Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Have a look at the 1953 Mutual Defense Treaty signed by the U.S. and South Korea. By my reading, the U.S. is obligated to get into the fight.
I specifically refer to Article 3 -
Each Party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties in territories now under their respective administrative control, or hereafter recognized by one of the Parties as lawfully brought under the administrative control of the other, would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes...
- as well as the section marked "Understanding of the United States" which was sent by the U.S. to South Korea in 1954 and included in a Presidential Proclamation -
It is the understanding of the United States that neither party is obligated, under Article 3 of the above Treaty, to come to the aid of the other except in case of an external armed attack against such party; nor shall anything in the present Treaty be construed as requiring the United States to give assistance to Korea except in the event of an armed attack against territory which has been recognized by the United States or lawfully brought under the administrative control of the Republic of Korea.
We look weak if we don’t fight. Who will believe our promises of protection in the future if we don’t? If I’m American Samoa I’m reassessing my relationships right now.
If we do fight, do we risk escalation to WWIII?
What to do, what to do…
Looks like that 3:00 a.m. phone call is more than just a campaign commercial for both the President and the Secretary of State, now.
- Comment (24)
- · Quote
- · UnfollowFollow (2)
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
Comments :
Feb '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Politically, it was very difficult for South Korea's Yi Myeong-bak to retaliate for the sinking of the Cheonan. Even though South Koreans were outraged, they care more about peace and stability and not escalating the war. I heard some South Koreans basically saying that if they just send the North some rice, the problem will be resolved. So he felt he didn't have the political backing to retaliate.
But unfortunately, the message that sent to North Korea is that they could provoke the South anytime they wanted. Sometimes you have to take the hard and unpopular choice, as Reagan did, and stand up to the enemy. I think the South will be quite justified in retaliating now, but perhaps retaliation for the Cheonan would have been better timing.
Edited on Nov 23, 2010 at 2:39pmMay '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Well , first, the South Koreans have to ask us for help. Second, it is not in anyone's interest to escalate this artillery duel into a full-fledged war but come what may. Seoul should take the lead and we should reaffirm our commitment. They stood with us in Iraq and on Iranian nuke sanctions.
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
We still very much present on that DMZ, so if things come unglued in any major way we will be right there in the midst of it. I cannot imaging that we would fail to aid in the defense of the South if the North comes over the line.
The more interesting question is what we do if the South makes in-roads into the North. Do we follow and participate? And what then do the Chinese do, if it looks like their North Korean clients are headed for a loss.
This plays out startlingly like the first Korean war.
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
The South and the US ignored a ship getting sunk. Now should we ignore this? They will do something else.
The world ignored Germany and the price to pay was high when we did act.
The United States needs to stop being afraid to act. We should tell China to put a stop to this right now, or we will act. There is no peace treaty, only a truce.
The United States of America is the world's only superpower, but we don't act like it. As a result, the thugocracies of the world advance. We let the Norks get the bomb, and we let Iran kill our troops and do nothing. We should respond, in force, every time and the evil leaders of these nations will take pause. Right now, they have nothing to fear.
Jul '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
A follow up to Tommy's insight is what happens if Camp Casey gets attacked?
Does the 2nd ID mobilize?
Jul '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
The Cold War is over. Why on earth should we expend American blood and treasure to defend South Korea?
George Washington warned us about this kind of entanglement.
Jun '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
G.A. Dean: We still very much present on that DMZ, so if things come unglued in any major way we will be right there in the midst of it. I cannot imaging that we would fail to aid in the defense of the South if the North comes over the line...
This plays out startlingly like the first Korean war. ·
The use of an overmatched contingent of American military as a "tripwire," worked throughout the cold war. We have the ability to keep our cool in the face of these provocations because the Norks won't dare to put our troops in jeopardy -- they just are agressive panhandlers on the world stage. Annoying yes but neither they nor anyone else doubts our resolve as long as we have 28,000 Americans standing between the North and South. Just like our garrisons in the Fulda Gap in Germany, our troops are either going to be quickly overrun or we are going nuclear because we don't even pretend to put an equal conventional force in place.
Edited on Nov 23, 2010 at 5:45pmMay '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
I have just watched the morning talk/news shows in Japan, featuring Korean and Japanese experts, and the consensus seems to be:
1. The only objective of the Kims/NK is survival of the Kims.
2. Full-fledged war is off the table because the Chinese and the USA don't want it, so these provocations are not hi-risk.
3. There was a Red Cross meeting scheduled for tomorrow about sending tons of rice as an incentive to give up nukes. Food is not enough of an incentive for the Kims.
4. KJI authorized this.
5. KJI wants the negotiations to resume so that de facto nukes are allowed.
6. The Chinese have been taken for a ride also.
---
Rob Long's comments on the podcast were dead on target. Amazing ad-libbing.
Oct '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Some say the provocative actions of China and NK will only boost US power in Asia. But that assumes the US will still be a reliable traditional ally for Japan and Korea.
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Kenneth: The Cold War is over. Why on earth should we expend American blood and treasure to defend South Korea?
George Washington warned us about this kind of entanglement. · Nov 23 at 5:41pm
Kenneth, welcome back, and this strikes me as a very, very good question. South Korea is populous and rich. I have the feeling there's a good answer to the question--and now I wish I'd had the wit to put the question to John Bolton during the podcast this morning--but the answer, no matter how good it might prove when neatly constructed, sure seems, well, non-obvious.
Why shouldn't South Korea, and not the United States, take responsibility for the defense of South Korea? Bill Walsh? G.A. Dean? Anyone?
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
I see this as an opportunity for the U.S. to withdraw from the region, from South Korea and Japan. Both nations are aware of the threat posed by North Korea and should act accordingly. If the U.S. withdraws, the costs of defense and deterrence will finally be incurred by the South Korean and Japanese government and the costs to the American taxpayer will fall.
Oct '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
I'm paraphrasing here but Krauthammer said that the US should do nothing to appease NK, and since China is the only country that has any sway in NK (but refuses to help us in any way), it's time to send a message to the Chinese by Obama giving his blessing to Japan and South Korea to arm themselves with nuclear weapons.
Oct '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Here's what Wretchard (aka Richard Fernandez) wrote today:
If the United States cannot find an effective way to deter the aggressive behavior of North Korea, countries in Asia which have relied on the “international system” since the war must ask themselves two questions. First, is nonproliferation truly dead? Second, is America unwilling to defend its allies?
If the answer to both questions is yes, then Japan, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore will eventually take steps to acquire nuclear weapons. It would be a moment similar to the realization that the British Empire’s “Singapore” strategy was a fiction and a sham and now every nation had to look to itself. The collapse of the American security guarantee would mean the only way to guarantee security would be to rely on one’s own deterrent capability rather than rely on the world of Barack Hussein Obama.
Edited on Nov 24, 2010 at 2:36amMay '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Peter,
I think it is in our best interest to not only defend our allies, but maintain the peace in the Pacific. If we back down, what message does that send to the thugs running China?
We did nothing when they sank a ship. Now we have this. What is next?
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
I see we've decided to flirt with Ron Paul today. Let me suggest things that may start a fight -
(1) The last time we suggested ambivalence toward the Korean Peninsula, the result was a War.
(2) Like it or not, we are the predominant Pacific power and our well-being depends on secure trade lanes in and out of Japan, Korea, and Southeast Asia. That is especially true of the manufactured high-tech devices that keep our friends and neighbors in Silicon Valley busy, fat, happy and voting Democrat.
(3) Again, like it or not, we're the adult in the room so from time-to-time we must keep order among parties in a region that aren't always known for acting like, well ... adults. We rightly demand fealty to the Constitution as drafted 220 years ago; is it too much to ask that we recall east Asian history back to, say, 1910 or so?
(4) North Korea is wasting perfectly good cognac that could be put to better use in our own rumpus rooms.
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Peter Robinson
Why shouldn't South Korea, and not the United States, take responsibility for the defense of South Korea? Bill Walsh? G.A. Dean? Anyone? · Nov 23 at 9:40pm
I certainly expect the South Koreans to be very much involved in their own defense. They are a great deal better prepared for this than they were in 1950, and the North a good deal more isolated, but the global interplay looks about the same.
If the conflict remains Korea vs Korea, my guess is everyone else stays on the sidelines and coaches. But if one side begins to trounce the other, then things get interesting. Is the US willing to let the Norks over-run and capture a major Asian democracy? Will the Chinese allow the reverse to happen?
If the Norks get trounced, my guess is that who is doing the trouncing will have a lot to do with the Chinese reaction. They may be willing to sit by and watch the South Koreans move into the North, but will be less happy with a large US force doing the same.
Our problem will be to stay disengaged if widespread shooting starts.
May '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
1) US force projection requires some level of presence in major theaters. We now have a capable force in Iraq covering the ME, we continue to have the 2nd ID in the RoK, and that addresses a lot more than the DMZ- it is also the ongoing Taiwan tripwire. The one place where we don't need troops, and still keep them there, is Germany, of course.
2) The RoK is the key- nothing will be done till they get tired of this stuff and react themselves. We support them if they do- but when even the major chaebol are playing footsie with the Norks, you won't see a lot from the RoK.
3) In the end, only China can restrain Kim- and BO hasn't exactly distinguished himself in dealing with China.
Oct '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
Peter Robinson
Kenneth: The Cold War is over. Why on earth should we expend American blood and treasure to defend South Korea?
George Washington warned us about this kind of entanglement. · Nov 23 at 5:41pm
Kenneth, welcome back, and this strikes me as a very, very good question... I have the feeling there's a good answer to the question... Why shouldn't South Korea, and not the United States, take responsibility for the defense of South Korea?
It's an excellent question. To generalize it to its logical conclusion, why not "Fortress America?" My own inadequate attempt at an answer: a vital aspect of American Exceptionalism, if taken seriously to the point of literalism--whether it should be or not is itself a vital question--is the recognition that liberal representative democracy and essentially open and free markets exist in a state of maximum unreality, to steal an evocative phrase from Stephen King. The danger that some of us see in "Fortress America," pace Ron Paul, is that it could all too easily end up being "us against the world" quite literally. Having just spent seven years in a two-front war, I find this thought terribly sobering.
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
The question I intended to pose with this post was not whether we should or shouldn't defend Sourth Korea. Rather, hasn't the treaty obligated us to do so, making the debate about whether we should moot?
Question for Professor Yoo if he is reading: Is there any way for South Korea to enforce the treaty? Are there penalties if we do not abide by the terms of the treaty?
Oct '10
Re: Isn't The U.S. Obligated By Treaty To Fight North Korea Now?
We have already surrendered South Korea many months ago, when the deity told the world he would not use nuclear weapons. Being an ally of America is generally not a good thing (see e.g., South Vietnam), but with the deity in charge it is extreme;y harmful to your health. The Chinese benefit in the long run economically because instability causes South Korea's economy many problems with China being the main beneficiary. The American people decided surrender and appeasement is what they wanted when they elected the deity. The American people elected a person more comfortable with Hugo Chavez, than with Angela Merkel.
America has no money, no manufacturing, a military worn out and too small, and a government that has no interest in America being successful. Isn't the START Treaty a good example of this? The last three Presidents (including the deity) have been very incompetent in dealing with the realities of the world and what is going on and how to react or be proactive.
Our only response to China is to hold our breath until we turn blue because we are out of options..