Removing Yongsan - or Not

An article from the more recent days of this saga will be a good briefer before we dig in deeper --

U.S., South Korea deliberate Yongsan Garrison move Stars and Stripes 06.18.03

Once again, as they have for years, the U.S. military and South Korea are talking about the massive task of packing up and moving two major American commands. Once again, they’re not talking about what it will take to actually make it happen: money. The two governments agreed in 1990 that U.S. forces should leave Seoul by 1996. That agreement stipulated South Korea would shoulder the cost — a point over which negotiators agonized for two years.

“One thing different about the current relocation plan,” Baker said, “is that this one is being pressed forward more by the United States than South Korea, as it fits in the overall global restructuring” Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld contemplates for U.S. forces.

The Korea Times was one of the most vocal in its negative tone in articles and editorials about the lack of momentum in moving Yongsan out of Seoul (an issue fruitful for agitation against the US from 1990 and much earlier) and the plan to build new housing (which built up the fires to a hot degree in 2000 - which just happened to be the period of the South-North Summit and South Korea’s loving thoughts for their “brothers” to the North), but it did provide a couple of good editorials that summed up the situation well.

[Seoul Perspective] Legacy of Occupation Korea Times 12.19.01

During the Hideyoshi invasion in the 16th century, Japanese aggressors established a major logistic base at Yongsan in their attempt to conquer Korea. In the late 19th century, Qing China stationed its troops in the area to assert its suzerainty over the Choson Dynasty.

The Japanese military facilities at Yongsan were taken over by U.S. forces. The American troops pulled out upon the establishment of the Republic of Korea in 1948. But, in the wake of the Korean War, the Yongsan base was again turned over to America

(right - Hideyoshi)

….the huge military base turned out to be a major stumbling block to the metropolis' urban planning and popular repugnance was mounting against the legacy of foreign occupation left in the heart of the capital…

While the relocation plan has been left in limbo, living conditions for American military personnel assigned to the Yongsan Post, especially officers with families, have deteriorated...Some of the officers live in decrepit barracks built by the Japanese and some others in Quonset huts, making the housing situation at Yongsan one of the worst for U.S. forces stationed in noncombatant zones around the world.

The dilapidated housing is a sore source of discontent among the USFK, where 50 percent of the recently arrived U.S. soldiers have asked for a transfer. See this other Joongang Ilbo story that gave a good insight into the housing.

At the core of the problem is the Korean people's nationalistic sentiment against the protracted presence of a huge foreign military base in a central part of the capital, a bitter legacy that hurts the nation's self-esteem and sovereignty as well.

[Arrowhead] USFK Housing in Yongsan Korea Times 12.13.01

Yongsan was once outside downtown Seoul....(gives history of Yongsan as center for occupiers)...Therefore, Yongsan has been the symbol of foreign troops, and of humiliation.

Don't misunderstand the situation! They are stationed here at the request of the South Korean government. So the nature of U.S. forces in Korea is quite different from the Japanese or Chinese troops who humiliated the Choson Kingdom.

However, they are still foreign troops. That bothers my conscience and as well as that of other nationalists. Although I am thankful to them, I have a question for the South Korean Government: Is it necessary for 37,000 U.S. forces to stay in this country to deter a war? The size of the U.S. troops as a deterring force may be cut down. That is what I think.

(There is much more racial motivation for the anti-Americanism than foreigners who have trouble criticizing The Other are willing to admit.

For example, I have heard more than one foreign teacher who tried to donate blood tell me how they had been turned down more than once. Also, Koreans find it strange foreign teachers don’t know their blood types, because they believe you can tell a lot about a person based on that. Koreans have it drummed in early that one of the reasons Korea is special is because of their “homogenity” and mixed couples are not well thought of.)

Korean people want to keep Yongsan as an open space once relocation is complete. Now, the relocation plan is no longer. Instead, a high-rise apartment complex is planned. It will not make the skyline of Seoul beautiful, it will make Seoul more crowded. As an environmentalist, I don't want any more housing units constructed inside Seoul.

The very fact that --- what the Korean civic groups echoed in the media --- often call a polluted wasteland is actually an open area and relatively clean and green compared to most of Seoul --- makes the hypocrisy of the Green Koreans detestable.

But the Koreans are very good at selling the idea of their wounded pride and national sovereignty -- not only to themselves, but to foreigners as well - especially in academia and the State Department who have a job of trying to figure out how to make things work and find it hard to criticize The Other.

Seminar on USFK's Role in the 21st Century Held Chosun Daily 01.16.02

Steven Solaz, former commissioner of the House Committee for Asia Pacific Diplomatic Policy;

”The decision to relocate Yongsan base is up to the Korean government and the United States does not oppose this, as even if it is relocated, the deterrent force against North Korea will still be present as long as the 2nd Infantry Division remains in its current position. It is rare that a country with foreign forces locates the forces in the center of the capital and as long as USFK stays in Yongsan, anti-American sentiment will continue to rise.”

Another common idea you hear from Koreans and sympathetic foreigners trying to “bridge the gap” is “How would Americans feel if thousands of foreign troops were stationed in Washington DC?!”

Well, I say, if 60 miles above Washington, we had a nutty Stalinist state dictatorship with a god-complex at its head threatening every so often to turn us into a “lake of fire” -- and we were depending on tens of thousands of soldiers from another country to deter that threat --- and were asking that foreign nation to send potentially hundreds of thousands of their citizens to fight and die - again - for my freedom and standard of living ------ I would hope we could get over our rracial prejudices enough to be thankful for those foreign defenders and could “endure” their headquarters being in our capital.

But, in reality, USFK had agreed with South Korea to move the horrible affront to Korean dignity out of Seoul --- if the Korean government would find a suitable alternative and pay for the relocation. The Koreans agreed to this in 1990, but balked at the funding and used the 1993 Nuclear Crisis with North Korea to virtually shelve the plan.

But it didn’t shelve the hate - of course. At different peaks in anti-Americanism, the Yongsan Issue would pop up, but after the economic collapse in 1997-98, the idea died again, only to be taken up --- with a significant vengeance, in 2000, when North Korea became the South’s buddy, and USFK decided it could not wait forever to provide adequate housing for its people.

“Some in the South Korean Defense Ministry suggested that the figure had been deliberately inflated because the U.S. forces do not want to relocate.”

But the estimation of moving expenses should be based on the standards of Korea, instead of reflecting the standards of the richest country in the world, the United States. At first, the original negotiations failed to be implemented because the U.S. forces notified the South Korean government that the relocation would cost $9.5 billion, up from $1.7 billion that was first estimated.

I need to find out who did the first estimate. I believe it was the Korean government. The logic here works both ways -- US moved it up to kill it -- or ---- Korea moved it down because they had to pay for it.

Civic Groups Claim Yongsan Relocation Pact Unfair Korea Times 10.09.03

According to civic leaders, who obtained a copy of the agreement, the cost of the relocation project, currently estimated at $3-5 billion by South Korean officials, could more than triple taking account of various loopholes in the agreement. This would make it possible for the U.S. to ask for more money.

”The U.S. can ask for virtually anything under this accord,” Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea said in a statement, calling the agreement a “slave paper.”

The fact that the last quote was from late 2003 and is the same as the rest shows how good the material is for long term agitation.

Back in 2000 -- the Korean government helped the anti-USFK civic groups greatly:

Yongsan Office Warns USFK on Dragon Hill Extension Chosun Daily 03.24.00

The Yongsan District Office issued a warning Friday to the United States Forces in Korea (USFK) with regard to an extension being built to the Dragon Hill Hotel on the Yongsan main post, ordering them to halt all construction and tear down completed work. According to the office the USFK did not seek its permission to add to the luxury hotel in the southern annex of the army base.

Dispute Erupts Over Construction of Hotel in US Army Compound Korea Times 03.12.00

The Yongsan-ku office said over the weekend that it has sent a virtual ultimatum to the U.S. command to stop the work for the expansion of a six-story hotel building and the construction of its annex parking tower. The ultimatum was made after the district office twice ordered the U.S. command to last month to suspend construction because it had not obtained prior approval from Korean authorities. But the USFK refused to comply with the request. The SOFA stipulates that members of the U.S. military must respect Korean laws and orders.

An official at the district office said it would fine the U.S. command if it does not comply with the order to suspend the work on the buildings by the end of this month. He also said the authorities had threatened to take additional punitive actions which will include the forced demolition of the buildings. He added that the district office plans to launch a campaign to revise the SOFA agreement to prevent the U.S. command from continuing to engage in illegal building work. The official vowed to press ahead with the movement in cooperation with other district authorities in Uijongbu, north of Seoul, and Paju. There are many U.S. military camps in the areas and local residents and officials have repeatedly complained that the USFK has ignored Korean laws and the SOFA agreement to construct buildings.

But the U.S. side reportedly claimed in a letter to the district office that the construction work for the buildings are under way in accordance with the law as the U.S. has jurisdiction over the construction of buildings on its installations in Korea. Thus, the USFK clarified its position that it has no intention to follow the order to stop the work.

President Kim Dae Jung spoke out for the need for housing --- but not until 2002 and only after the fires of anti-Americanism had risen too high to continue to ignore it --- after so many Korean political figureess supported it. There were also other notes positive or reasonable toward USFK over the years on this issue, but as in the article linked in the following quote, they are buried and the anti-US civic group message is what is heard and absorbed: (“We do recognize the need for a revision of the accord. The situation was different at the time -in 1990-’’ the official said. “But one shouldn’t object over our paying the relocation costs for the forces. It is common knowledge that the living conditions and facilities here are inferior to that of Germany and others bases.”)

The Seoul city officials had it wrong that the US had not specified its plans to build the housing. This caused some public embarrassment to the Kim Dae Jung administration, because the Ministry of Defense at first denied having been told both verbally and in writing about the plans when facing the initial barrage of public and press outrage, but then had to backtrack a couple of days later.

This was not the first time - nor the last - that the Seoul government clashed head first with USFK and in full public - well publicized - view:

US Army Urges to Return Land in Itaewon Korea Times 03.14.00

A district office administrator in Seoul is raising an argument against the U.S. military as it refuses to relocate a garage in Itaewon, a tourist area for foreigners. “We plan to construct posh tourist accommodations in Itaewon to attract more foreigners,” Sung Jang-hyun, head of the Yongsan-ku office, told the Korea Times. “But the project is now about to fall apart because the USFK refuses to relocate its facility from the site allowed to use by the Korean government,” Sung said.

(The shirt above reads “I’m not an American!” -- sometimes it isn’t nice to be one in Korea. The spike in hate in 2000 over the housing and Yongsan came with the SK-NK Summit, SOFA revisions, and the Infamous Water Dumping case. It also came with attacks on US soldiers and foreigners in Itaewon - including the stabbing death of a USFK doctor by a reported mentally ill man. It also came at a time when the Korean national police warned USFK of a plan by the radical student groups to kidnap a US soldier to demand closing of a firing range and revision of the SOFA. These kinds of plans are not too infrequent though never carried out beyond breaking into US bases and getting into fights with people that look like soldiers.)

(article continued)

However, the U.S. military leased the space to a civilian taxi business, which is in operation for American servicemen and their family members. Sung noted that the USFK should have used the land for a military purpose. (I would guess USFK would say it is since it is a taxi service just for USFK people…too bad these articles don’t come with responses from the US side.) “We have the right to demand the return of the land,” he said. However, negotiations came to a halt since then because the U.S. side apparently was in disadvantageous position, although comments are not available from the U.S. side.

The district official is angry that the U.S. has stationed their forces without paying any fees for the use of the land and facilities. “They've never paid a penny for the use of utilities, including electricity and tap water charges,” Sung said. He stressed that the Yongsan-ku office will try to make efforts to assert its rights over the U.S. military and correct inequalities caused by the lopsided ROK-U.S. relations.

Seoul mayor wants Yongsan to be site of government complex Stars and Stripes 07.31.01

Seoul’s mayor wants to turn the U.S. Army’s Yongsan Garrison into a city government complex. And he wants to begin construction next year. Mayor Koh Kun made the statement during a City Council meeting Friday. It’s not the first time the mayor has made the suggestion. A major problem with the proposal, however, is Yongsan isn’t on a list of facilities to be closed under a recently announced Land Partnership Plan. Seoul city and Yongsan District officials complained that the facility, in the middle of a major route from the city’s center to eastern suburbs, blocks city development and causes traffic congestion. In 1990, the U.S. military agreed to move the garrison outside the city if the South Korean government provided land and paid for the entire move.

The usual anti-US civic groups were at the forefront of the fight - along with the press and many politicians like the Seoul mayor --- who became Korea’s Prime Minister under President Roh in 2003 --

NGOs Protest USFK's Apartment Plan Korea Times 12.09.01

“Building high-rise apartment units in the South Post means that the USFK intends to stay in Yongsan for at least 20 to 30 more years. We will join forces with other civic groups to launch a campaign to oppose the plan,” said Kim Pan-tae, a senior member of the People's Action for Reform of the Unjust ROK-U.S. SOFA Agreement. ”The U.S. plan to develop such a large development cannot be accepted in view of national sentiment and its promise to return the base by 1996,” said Kim Yong-hwan, chairman of the National Committee for Retrieval of U.S. Bases. The Defense Ministry said that it has yet to be officially informed about the construction plan from USFK. The land at the present residential complex for officers belongs to the ministry, and USFK only has the right to lease, ministry officials said.

The image above should be familiar to anybody who has vision and pays attention to South Korea. He is the head of the “National Committee….” and works with many other groups and issues……as happens with the many many many titled anti-American civic groups in Korea…..the image below is from the as yet constructed English site for the “People’s Action…” whose Korean page is linked above.

New apartments draw fire Joongang Daily 12.09.01

The Defense Ministry maintained, however, that the USFK has never notified it of its building plans, as it is required to do under the Status of Forces Agreement. The Defense Ministry said it would lodge a protest with U.S. officials at a meeting of the bilateral SOFA committee scheduled for Thursday.  The city says its statutes forbid apartment buildings higher than five stories inside the base, but it is not clear whether those statutes are enforceable in an agreement at the national level.

Again, the ministry of defense was not telling the truth. It tried to make excuses that the letter and verbal briefing of the housing plan was not “properly official” but nobody bought that - even in Korea.

There was also some confusion on the amount of costs SK would have to meet for the move, and I still haven’t read enough to figure it out. Most often it is referred to as all costs: “The government must address the issue of moving the Yongsan U.S. base. The SOFA stipulates the U.S. Army's use of the land for free, one example of the unfairness of a treaty hurriedly made during the Korean War. The SOFA might be the first impediment to be done away with.” Then an article said 2/3^rd. And then this one said “Cha said that South Korea would ultimately bear 1.1 percent of the USFK construction project under the Military Construction agreement, debunking reports that two-thirds of the apartment cost would fall on the South Korean government.”

Koreans almost to a man…including ones friendly to USFK…actually believe the US makes a big profit off having US troops in Korea, because the Korean government and press tell how much their defense budget is and how much they give to USFK and how they might have to raise taxes for future costs ect….While in reality, I have read the US spends some $3 billion a year in Korea for USFK…..not to mention the amount of money Korea would have to spend to replace it…..when their defense budget has barely met the world national average for defense spending per GDP despite the threat from North Korea.

City Officials Urge USFK to Drop Housing Plan Korea Times 12.10.01

A group of Seoul city officials backed the top city official's position, and local civic groups also stepped up their protests against the USFK plan by staging sit-ins. “USFK ought to withdraw the plan, as it breaches a variety of compromises and agreements between the two nations,” stated the Association of Seoul City Officials, a fraternity group of low-ranking officials. “We won't remain mere spectators of this unreasonable act, which tramples on citizens' self-esteem,” they added. The group also threatened to tackle the plan in coalition with civil officials nationwide and international labor groups. Kim Pan-tae, a civil activist said, “I understand the background of the USFK being stationed here, and its role in the security of the Korean peninsula. But, this doesn't justify it's high-handed attitude.”

[EDITORIALS]'No' to new U.S. buildings Joongang Daily 12.10.01

No matter why history has developed that way, the fact that a foreign military command is stationed in the center of Korea's capital city is a blow to our national self-esteem.

Some in academia and other foreigners are swayed by this sentiment. For Pete’s sake, didn’t the US lose enough blood and lives fighting so Korea could have “The Miracle on the Han” to warrant Korea swallowing some of its fucking self-esteem?

Not to mention the tens of thousands of US soldiers who pass through Korea still who are willing to die for them?!

Another oddity of the 2000-2003 Yongsan flare ups, besides the conflicting statements on costs, was the idea that the US asked to kill the 1990 agreement:

USFK Determined to Keep Yongsan Post Korea Times 12.16.01

According to USFK publicity material, the existing Yongsan base will be developed into the headquarters and command control hub in Korea. As a result, the Yongsan base will continue to exercise command and control of all U.S. forces in Korea, said USFK's monthly magazine, Let's Go Together, in its October edition.

Now, I agree with the Koreans that building housing is a sign of longer term commitment, but since there has been zero movement toward meeting the 1990 agreement, they need housing. But putting this information out in 2001 was a bit odd and a bad idea.

(quote continued)

Despite opposition by civic groups and Seoul City, the Defense Ministry backed the housing plan, saying that it would make every effort to increase public awareness of the need for improved quality of life for USFK personnel in Seoul. The ministry insists that relocation and the building of apartments are two separate issues.

In an attempt to nullify the agreement, USFK asked the government to revoke the 1990 agreement in May this year, but the government rejected the request, ministry officials said.

The deal has been dead, but naming it as such was bound to cause trouble, but I plan to do a review of relocation issues altogether to give you an idea of how Korea doesn’t want changes in USFK’s positioning in Korea one way or another --- for example, the movement of civic grouups to block any new construction that would need to come with relocations.

But --- then again --- another reason the deal goes nowhere besides the costs is the fact that Koreans - especially the highly motivated hate groups - will block construction and make so many delays which will only raise costs and lower the chances of making adequate new bases:

New site of U.S. base mulled Joongang Daily 01.21.02

”Osan and Pyeongtaek, both in Gyeonggi province, and Gunsan, North Jeolla province, which were candidates in 1990, were crossed off the list due to protests from residents and the price of land in those areas,” said a ministry official.

Some local residents, on the other hand, are opposed to relocating the U.S. base. “U.S. military bases are hotbeds of crime, and will destroy the environment and slow development in the area,” one resident of Seongnam wrote on the city's Web site.

Residents Express Opposition to Proposed USFK Base Korea Times 01.21.02

Residents of Songpa-gu, southeastern Seoul, are in an uproar over the media reports that their area is being considered an alternative site for the base.

Civic groups and residents of the two other proposed locations - Songnam and Suwon in Kyonggi Province - are also making strong protests.

”No matter what happens, we won't accept the U.S. military base in our neighborhood,” said Kim Hong-su, a Songpa-gu resident. “We don't want to live in atmosphere with more noise, crimes by American soldiers and many entertainment facilities, which will certainly accompany the base.”

Check out some links on the prostitution issue - another long term useful tool for the hate groups and media - and see how open and accepted prostitution and a WIDE variety forms in the Korean entertainment areas --- red light districts, areas near train stations, tea rooms, room salons, tea delivery, Love Hotels and more. But “crimes by US soldiers” near bases is a big selling theme far beyond the civic groups.

The closing period of this saga, as it evolves today, is a continuation of the same --- with a twist. After the US announced it wanted to implement the full plan to close almost half its bases and consolidate forces --- including pulling away from the DMZ --- a chill went down Korea’s spine. I will cover this in more detail later, but here are some useful quotes….

Kyonggi Parliament, Residents at Odds Over US Forces Korea Times 03.20.03

A local parliament of Kyonggi Province is moving to adopt a resolution that would oppose any removal or transfer of U.S. forces stationed in the province.

”They are trying to move their troops to the rear, but their presence in Kyonggi Province is needed for the safety of the capital and the province as North Koreans are concentrating all their firepower alongside the demilitarized zone.” Choi argued.

As I will cover elsewhere, a common idea in Korea after the shock of hearing Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and other top US politicians say, “We will take troops out if South Koreans want it” was that the US wanted to move troops away from the DMZ and Seoul so we could attack North Korean nuclear sites with missiles and then pull out of the South before we were caught up in a war.

MDP to Push for Early Relocation of Yongsan Army Base Korea Times 05.27.02

Unveiling the MDP's policy commitments for the upcoming local elections, Rep. Park Byung-yoon, chief policymaker, said, “We will complete the relocation of the Yongsan army base before 2010.”

Though MDP lawmakers want the U.S. military to move out of central Seoul, they declined to elaborate on the location of the new site, apparently out of concern that they would face a public backlash in the local elections if they released candidate sites before polls.

Military pacts cause sharp rift at talks on base Joongang Daily 09.04.03

According to government sources, Seoul was also required to exempt U.S. military personnel from any civil liabilities arising from the relocation. For example, a South Korean supplier to U.S. forces would not have the right to file a civil case against the military if its contract was unilaterally revoked due to the move.

Yongsan talks fail to reach an accord Joongang Daily 10.08.03

Drawn-out defense policy talks between South Korea and the United States ended yesterday, failing to reach a conclusion over how to revise a decade-old agreement on the relocation of the U.S. Yongsan Garrison in downtown Seoul. South Korean officials have publicly called the pact “unfair” and “legally incomplete,” while the United States has shown an unwillingness to make major changes to the accord.

The United States also reportedly raised a new demand regarding the base relocation that would cost South Korea up to hundreds of billions of won, the officials said, but the specifics about the demand were not known yesterday.
The two sides also failed to narrow down the differences in their positions on how they would split the expenses for environmental recovery work that will take place after most of the U.S. troops stationed at Yongsan leave, the South Korean officials said.

As of early October 2003, the talks taking place the last two months have been some of the least fruitful.

In fact, in October, they failed so badly to come together, they did not even agree on a statement to release - even one saying “We made progress, but we will meet again later to iron out final differences” - and they failed to hold a post-meeting press conference.

The Yongsan base relocation and USFK desire to move other bases could lead to USFK pulling out significant amounts of troops.

The civic groups and pure habit of anti-Americanism in Korea will delay if not kill outright any attempt to move bases, because new construction to accommodate the move will be found tooth and nail.

Costs and delays will skyrocket, and even if the US begins to pay for some of the moves (which I think is reasonable), the US Congress isn’t going to pay the unreasonable amounts Korean society will demand.

The environmental issue shows this. Korea is so hypocritical on this point it staggars the mind, and if the US begins paying a significant portion for moves, Korean society will smell blood and fight even harder to block certain construction and demand a squeaky clean USFK that the US government will never pay for.

But Korea has no idea yet how close they are to really forcing USFK out.

Korea believes the US push to move away from the DMZ and Yongsan are just a reaction to anti-Americanism.

They don’t realize how the US works or the other strategic factors that make Korea look less and less like a place we need to be ---- the Cold War is over, the troops in Korea are inflexible and can’t help in Iraq or Afghanistan or somewhere else if terrorist strike again, the costs in Korea are already significant, but we are going to spend tons in Iraq and Afghanistan alone for decades and in other places to stem terrorism.

Then there is anti-Americanism and other Korea factors - like they have a much larger population, huge advantage in industry and wealth over North Korea --- they can provide their own defense.

I believe Congress will begin to ask, “Why are we spending billions of dollars to keep troops in a fairly rich nation that hates our soldiers when we could use those soldiers and that money in Afghanistan and Iraq?”