- The Washington Times - Monday, September 4, 2000

The real presidential race has finally begun, as Vice President Al Gore and the GOP's presidential nominee George W. Bush battle over the state of the military. But their focus on questions of morale and readiness ignore the more fundamental issue of security commitments, which require retention of an outsized military.
Neither candidate seems to have noticed that communism collapsed, which means we don't need a Cold War military anymore.
Consider the deployment of 37,000 soldiers in South Korea. The recent summit between North Korean leader Kim Jong-il and South Korean President Kim Dae-jung was more successful than most anyone expected.
The two states have ended hostile propaganda broadcasts across the Demilitarized Zone and met to plot future cooperation.
Other positive signs include Kim Jong-iI's cautious endorsement of Chinese economic reforms and the North's participation in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations Regional Forum and increased diplomatic contacts with countries ranging from Australia to Italy.
Optimists are looking toward expanded inter-Korean trade, more family reunification visits, additional aid for the North and even Pyongyang's membership in such international organizations as the Asian Development Bank. Exulted President Kim Dae-jung: "The danger of war on the Korean Peninsula has disappeared."
In short, the Korean cold war might be ending. But only might.
In 1972, the two Koreas signed a reconciliation agreement and halted propaganda attacks. Two decades later, they inked disarmament agreements. These accords all collapsed.
Issues such as the North's missile program remain unresolved. Moreover, nearly 2 million soldiers still fill the peninsula.
What the summit has yielded, then, is the first step in a long process of rapprochement. A huge indeed, vital first step.
But a first step, nonetheless.
The Clinton administration has responded by lifting economic restrictions. This decision is welcome, though belated the administration first promised to do so last year.
In fact, the North apparently decided to warm relations with the South at least in part in frustration with Washington's refusal to fulfill its earlier commitments. Similar discussions with Japan also led nowhere.
Nevertheless, Washington denies the summit should have any impact on U.S. troop deployments. Explains Pentagon spokesman Kenneth Bacon, "We intend to remain a force for stability in that area as long as we are needed."
Taking a similar approach is Secretary of State Madeleine Albright: "Our forces, when they are stationed somewhere, provide evidence of America's interest."
In fact, the summit has not dramatically changed the threat environment or force balance on the peninsula. But even pre-summit, the 37,000 U.S. troops in South Korea weren't needed.
South Korea has upward of 30 times the GDP and twice the population of North Korea. South Korea holds a vast technological and industrial edge.
Indeed, the South leads the North on every measure of national power other than current force levels. And the latter is a matter of choice, not an inevitable consequence of geography.
The South has also won the international contest. Although China and Russia have recently begun competing again for influence in Pyongyang, neither desires war on the peninsula. In fact, Moscow has been shipping arms to South Korea to pay off its debts; Beijing has far greater economic links with South Korea.
In such a world, there's no need for America to defend Seoul. Rather, the U.S. presence is a Cold War anachronism, one that could impede genuine detente on the peninsula.
Curiously, there has been some indication North Korea is warming to the idea of maintaining U.S. forces as "peacekeepers." Now, President Kim Dae-jung reports that the North's King Jong-il told him during their meeting that he agreed that American troops should stay.
If Pyongyang is really committed to that position, which is not at all clear, the North might be hoping to redress its growing weakness by relying on the United States. Yet, protecting North Korea, with which America fought a war, would be truly bizarre.
Better inter-Korean relations will lead to less South Korean reliance on Washington. That bothers not only American hegemonists who want to dominate the world, but also some Koreans.
Jeon Jaewook, an adviser to the opposition Grand National Party, worries: "This could open up a Pandora's box by triggering a surge of nationalism that could weaken our alliance with the U.S. and Japan."
But, today's patron-client relationship is not good for either Seoul or Washington. The two Koreas will not find it easy to achieve their avowed goal of reunification. But they, not the United States, should determine their future course whether together or separate.
Washington shouldn't be expected to approve the result. Nor to finance or guarantee it.
The recent lovefest in Pyongyang is likely to transform the relationship between North and South Korea. It also should transform the relationship between South Korea and the United States. If the presidential candidates recognize the Cold War is over, that is.Doug Bandow is a senior fellow at the Cato Institute.

Sign up for Daily Newsletters

Copyright © 2019 The Washington Times, LLC. Click here for reprint permission.

The Washington Times Comment Policy

The Washington Times welcomes your comments on Spot.im, our third-party provider. Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.


Click to Read More and View Comments

Click to Hide