dreams come true. An old Soldier that loved the old Korea and traveled more of it than most Koreans ever will.
August 3rd, 2006 at 9:24 am
Dan,
Thanks for your comments and service to the nation. However, there are a couple of points to consider.
First, not all Koreans feel that way. The former defense ministers mentioned in the editorials, as well as the editorial staffs, recognize and appreciate what the U.S. has done for Korea. And there are many of the older generation that are less tech savvy and therefore less vocal in support – don’t let the more vocal anti-US side leave the impression that all Korean currently think that way. Probably a majority do, but as you’ve lived in Korea you know how much the population can be swayed by the attitude coming from leadership here; I expect a change after the next election.
Second, whether any of us like it or not, if there is a regional conflict in the future, the U.S. will be involved. Keeping USFK as significant force greatly reduces the chances of a destabilizing regional arms race. My mantra on this is that it is by far preferable to stay in Korea than to have to deal with a potential conflict in the future. Remember, if we’d had a sizable force in South Korea a little over five decades ago, there likely would not have been a Korean War.
August 3rd, 2006 at 10:30 am
korean parents are awesome. they really do spoil their children as much as possible, not necessariy through monetary means or with tangibles, but through love and not sharing the tragedies of war. the older generation (born before 1948) never expressed to their children how bad life was during the korean war. thus the following generations don’t know of the suffering and pain they went through. even the generation after that, it doesn’t seem like they have shared how bad life was living in the cold war. does SK even do the monthly alarm drills anymore?
when i see these college protesters against the US burning flags, etc., it’s plain ignorance.
what? don’t they know about KAL in 1987? how about those 4 tunnels that NK built to invade SK? yeah, KJI is a different man now, right? he loves the SK’s. he has all those missiles to protect SK.
it’s sad.
it’s like the person in vegas that you can always tell, that has lost tons of money. you can just see it on their faces. ’shoulda, coulda, woulda……instead of losing the house and the kids’ education.’
hopefully there will never be a time when you will see on those protesters’ faces, ’shoulda coulda woulda supported the US military’ as their skin is burning from napalm or from some sort of chemical warfare.
August 3rd, 2006 at 11:23 am
I share the frustration of the former ROK defense chiefs.
However, there has to be a very thick and clear line separating legitimate criticism of the current ROK government’s mishandling of security issues and vague threats of coup or military intervention of some sort into domestic, political arena.
Given ROK’s past history, even a hint of the latter would be a significant step backward in the growth of representative government in ROK.
The primacy of civilian control of military, and not vice versa, must be maintained at almost all costs.
August 3rd, 2006 at 12:51 pm
Let the recent poll numbers speak for itself: NO approval of 12% and Uri cronies approval of 10%.
Ex Defense Ministers from last 40 years in unison shared their grave concern concerning marginalization of ROK armed forces and US alliance. Nothing wrong with hint of miliatry intervention which based on recent poll indicate many people would support to THORW OUT commie kowtowing commies.
And no this is not necessarily backward as world history is FULL of armed rebellion or army taking over even in US with revolutionary war supported by mass majority. Of course it’s key is what happens after military intervention to throw commies out is most important. No juntas or dictators can take over given the progress of democracy in ROK now. It’s just doing some “policing” work to throw out the commie sympathizers and union thugs and initiate free and fair election.
Let’s see… How many times did imbecile NO threathen to quit his job as president? Huh? Too many to count. How about promises (of course unkept) to resign TWICE including if GNP spent less money on election LIE?
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:15 pm
Dan,
As a Korean national, I would confirm what Richardson said wholeheartedly: Souh Korea is not as anti-American as it appears on the surface.
In fact, I would go eve further than Richardson. Most specifically, I am not sure if I agree with Richardson that “probably” the “majority” of Koreans are anti-American, though I have not kept up with the latest poll numbers. (But Korean poll numbers are notoriously mercurial and as a result to some extent unreliable, as both Joshua and I agreed in our previous debates here.)
A succinct summary of the issue from my perspective is that South Korea appears Leftist and anti-American largely because its most powerful and visible segments (e.g. the executive government, the intelligentsia, and a large majority of the computer-savvy “netizens) are Leftist and anti-American.
It would also be remiss of me not to mention that I would pin the lion’s share of the responsibility for the perpetuation of the misunderstandings regarding South Korean politics to the Western media (as I have done before here http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Korea/FI04Dg01.html and will do more comprehensively in an upcoming op-ed tentatively titled “Occidentalizing the Orient: The Perils of ‘Parachute’ Journalism in East Asia”).
In particular, two aspects of the dereliction of the Western media stand out.
First, Many foreign journalists working in Asia have a very rudimentary knowledge of the region’s history and culture and even lack language fluency (there are, of course, sterling exceptions such as Hugo Restall). As a result, they often miss the underlying nuances and meanings behind events. In fact, because they often rely entirely on local translators or English publications, they sometimes even make egregious and comical errors in translating local documents–the example par excellence being the mistranslation of the National Election Commission’s letter to Roh that he had violated the country’s election laws during the impeachment brouhaha (when in fact, the Election Commission said the exact opposite). I am reminded of what the great classicist said Arnaldo Momigliano said of early Western reports of the Orient upon Alexander’s conquests: Because no Westerner could speak these Oriental languages, the West relied entirely on natives who could speak Greeks. And the natives rarely told the truth.
Second, journalism as a profession is still a business, and its animating motive is as much profit as truth-telling. Hence, journalists will, when given the choice, usually opt for sensationalism. To give you an example, what do you think is more arresting and sell papers? The story that South Korea has had a cataclysmic political realignment and that the radical, quasi-Leninists have taken over? Or the quotidian but true story that South Korean politics is more about personalities than ideologies, and that the conservatives were simply out-maneuvered by their weaker Leftist opposition?
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:20 pm
And world history is full of slavery, which still persists in some parts. What’s your point?
What???!!! In a society with representative government, popular will is reflected through a elected government. The key there is “elected.” If people are unhappy, then they vote differently and bring in the opposition into power.
By supporting military intervention or coup just because it jives with your particularly ideology shows a disturbing lack of appreciation for representative government.
Your history is off. Only about a third of colonists supported the rebellion initially. Another third was committed Tory-loyalist. The rest were in the middle.
Remember “no taxation without representation”? Armed rebellion is only legitimate if the government is dictatorial or if there is no serious mechanism by which the population can register its will.
That is clearly NOT the case in ROK today.
I find your pro-military coup comments to be just bizzarre this day in age. It’s right out of 1961.
August 3rd, 2006 at 1:35 pm
Mr. Na,
Will you please focus on the issue on hand rather than bring at times bizzare angle or analogy like below in quotes?
“And world history is full of slavery, which still persists in some parts. What’s your point? and Remember “no taxation without representation”
For that matter stick to Korean issues and not often repeated and totally unrelated “jewish” issues and seeking/focusing sensational issues resulting in petty bickering? Why rock the boat with unrelated issues to Korea?
How about less of judgements and self righteousness often exhibited in your writing which is not seen from other 2 gents co-hosts?
Thanks in advnace
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:02 pm
re: Woon Chae’s comment:
‘A succinct summary of the issue from my perspective is that South Korea appears Leftist and anti-American largely because its most powerful and visible segments (e.g. the executive government, the intelligentsia, and a large majority of the computer-savvy “netizens) are Leftist and anti-American.’
Those are the types of people that have major influence.
Didn’t our buddy No/Roh/Noh win because the ‘internet’ election?
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:18 pm
Duke, you have some major “boundary issues.” Last time I checked, I am a co-owner/co-editor of this blog. You are not! You may agree or disagree with what I write, but you don’t get to tell me what I can or cannot write on our blog.
If you don’t like “Jewish” issues being discussed by me, feel free to go elsewhere.
While accusations of “self-righteousness” coming from you is rather amusing, your not-so-subtle attempt to drive a wedge among us is not.
We have given you a lot of warnings over the weeks for a number of irritating offenses. I am going to give you the last warning. Stick to arguing the substance and do not insult other commenters or the authors, including me.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:32 pm
I don’t think Mr Chae’s blame-the-messenger view of the media holds much water when it comes to Korea. The backbone of the “foreign media” in Korea are bi-lingual KOREANS. The president of the Seoul Foreign Correspondent’s club is Korean. Aside from a large Japanese press corps, there are in fact only a small handful of foreign correspondents in Seoul. Those that parachute in from Tokyo are supported by rather competent local staff. It is not possible to misinterpret observable events like massive US flag-burning rallies attended by six-figure crowds that were seen in 2002/3, especially when juxtaposed against the meager, three-figure and very elderly turnouts for nominally pro-US rallies. Given the US military’s dim view of the US media, I doubt they are trusting media outlets for their view of ROK affairs. More likely, they are making judgements on the words and actions of the politicians they deal with and on the progress or lack thereof in implementing US-ROK agreements. In these cases it is the CONTENT that is troubling to those concerned about the US-ROK alliance, not its portrayal in the press.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:36 pm
James,
No doubt the last minute internet drive contributed to Roh’s election, but its efficacy has been greatly exaggerated by the media–esp. the Western media.
The more powerful cause was the emergence of Chung Mon-joon as a third candidate, drawing the moderate conservative away from Lee Hoi-chang, was was the case in 1997 with Rhee In-je’s apostasy.
I think the Asia Society put up a good background analysis of the 2002 election where it showed how the poll numbers dramatically shifted with Chung’s candidacy and later alliance with Roh.
August 3rd, 2006 at 2:59 pm
Dear Slim,
First, my last name is “Choe,” not “Chae.” While I would not so strenuously object if you mistakenly called me a “Choi” (given that that is the most common Romanization), “Chae” is an entirely different last name altogether.
Second, more germane, I am not sure what you mean exactly the “backbone.” Nonetheless, whatever the role of the backbone, the more prominent reporters or “Korea Hands” for the major foreign publications (e.g. the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washington Post, Financial Times, Newsweek, Time, etc.) have not been Korean over the years–though these publications are admittedly employing more Koreans or Korean-Americans these days. In fact, Shim Jae-hoon is the only person who comes to mind when it comes to a Korean who actually was a major presence in a major foreign publication covering Korea for a long time.
Third, I am not trying to downplay the fraying of the U.S.-Korea Alliance nor trying to blame the Western media for the creation of an entirely fictitious reality.
On the one hand, I do think that the Alliance may be doomed if there is another Leftist victory in 2007, because:
1) even minority governments can change the political culture dramatically if in power long enough;
and
2) perceptions do matter, and even if the Leftists cannot fundamentally change the political culture while in power, what the Americans view as the political reality in Korea may be a more important predictor of future American action that the actual reality.
On the other hand, you are also right that the Western media did not invent the anti-American rallies of 2002 that you mentioned.
Nonetheless, would you also deny that the foreign press have frequently misinterpreted the meaning and–in the case of the NEC memoranda to Roh–even the fundamental facts of events in Korea?
Further, would you deny that certain less sexy facts (e.g. that while Roh government may be stridently anti-American, its approval rating has been in the teens and even lower–something almost unheard of in a freely elected government in human annals) are often under-reported by the Western press?
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:05 pm
By the way, I agree with James Na (and against Duke) that talks of miliary intervention is lunatic at this stage of South Korean political development. I think this point is so transparent that I am surprised there is even a debate about this. Further, post-Kim Young-sam purges of the South Korean military of its hardline elements, there really isn’t the will to do something dramatic in the military.
August 3rd, 2006 at 3:34 pm
Of course the threat of military intervention is completely unacceptable in the current circumstances. Such threats only serve to weaken the government and foment instability, neither of which would be welcomed. Na is also correct on the approximate percentages of colonists who supported the American Revolution.
- - - -
Duke – your comments will automatically be directed to moderation, to be approved or disapproved by one of us. Telling James Na, Joshua, or myself what is appropriate to blog about here is inappropriate here. This is not an action any of us like to take, but we don’t have to put up with such behavior in this forum, and won’t.
August 3rd, 2006 at 4:51 pm
Mr. Won Joon Choe,
First, I apologize. I think I was the first one that spelled your name incorrectly, and others just followed up on it. It was not meant on purpose. Just my lack of detail. Sorry. I know this blog is full of academic elites, and I’ll try not to keep making a fool of myself. And growing up, EVERONE spelled my last name ‘Minh’, so I know how irritating it could be.
Just curious, where can you get non-Westernized media. Is your non Westernized stances coming from a specific shin moon or just from actual experience being there?
I just found out that KBS was government run and kind of puts a damper on my opinion of my favorite K Dramas I have watched.
Thanks!
August 3rd, 2006 at 5:14 pm
James,
Don’t worry; my “strenuous object[ion]” language was meant to be facetious.
But I do think many folks do confuse “Choi/Choe” and “Chae,” and they really are two different last names.
As for non-Western media, I try to read as broadly as possible in terms of the Korean media, including even Hankyoreh. When pressed for time, the Chosun and the JoongAng will do.
Of course, this is not to say that the Korea media is perfect. In fact, the Korean media lags dramatically behind its more established Western counterparts in terms of journalistic integrity.
But the point is that you should be able to at least read the primary documents in its native language; otherwise, you are dependent on translators who often color their translations with their own biases–sometimes even intentionally.
I will tell you a relevant anecdote, though I confess I cannot confirm it myself. Supposedly when Kim Dae-jung addressed the U.S. Congress, the translated version that the American congresmen and the audience on CSPAN heard was dramatically different from the Korean. Kim essentially tried to have it both ways, to appeal to the audience back home in the original Korean version, and appeal to the Americans in the translated English version.
Now, I can’t confirm or deny this, given that I didn’t watch that particular address. But it would be interesting to get a copy of both the English and the Korean version. Moreover, it would be interesting to have a more complete sample of how the spoken Korean and the translated English diverge whenever Korean politicians speak abroad.
August 4th, 2006 at 4:17 pm
I just finished reading the above comments. I was impressed. Setting here is Memphis TN., I have to say, Korea has not been in the news. Except for the missle launch. Korea was in the news for about four days afterward. But now, nothing. Korea does\’t exist here. Course I only watch the big three; CBS, NBC, and ABC. That is why I read this blog—and others. Western Media, for the most part don\’t give a cr-p about Korea. Never has. It\’s not called the \”Forgotten War\” for nothing.