----- Original Message ----- From: Rick Rozoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Friday, June 30, 2000 3:11 PM Subject: [STOPNATO] 'Forgotten War' Unforgettable STOP NATO: NO PASARAN! - HTTP://WWW.STOPNATO.COM "The war illustrated the first failure of the interventionism that the U.S. conducted from Korea and Vietnam to Kosovo....'What happened in Kosovo shows once again (U.S.) interventionsm does not work.'" China Daily June 30,2000 by Chen Ping 'Forgotten war' unforgettable he Korean War is dubbed a "forgotten war" in the West, overshadowed by World War II and the Viet Nam War. Yet half a century later it is still remembered. On the 50th anniversary of the outbreak of the conflict, the Seoul government reportedly had planned to mark the event by spending US$40 million on 52 commemorative projects, either international or national, which officially began on June 25 and will continue through July 27, 2003 - the very day, 50 years ago, an armistice was signed to end the war. The United States plans to start a three-year series of commemorative events at a cost of US$7 million. On June 22, a bronze plaque honouring US navy personnel who served in the war was unveiled in a park in Inchon, the site of a crucial event to the outcome of the three-year war. But reflection might be the best commemoration for the United States. The US could learn a lesson from the war. The Korean conflict became the so-called "forgotten war" in the West largely because it ended indecisively. American war veterans returned to an indifferent home with no parades, no heroes' welcome nor pomp and circumstance. Some Americans who had stayed at home did not even recognize the conflict as a war. The reason for this indifference is clear, although the US Government and its military never admitted it explicitly - the United States did not win the war on the Korean Peninsula. With 54,000 dead, 103,000 wounded and 5,000 missing, the US forces, backed by advanced logistics, modern conventional weaponry, atomic deterrence, and even biological warfare, failed to realize its strategic target in the Far East. Korea's political map remained virtually unchanged after a war which dragged on for three years, one month, two days and 17 hours - the war stopped where it began. But to the Chinese, who were forced to dispatch their volunteer army to fight in the conflict, the outcome was a victory, albeit a costly one. For the first time since it faced humiliation at the hands of the West in the 19th century, China, much inferior militarily, inflicted a blow to the world's mightiest fighting machine. >From the very beginning, the Korean conflict was a civil war aimed at unifying a peninsula divided by the 38th parallel. The intervention of the US ground troops on July 5, two days before the formation of the UN forces authorized by a US-controlled Security Council, internationalized the war. The US 7th Fleet cruised the Taiwan Straits, invading Chinese territory. When UN forces crossed the 38th parallel on October 1 and advanced towards the Chinese border, the Chinese soldiers were given no other options but to fight an anti-invasion war to ensure its territorial security and to safeguard peace in the Far East. "If the United States had triumphed in October 1950, and been able to establish a unified and viable non-communist Korean regime, the People's Republic would have had a hostile and powerful neighbour on its crucial Manchurian (Northeastern) border where so much heavy industry was concentrated," noted US historian Jonathan D. Spence in his 1990 book "The Search for Modern China." What the United States lost politically and militarily in the Korean War was greater than it gained. The war illustrated the first failure of the interventionism that the US conducted from Korea and Viet Nam to Kosovo. Latest media news indicated that Seoul cancelled some commemorative events deemed as "provocative" and sought to turn other events for the anniversary into calls for peace and reconciliation in the wake of the June 13-15 historic Korean summit. In the "North-South Joint Declaration" signed by Kim Jong-il, National Defence Commission Chairman of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), and Kim Dae-jung, president of the Republic of Korea (ROK), the two sides declared that "the South and the North have agreed to join hands to solve the question of national unification in an independent manner between us, who are the main parties." The key phrase is "independent manner," which could be translated into "Korea for the Koreans." In the entire 20th century, Korea's strategic importance invited invasion and intervention from other powers. Thirty-five years of the often cruel Japanese annexation and colonization climaxed in the tragic division of the peninsula along a geographical line designated by a young American army officer who had never before set his feet on Korean soil. It is high time that the Korean issues be left to Koreans themselves - Koreans should be the master of their own houses. Yet, a majority of Western media substantially scaled down the importance of "independent manner" while covering the landmark summit, implying a reluctance to face the reality. In Seoul, US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright said on June 23 that the 37,000 US troops would remain in the ROK indefinitely despite the diplomatic thaw on the peninsula. "The United States is a Pacific power as well as an Atlantic power," Albright said. "We have interests in Europe as well as in Asia." This could be interpreted as that the presence of the US troops is not merely for the sake of Koreans. What the US is seeking is hegemonic power, not only in Asia but all over the world. The reunification of the Korean Peninsula might be jeopardized. "When it comes to taking concrete measures to substantiate the new joint declaration after the hectic summit fever cools down, one may find it (US troops) an obstacle," a Chinese scholar of international relations said on condition of anonymity. "The United States, as the world's sole remaining superpower, has both the capacity and the inclination to ignore its allies when they go against Washington's (often domestically driven) agenda," said Timothy L. Savage, programme officer for global peace and security at the Nautilus Institute in California, in a contribution to the Seoul-based Korea Herald. Yet "Korea for the Koreans" might be the best way to solve the issue. "Just see what happened in Asia in general and Viet Nam in particular when the US adopted the Nixon Doctrine of 'Asia for the Asians' (proposed in his 1967 Foreign Affairs article 'Asia after Viet Nam')," argues the Chinese analyst. "What happened in Kosovo shows once again (US) interventionism does not work." Date: 06/30/2000 Author: CHEN PING Copyright� by China Daily ______________________________________________________________________ To unsubscribe, write to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Start Your Own FREE Email List at http://www.listbot.com/links/joinlb
