I'm still disappointed with the South sending Hwang to the US then placing two Pyongyang style "minders" with him forcing him to mute his criticism of the North to the point of getting into a Korean-style "scuffle" with the staffers of US Congress people, because "the bastards" wanted to talk to Hwang without the KCIA censoring him.
Pitiful.
My reaction is exactly what one of the people from the defense forum that invited him to Korea --- I thought South Korea was a more mature democracy and nation -- I knew they had their petty insecurities ---- but even after living there for years, I didn't think they were this insecure.
Anyway, today's article linked above is on the troop dispatch issue, and it reminds me of another typical South Korean strategy. And I wonder is it isn't following Pyongyang too.
We've seen with the Yongsan base relocation epic, the South is great about ranting over an issue, sitting down at a table and demanding things, then signing an agreement ------ with no intention of ever fullfilling it.
They have made this a specific feature of USFK-SK relations. How many Yongsan relocation agreements and affirmation of previous agreements have they signed over the years?
How about the other base consolidation and relocation plans signed some time ago?
And now the same strategy with moving 2 ID --- "Oh yeah. That's a good idea. Get your bases out of our metropolitain areas. We agree with that. Just start doing it in some unspecified time in the future we will agree to later....."
And now we see it with the Iraq troop dispatch.
They say they'll send troops, then they want to send noncombatants, but they don't like the idea of having those put under US controll. I wonder how they would feel if we put the 3,000 noncombatants in an area so they can provide their own security??? Makes a lot of sense, no?
Then they want to delay sending them until next April, a half year away, and at some point in that time, for some reason , they'd find a way to push the date further back, and then further back, and then further back....
I guess we could call this strategy the "KEDO" factor.....
Signing agreements that never get off the ground floor but acting surprised when someone else suggests that you admit the reality and "scrap the deal" in name as well as fact.
How about the other base consolidation and relocation plans signed some time ago?
And now the same strategy with moving 2 ID --- "Oh yeah. That's a good idea. Get your bases out of our metropolitain areas. We agree with that. Just start doing it in some unspecified time in the future we will agree to later....."
And now we see it with the Iraq troop dispatch.
They say they'll send troops, then they want to send noncombatants, but they don't like the idea of having those put under US controll. I wonder how they would feel if we put the 3,000 noncombatants in an area so they can provide their own security??? Makes a lot of sense, no?
Then they want to delay sending them until next April, a half year away, and at some point in that time, for some reason , they'd find a way to push the date further back, and then further back, and then further back....
I guess we could call this strategy the "KEDO" factor.....
Signing agreements that never get off the ground floor but acting surprised when someone else suggests that you admit the reality and "scrap the deal" in name as well as fact.