[...] As in update to my previous posting “Barnett’s Path to a U.S. Grand Strategy in Three Paragraphs“, Curzon at “Coming Anarchy” has an excellent post (”The New Allies”): [...]

Given the current state of the U.S.-ROK alliance, I’m not surprised by the omission of South Korea from the list, but I am a bit at the inclusion of Vietnam. The ROK does have troops in Iraq and we have a military alliance and very significant troop presence, all of which can’t be said for Vietnam. Why Vietnam, but not Korea?

Some other potential inclusions: Philippines, Israel, Iraq, ROC, Italy, India…?

Hunter,

Vietnam is America’s buddy, friend, and ally.

South Korea does not perceive China as a threat the same way Mongolia, Vietnam, and Japan do; it is very much a Cold War ally ala Europe; there is shrinking popular support for the US ala Europe.

I am glad Hunter pointed out India. America’s recent attempt to aid their nuclear “power” (i.e. weapons) program in order to counter-balance China has really enhanced the U.S.-Indian relationship. I also think the map ignores Pakistan. There are also many Middle Eastern states with which the U.S. has quite good relations, such as Egypt, Turkey, and Saudi Arabia (although the future of U.S.-Saudi relations is not something to put money on. What role do they play?

Superlative fun fact: the number one purchaser of US treasuries this year was”¦ China? Japan? Nope, the UK “”?which purchased more than 4x what China bought last year. (Reason: pension rules have changed so liabilities in UK pensions must be matched by assets; long-term US treasuries are one of the easiest ways to do this.)

Oh noes!! The Redcoats are buying America!

Dr. C. Rice came today to Romania and over a 3 hours visit signed the treaty for the establishment of 3 US bases in Romania, on the Black Sea (including at least a fighter base and a transporter airfield.)

On a side note, it turns out that even before this agreement, several area in an existing US base were off-limits to Romanian personnelle, during the Iraq war land phase, so if there were secret CIA prisons there, only US citizens would know.

The UK is a ‘neighbouring balancer’ for the US within the European Union? It is not the 51st state yet. But I see what you’re getting at, and the Times is questioning today the willingness of the UK Government to act as a ‘balancer’ – it currently holds the presidency of the EU.

On the presidency’s proposals for the future EU budget, the newspaper reports: >Pedro Solbes, the Spanish Finance Minister, described the British plan as “a wonderful compromise — for the United Kingdom”Â?.

On the subject of regional balancers, I see that Mongolia is mentioned as one. Mongolia applied for, and was granted in 2004, observer status at the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation – a regional security grouping that this summer asked the United States for its timetable to withdraw from Central Asia.

On Asia: in 2004-05 the Department of Defense’s Office of Force Transformation and the Office of the Secretary of the Navy sponsored an effort to re-examine the Principles of War. The seminar series is run by John Hopkins University. Speakers have included Robert Kaplan, Thomas Barnett, and former brigadier-general of the Philippines Victor Corpus. The latter’s talk speculates on warfare in Asia – a worst case scenario. It is fascinating.

China and Russia see us as a threat/check to their interests, as we see them as eager to advance themselves at our expense whenever possible. Cooperation with them on equal footing isn’t going to happen in the near future. When it does, the world will be dramatically changed.

Canada and Latin America are like younger siblings jealous and weary of their older sibling (America). They like to complain a whole lot and try to “balance” us as much as they can while being tied directly to our well being. That can and should change for the better, with significant social change throughout. But for the moment, they are not reliable allies.

The border states like Mongolia are allies due to location and history. Numbers of forces contributed to any given operation is not the only value an ally can have.

But yes, the core of these new alliances are the Anglosphere nations, Japan, Israel, and a few others.

We can indeed ride the wave to the future or be stubborn about it. But simply recognizing that one can ride a wave does not equal knowing where it is going. I hardly think that means we should follow the policies you seem to be suggesting in regards to China and Brazil.

Is Iraq representative? The decline in external support is here. But, more worrying, the drop in domestic support is here.

Strong relations with Vietnam, Mongolia, and Japan can be attributed to the fear of China flexing its muscle in the region.

South Korea does not perceive China as a threat the same way Mongolia, Vietnam, and Japan do; it is very much a Cold War ally ala Europe;

Who is “South Korea” in this sentence? The populace as a whole or the current government? That is, the current leftist government, which slid into power with support from the country’s bread basket to which they had made a campaign promise of moving the capital, and which now has popularity ratings in the 20-point range. That South Korea?

The conservatives and most moderates do see China as a threat. Ironically one of the reasons some moderates and liberals support engaging North Korea is that they think China is ready to incorporate “Inner ChosÃ…Â?n” into the PRC, a la Mongolia.

there is shrinking popular support for the US ala Europe.

What is the basis for this statement? So nearly universal is the sense that the ROK-US alliance is essential to Korean and regional security (for the same reasons Mongolia and Japan feel, and then some) that a far-leftist, pacifist government bucked popular opposition to “Bush’s war” to send the third-largest contingent of coalition personnel (nearly half of what the UK sent). The same government is going ahead, at a cost of many billions of dollars, to re-establish a major military base south of the capital.

If popular sentiment against the Iraq War and other actions directly associated with Bush is a measure of waning South Korean support for support of the United States, then you would have to white-out most of “America’s allies” on your map, including Japan, the UK, and Poland.

if you do not perceive china as a threat in the same way as us, then you are not an ally, even if you send more troop to iraq.

Huh? Who says the way Koreans perceive the Chinese threat is so different from how the Japanese see it? The Chinese are positioned to take over far more territory claimed by the ROK than they are territory claimed by Japan.

I’m no big fan of investment into an unabashedly human rights-violating PRC, but South Korea is right there along with the US, Japan, and Taiwan, so it’s rather unfair to hold that against the ROK.

if you do not kneel to our ally japan, then you are also not an ally.

I don’t think the US thinks that way at all. And I don’t think “kneeling to Japan” is necessary at all for ROK and Japan to have a healthy relationship as part of the same political camp and military alliance.

If Japan is truly interested in security against a rising China, then it is in their interest to have like-minded democracies on board. Toward that end, kowtowing to the far-right has the effect of making an alliance with Japan unplatable to a lot of people in Korea (and not just a few people in Taiwan). That makes it in Japan’s national interests for the PM to forgo the Yasukuni visits.

If more Americans were to become aware how Yasukuni’s museum depicts the United States and how it bends over backwards to excuse Japanese aggression, I wonder how palatable they would find Bush being so cozy with Koizumi and trying to get Japan to remilitarize.

If more Americans were to become aware how Yasukuni’s museum depicts the United States and how it bends over backwards to excuse Japanese aggression, I wonder how palatable they would find Bush being so cozy with Koizumi and trying to get Japan to remilitarize.

I don’t think most Americans would care anyway. Instead they care about whether Japan is economically, militarily, and diplomatically beneficial to US interests in the world.

J. Kende wrote:
bq. If more Americans were to become aware how Yasukuni’s museum depicts the United States and how it bends over backwards to excuse Japanese aggression, I wonder how palatable they would find Bush being so cozy with Koizumi and trying to get Japan to remilitarize.

I don’t think most Americans would care anyway. Instead they care about whether Japan is economically, militarily, and diplomatically beneficial to US interests in the world.

If they were aware of how the Japanese right-wing of today vilifies the U.S. as responsible for World War II, many would wonder whether Japan shares their interests, at least enough to be pushing them to drop major elements of their pacifist constitution or to re-arm.

The United States is a country that commemorates Pearl Harbor Day some sixty-four years later and where Japan’s attack warrants a major national memorial at the USS Arizona, visited by 4500 people a day (this aside from the War in the Pacific National Park and the Iwo Jima memorial). A country where showing the Japanese point of view in the Hiroshima bombings led to a 50th anniversary exhibit at the Smithsonian being drastically scaled down due to public outcry.

kushibo,

1. of course korea perceive china different than japan or us. e.g. korea does not preceive China’s protest against japanese revisionism as irrational. korea perceive japan as #1 potential threat. china, at most is #2.

what do you mean by “The Chinese are positioned to take over far more territory claimed by the ROK than they are territory claimed by Japan.”
what does ‘positioned to’ mean? there are dispute on border,
but Japan took 100% of korea’s territories in the past.

2. of course korea does not have to ‘kneel’, if japan can treat korea with due respect and hear its request.

stupid typo, should be most Americans would NOT care about yasukuni.

*”But today the world is stuck somewhere between a US-dominated unipolar world and a multipolar world where the other centers of geopolitical might are the EU, China, and Russia.”*

What is the latest thinking from the US? Last week the Secretary of State attended the meeting of the North Atlantic Council. The speech commended NATO as an alliance for the 21st century.

“NATO is an organization that is transforming in accordance with the new challenges. Just on a personal note, I can remember back in the early or late—1990, 1989-1990, when the Soviet Union was breaking up and indeed when the Warsaw Pact went out of existence, that people asked whether NATO indeed had a future [.] We now know the answer to that question. NATO not only has a future, it has a very bright future. . . So it is really fulfilling its historic function of being a place where democracies gather to ensure their security and, in doing so, to increase the prospects for a more secure world.”

Chinese textbooks apparently haven’t been revised yet, Sunbin. I have middle school history books and atlases from this year. They do not mention NK’s June 25, 1950 invasion. They only note that the war started in 1950 and provide details about US troops entering the Korean peninsula, giving the impression that the US started the war. China formally entered the war when US troops had conquered most of the North, but thanks to declassified Soviet documents, we know that both Stalin and Mao had promised support for Kim Il-sung’s invasion.

Sonagi wrote:
Chinese textbooks apparently haven’t been revised yet, Sunbin. I have middle school history books and atlases from this year.

Where did you get them? Are you that good at reading Chinese, Sonagi? If so, then I am impressed.

They do not mention NK’s June 25, 1950 invasion. They only note that the war started in 1950 and provide details about US troops entering the Korean peninsula, giving the impression that the US started the war. China formally entered the war when US troops had conquered most of the North, but thanks to declassified Soviet documents, we know that both Stalin and Mao had promised support for Kim Il-sung’s invasion.

Has someone informed Bruce Cumings?

Anyway, I read as much when I visited China in the 1990s (before the period sun bin referred to, but I mention it because it really floored me to see that). I really wish the VANK group would get on the Chinese case about it.

What they lack in tact and sense they make up for in cojones, so maybe they can get something done!

as for the aids china gives to NK, put you into China’s position. you would do the same, and even more.
1. you are facing an encirclement of the anti-china alliance
2. you do not want instability/war across your border, nor refugee wave

china is not happy at NK at all.

about refugee repatriation, i explained the reasons here
if UN grants refugee status to them, i am sure China would oblige.

despite your claim or mine about what koreans really think.
this is the only poll related info i found by googling

if you can search korea web, maybe you can back up your claims.

more about koguryo

Future Sino-Korean relations would certainly be far from smooth sailing, especially regarding the difficult task of handling the obnoxious yet dangerous North Korean regime. Nonetheless, there are plenty of historical reasons why the two countries have coexisted largely peacefully and amicably for more than a millennium

the writers is proabably ethnic chinese. but you can judge for yourself, and see that he understands a lot more about korea than many ‘observers’ from US.

A quick translation of an article about the Korean War from Sina.com:

“A Record of the Chinese People’s Volunteer Army in the Korean War Against American Aggression.”

At the conclusion of WWII, the US and Sovient Armies divided Korea into north and south at the 38th Parallel to accept the surrender of the Japanese army. Later, the US and UN divided Korea, supporting Rhee Syngman’s group in establishing the Republic of Korea in 1949. In September of that same year, the DPRK was founded with Kim Il-sung as the leader. Later, the struggle for reunification intensified.

June 25, 1950: Fighting breaks out in the Korean War.

June 27, 1950: The US military interferes in the domestic affairs of Korea; invades Chinese territory of Taiwan

On the second day of the war, June 26, US President Truman orders the air force and navy to support the south. Truman announces that the US military will interfere in Korea’s domestic affairs, orders the navy and 7th army to invade the Chinese territory of Taiwan. On the same day, the US controlled UN Security Council passed an illegal resolution calling for emergency aid to the south and the US put together a military force to invade Korea.

On July 1, the US army entered Korea; on the 5th Korea and the US commenced fighting.

The original Chinese text in its entirety can be found here:
http://news.sina.com.cn/c/2003-03-29/0201971298.shtml

Sunbin, if you can provide links to Chinese websites that provide a different version this one from Sina, I’d love to read it.

sun bin said:
the historic claim (and making it political) of some Chinese is silly. koguryo is an ancient country. there are 1-2M korea chinese. they are related. that is all they should/could say. but they went on to imply history with politics. i can understand why the koreans are not happy.

Given how these were semi-official utterances, it is very chilling. Japan makes claims on Mongolia, Xinjiang, Tibet, and Taiwan. Talking up KoguryÃ…Â?, which for those of you in Rio Linda, is one of Korea’s so-called 且°Ã¥Å“”¹ (Three Kingdoms, with Paekche and Shilla) that covered much of Manchuria and all of what is now North Korea, as part of China sounds like a pretext for bringing former KoguryÃ…Â? territory back into the Middle Kingdom’s fold.

yes, china no longer say Sout attacked first.

But they do. And this is just as bad as what some in the Japanese right wing do. Except China’s utterances are more “official” (so far).

the publications and internet all agreed that North started the war.

Official Chinese publications and websites?

as for textbook, i think sonagi is probably right. they just left out that part in high school.

That’s a major omission. Aren’t secondary school textbooks in Japan a major bone of contention right now?

they can sort of justified in doing that since it is peripheral to what Chinese history is concerned.

Turn the tables and imagine those are Japanese talking about some major incident being “peripheral” to Japanese history and therefore it is justified to omit them. How would you react?

China’s actions led to the deaths of hundreds of thousands of Koreans, if not millions (I’m not blaming China for all the deaths). It also was a major confrontation in the “Cold War.” So how can this be “peripheral” to Chinese history?

NK invaded under the encouragement of Stalin, China did not want to get involved. but was then forced into, by both McArthur and Stalin.

China gave a go-ahead. And they had Chinese soldiers ready to go long before MacArthur’s forces ever came near the Yalu.

38th parallel: you know that is the bluff and official tone.

Maybe, maybe not. But the importance is that it shows how the PRC is laying out its sphere of influence. North Korea is in that sphere, and it will fight to keep that satellite.

but the real trigger was US army approaching China border and the bombing of Yaku bridges.

The Chinese were getting ready well before then. It was crossing the 38th and removing their buffer state that caused this.

when McArthur was removed, it was too late to stop the Chinese involvement.

They had TWO YEARS to depart a war it took only a few weeks to enter. Why didn’t they, if their goal was just to keep the Americans away from invading China?

it it NOT clear that US will not use Korea as a launch pad (for KMT), many of the U2 took off or detour via S Korea in the 1960s for their reconassaince missions.

It is not clear or was not clear? If you’re talking about the Korean War, well it’s obvious from geography that the US wouldn’t need to take off from North Korea to bomb Beijing. South Korea is closer to Shanghai than any part of North Korea.

there aren’t much controversies in these facts. why are we debating about these?

Because your government denies them and teaches falsehoods about them.

again, where are the korean commentators?

If you want a native Korean-Korean, well I’m afraid that much of Coming Anarchy is outside the interest of most KKs. People who are knowledgeable about these issues AND who speak English quite well are usually too busy doing real work to discuss this. I, on the other hand, find these discussions stimulating, but that’s because it’s related to my work.

sun bin said:
as for the aids china gives to NK, put you into China’s position. you would do the same, and even more.
1. you are facing an encirclement of the anti-china alliance

An anti-China alliance that has been threatened by China or has recently been on the wrong end of Chinese aggression (with the exception of Japan).

2. you do not want instability/war across your border, nor refugee wave

And propping up a person who starves his own people for political gain promotes stability how?

china is not happy at NK at all.

Unlike South Korea, Japan, the United States, and just about everyone else with an interest in it, China is NOT virtually powerless to do something about it.

At the Seoul Summit on NK Human Rights, China was a hot topic. Its free ride is over, my friend.

about refugee repatriation, i explained the reasons here
if UN grants refugee status to them, i am sure China would oblige.

Granting refugee status to them would violate a DPRK-PRC agreement. I doubt they would unless the outside world successfully pressures them. And this is why I will NOT be watching any Olympic events in 2008, if Beijing does not change its behavior.

sun bin said:
buffer states: both NK and SK are buffer states of the cold war.
and you said it, China does not want to see NK implode. (Nor does SK?)

South Korea would have liked to see North Korea as part of the Republic of Korea, but China nixed that now, didn’t they?

China is not happy with NK status quo either, but there is nothing much it could do.

Stop repatriating people who will be sent to their deaths. Demand reforms or else energy will be cut off. Lots of things they could do. Lots of things that only China could do.

sun bin said:
despite your claim or mine about what koreans really think.
this is the only poll related info i found by googling if you can search korea web, maybe you can back up your claims.

I’ll find some stuff later. But this poll simply reflects bullishness about Chinese investment opportunity. Depending on the wording, I’m guessing it also reflects a positive attitude toward the Chinese people, not the government. And, as the article makes clear, it is not just the South Koreans, but also the Australians and others who have this rosy view of China.

I should also point out that this poll was taken around the time when the near-hysterical media frenzy on Japan was taking place.

Polls in Korea are nebulous and ephemeral.

sun bin said:
listen to the clipping here as well

they talked about the Koguryo incidence, and also that “Korean see China’s rise as much benign than that of Japan”Â?

Whoa, there, sun bin. I listened to the clip and it compared China’s rise today as more benign than that of Japan a hundred years ago. It was not a comparison of who is perceived as the greater threat today.

And I would agree that China today is more benign than Imperial Japan. Ultimately, in addition to much of the rest of the Asian mainland, Japan ate up all of Korea. China is poised to probably swallow up no more than half (the same half that the PRC is responsible for the ROK losing).

well, i guess there are all kinds of people in a country, esp in each extreme. but we are talking about the majority and moderates.

The majority is leery of China’s rise. Always considered economic rivals and now they are increasingly being talked up as a threat to eventual unification.

this discussion with kushibo is becoming a debate, not a discussion. i will just have to stop here.

anyway, as to sonagi, this is a one of the sites

not really official, but you can find a lot of this in baidu/google.

this one clear stated NK crossed the 38 to start war.
第一，战役背景
1950å¹´6月25日，æœÂ?鲜战五°Ã§Ë†” Ã¥Â?”˜Ã£â‚¬”šÃ¥Å’—æœÂ?鲜人æ°”˜Ã¥” ”ºÃ¨Â¶Å Ã¨Â¿”¡38度线挔˜Ã¨ÂµÂ·Ã¦Ë†ËœÃ§Â«Â¯Ã¯Â¼Å’Ã¥Â?Œç¾Žå”ºÂ½Ã¦”?¯æŒÂ?
çš”žÃ¥Â?—韩å” ”ºÃ©ËœÅ¸Ã¥Â±”¢Ã¥Â¼â‚¬ 激战〔š6月27日，美唺½å”¦Â¬Ã§”žÂ¶Ã¤Â»Â¥Ã¥”¦Â¶Ã¦ÂµÂ·Ã¥” ”ºÃ¥’Œç©ºå” ”ºÃ§”ºÂ´Ã¦Å½Â¥Ã¥”¦Â¥Ã¤Â¾ÂµÃ¦Å“Â?鲜，åÂ?ξ—¶æ´¾
éÂ?£å”¦Â¶Ã§Â¬Â¬7舰队侵唦¥ä¸­å”ºÂ½Ã¥Â?°æ¹¾æµ·å³¡ï¼Œ

以武劔ºÃ©ËœÂ»Ã¦Å’ ä¸­å”ºÂ½Ã§Â»Å¸Ã¤Â¸â‚¬Ã¯Â¼Å’解æ”?¾åÂ?°æ¹¾ã€”š6月30日，美唺½é™” Ã¥” ”ºÃ§Â¬Â¬Ã¥”¦Â«Ã©”º” Ã¥”ºÂ¢Ã¥” ”ºÃ§”ºÂ´Ã¦Å½Â¥Ã¥Â?”šÃ¥Å Â Ã¤Âº” Ã¦Å“Â?鲜
çš”žÃ¥Å“°éÂ?¢ä½œæˆ˜ã€”šÃ§Â¾Å½ Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã¤Â¸ÂºÃ¤Â½Â¿Ã¥”¦Â¶Ã¤Â¾ÂµÃ§”¢Â¥Ã¨Â¡Å’å¾”žÃ¥Â?ˆæ³”¢Ã¥Å’”“，åÂ?ˆäºŽ7月7æ—¥æ“Â?纵èÂ?”?Ã¥Â?ˆå”ºÂ½Ã©Â?žæ³”¢Ã¦Å½Ë†Ã¦Â?Æ’Ã¥”¦Â¶Ã¦Å’”¡
æ´¾åÂ?¸ä»¤å®˜ç»Ÿä¸€æŒ”¡Ã¦Å’¥ä¾µæœÂ?Ã¥Â?”žÃ¥”ºÂ½Ã¥” ”ºÃ©ËœÅ¸Ã£â‚¬”š

从此美唺½å°±æ”°“çÂ?€”èÂ?”?Ã¥Â?ˆå”ºÂ½”Â?çš”žÃ¦——Ã¥Â?·ï¼Œçº åÂ?ˆæŒ”¡Ã¦Å’¥æ”°â‚¬Ã¨Â°“”èÂ?”?Ã¥Â?ˆå”ºÂ½Ã¥” ”º”Â?Ã¥”¦Â¬Ã¥Â¼â‚¬Ã¥Â¯Â¹Ã¦Å“Â?鲜è¿”ºÃ¨Â¡Å’ä¾µ
產¥æˆ˜äº”°Ã£â‚¬”š
.....
美唺½æ”?¿åºœæ— è§” Ã¤Â¸Â­
Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã¦”?¿åºœçš”žÃ¨Â­Â¦Ã¥”˜Å Ã¥’Å’Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã©â„¢”¦Ã¨Ë†” Ã¨Â®ÂºÃ§Å¡”žÃ¨Â°Â´Ã¨Â´Â£Ã¯Â¼Å’于10月1日攚Â?甞¶è¶Šè¿”¡Ã¤Â¸”°Ã¥”¦Â«Ã§ÂºÂ¿Ã¯Â¼Å’甓¯ç”¹”šÃ¥Å“°åÂ?”˜Ã¥Å’—æœÂ?鲜馔“
都平壤和东部锡Â?锢”¡Ã¥”¦Æ’山答°Ã¥Å“°è¿”ºÃ©â‚¬Â¼Ã¯Â¼Å’并多次派éÂ?£ç©ºå” ”ºÃ¨Â½Â°Ã§”šÂ¸Ã¤Â¸Â­Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã¤Â¸Å“北边境çš”žÃ¤Â¸â‚¬Ã¤Âº”ºÃ¥Å¸Å½Ã©”¢”¡Ã¥’Å’
乡æÂ?”˜Ã¯Â¼Å’还甹”šÃ¥Â¦”žÃ¥Â?«åš£ï¼š”鸭绿江并ä¸Â?是把两唺½(挔¡Ã¤Â¸Â­Ã¦Å“Â?)截甞¶åˆ” Ã¥Â¼â‚¬Ã§Å¡”žÃ¤Â¸Â?Ã¥Â?¯é€¾è¶Šçš”žÃ©Å¡Å“ç¢Â?”Â?
〔šÃ¨Â¿â„¢Ã¥Â°Â±Ã¤Â¸Â?ä»”¦Ã¥Â¨Â?èƒÂ?çÂ?€åŒ—æœÂ?鲜çš”žÃ§”?Ÿå­˜ï¼ŒåÂ?ξ—¶ä¹Ÿæ”ºÂ´Ã¤Â¸Â¥Ã©”¡Â?地å¨Â?èƒÂ?çÂ?€ä¸­åÂ?Žäººæ°”˜Ã¥”¦Â±Ã¥’Å’Ã¥”ºÂ½Ã§Å¡”žÃ¥Â®”°Ã¥”¦Â¨Ã¯Â¼Å’
å¨Â?èƒÂ?çÂ?€ä¸”“產Œ皔žÃ¥’Œå¹³ã€”š

Further down in the Sina article,

“In mid-August, the Korean (æœÂ?鲜) army crossed the Naktong River and LIBERATED (my emphasis) much of the south. On June 28, the Korean army LIBERATED Seoul, on July 20, Daejon.” Liberated Seoul from who? The South Koreans?

The whole article blames the US for the war and describes Kim Il-Sung’s North Korea in very positive language, treating him as the legitimate leader of all of Korea and a fighter for unification, independence, and FREEDOM . Sina is a major Chinese portal.

Thank you for the links, Sunbin. The two webpages do acknowledge that the north fired the first shot, but otherwise, the language and content is the same as the Sina page. All of the sites squarely fault the US and the South for the war. All of the pages treat Kim Il-Sung’s invasion as war to unifty and liberate the South. The webpages correctly describe the participation of Japanese collaborators in the South’s government and the assassination of Kim Ku, but fail to mention how Kim Il-Sung murdered those who opposed his rule from the time he grabbed power in the north until his death. China is still defending its lips and teeth buddy more than 50 years later.

Tomorrow I’ll check out my middle school world history text to see if the Union did indeed liberate the South.

You are right that in 1950 North and South looked very different from today. It was hard to tell the good guys from the bad guys. However, it is 2005, and the Chinese can see the long-term outcome. I understand why the Chinese blame the US, but look at the war from a pan-Korean point of view. If the US had not helped the South, Korea would be united under the Kim Dynasty. There would be no prosperous South. The South is free, and someday the North will be, too.

This is switching the topic, but right now I am watching Larry King Live on CNN. Heather McCartney is talking about that dog and cat fur video. Are you in the US?

in hindsight, yes, you are right.

as i noted before, many chinese netizen said “after sacrificing 1M lives, today i want to dig a hole if i am facing a south korean friends”—if i find such quote again, i will post it.

but you know, one shall not judge history with such hindsight.
NK could have a Deng, and SK couls have a Bastita, or Marcos, Suharto.
in you think along this line, and put ourselves into the shoes of the people in 1950s. you could see why there was really no right or wrong in these cold war conflict.—- well, you could say all wars were wrong.

well…there is no if in history. china might just be in another mess if CKS won the civil war. One of the reason for his reform in Taiwan (and became less corrupted) was because he lost the war.
the other reason for Taiwan’s success was the relatively smaller size.

however, there won’t be famine in 1959-61, or the mess in 1966-76.

but it is hard to say. taiwanese can tell you how horrible the old KMT was.

great! would be interesting to hear what Jie Hyun say. :)

i heard about the McCartney/PETA/video story. this is a reaction from a Chinese blogger

What I find is there are always those who are paranoid about WWII in asia. Look at what Chinese and Korean leaders state these days about peace. Think how much their citizens are obsessed about their history. There’s no variety about opinion. They can’t be like this unless the government brainwash people with biased propaganta.

So what I means is ... Knock it off!

Don’t be short sighted and discuss everything around the world! It’s not an asian history blog.

What I find is there are always those who are paranoid about WWII in asia. Look at what Chinese and Korean leaders state these days about peace.

Yep. Invasion and brutal occupation will have that effect on some people.

Think how much their citizens are obsessed about their history.

Past actions provide an insight into future actions. It would be foolish to not be concerned about recent 20th century history.

There’s no variety about opinion.

Three days ago I heard a man make a speech at the Shilla Hotel saying that he admired Koizumi for actually taking the kidnapping of their citizens seriously, unlike his country, South Korea. I am not home, so I don’t have the quote.

And the next day at another rally, on the big screen behind the speaker was a picture of someone from another rally with a sign that says “22 million > Dokdo.”

How’s that for “no variety” of opinion?

I think you should amend your sentence to say, “According to the people in the echo chamber known as the Korea-related blogosphere, there is no variety of opinion in Korea.”

They can’t be like this unless the government brainwash people with biased propaganta.

One wouldn’t have to believe propaganda to be somewhat concerned about right-wing Japanese motives.

So what I means is … Knock it off!

Don’t be short sighted and discuss everything around the world! It’s not an asian history blog.

To a large extent, the problem is Roh and his administration. His ratings are in the toilet, and he thought he could boost them by playing the anti-Japan card. In order to do this, he had to scrap his predecessor’s (Kim Daejung) policy of not letting historical issues derail the Korean-Japanese future-oriented relationship.

And let’s not pretend that it’s just the Korean or Chinese side that’s “obsessed” with this history. The right-wing of Japan itself is just as obsessed with bringing their version of Japan’s “truthful” history: “The truth of modern Japanese history is now restored.”

korea poll survey FYI