Canadian Lieutenant General Wayne Eyre, deputy commander of the United Nations Command in South Korea, speaks during a news conference before a repatriation ceremony for remains transferred by North Korea, at Osan Air Base in Pyeongtaek, South Korea August 1, 2018. Jung Yeon-je/Pool via REUTERS
Reuters: War-end declaration 'slippery slope' for U.S. Korea presence: U.N. Command general
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A declaration to end the 1950-53 Korea War could be a “slippery slope” to questioning the need for the U.S. troop presence in South Korea, the deputy head of the U.N. Command overseeing the Korean armistice said on Friday, ahead of new talks between Washington and Pyongyang.
Canadian Lieutenant-General Wayne Eyre said North Korea’s push for such a declaration could be a ploy to divide the U.S.-South Korea alliance and secure the withdrawal of the 28,500 U.S. troops based in the South.
“You have to question why North Korea is pushing so hard for that end-of-war declaration,” he told an event at Washington’s Carnegie Institute for International Peace.
“The optimistic would say that he (North Korean leader Kim Jong Un) needs it for a domestic audience so he can change his ways and have a new approach; the pessimist would say it’s another way to split the allies apart.”
Read more ....
WNU Editor: It is going to take more than just a declaration that the Korean war is over for U.S. troops to leave the peninsula. At best .... if everyone's expectations are reached and a true reconciliation is reached between North and South Korea .... it will be years before U.S. troops start to leave, and then again maybe not.
5 comments:
Yes the size of the problem cannot be definitely fixed in one year.
This is not a North Korean sized problem.
It is a China-sized problem.
It can definitely not be fixed in one year as Jac says.
Oh no, those wiley North Koreans are trying to arrange a peace treaty, and a formal end to hostilities! I always knew they were baddies!*
*Americans: this is sarcasm.
A peace treaty would be a bad thing, if they do not want to be peaceful.
Obviously any end to the conflict is going to include a hard set timetable for the withdrawal of US troops. An agreement to end the war that does not have this as part of it would be an incomplete peace deal at best and at worst an insult to America.
Currently US personnel serve as the military arm for South Korea. I don't really see them wanting to so readily give this up. After that is roughly 28,500 troops under their command that aren't South Koreans. I think it is unlikely that they get to vote in South Korea's elections or otherwise have any say in South Korean policies. As such, the US military personnel and possibly any family members who may be there with them are 28,000+ expendable human beings to be used and abused as they see fit.
With regards to Asia the main thing we need to do is renegotiate our trade arrangements with China. In this context, it is important to ask whether a given policy advances this goal, has no effect on this goal, or undermines it? Since a peace agreement that does not have a concrete timeline for US troop withdrawal is really no peace agreement at all, any agreement to end the war would naturally need to include this. In fact, US leadership should insist on this.
A formal end to the war would very likely ease tensions with China. A formal end to the war has to include said timeline for US force withdrawal. An end to the war and a reduction in tensions should help us to renegotiate the trade arrangements with China. From this it naturally flows that getting US troops out of South Korea as quickly as is feasible should be a cornerstone and a centerpiece of US foreign policy.
The officials quoted in the article are just blathering about something that I find hard to comprehend. They are definitely not putting forth any kind of policies that advance American interests.
Post a Comment