Korea...good move?

[Watu3]

South Korea just signed a defense accord with China after having, basically, told the US to take all their troops home. Trump demanded US$5 billion to fund the American bases there. The South Koreans basically told trump to piss-off and take his troops with him.

China signs defence agreement with South Korea as US angers Seoul with demand for $5bn troop payment - published by The Guardian

Another step in the continued discarding of US leadership. Trump is basically bowing to Russia's interests by dismantling NATO and handing over the Syria and middle east influence even while Russia attacks our electoral system. China's and NKorea's interests are enhanced by pushing S.Korea into China's embrace. Can Japan be far behind? Part of our former allies' calculus has to be Trump's unreliability as a partner. For SoKorea even China is now considered more reliable than Trump. Korean war? Forgeddaboutit.

The other theme is the clear preference Trump has for dealing with dictators: Xi is his good friend. Putin is more trustworthy than our entire intelligence establishment and the Senate Intelligence Committee, and the Saudi Prince's bloody hands mean nothing to Trump. Meanwhile what US influence is left is for sale. Offer Trump a 'deal' to crow about and anything goes. A case of dictatorship envy?

 

[lawpoke87]

Appears to make a lot of sense to have the regional power on the hook in case of a North Korean attack. Due to proximity, China is in a much better position to deter and repel a conventional attack. This should provide more security for the region and the world not to mention preclude the large loss of US lives should the crazy man to the north go off the reservation.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

Yeah let's let China take over being a defense partner for all of Asia. Of course we'll still be their economic partners, that's the way it always works.

 

[lawpoke87]

Yeah let's let China take over being a defense partner for all of Asia. Of course we'll still be their economic partners, that's the way it always works.

I anticipate that will be the lay of the land in the next 10-15 years. Don’t think it matters who follows in the White House. I don’t see anyone currently running for President with the stomach or will for a war in Asia. As far as economic partners, Asia will continue to export to the US far more than we export to the them due to their low labor costs. That won’t change regardless of military alliances. They have to sell those goods to someone and the West is their best customer.

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I anticipate that will be the lay of the land in the next 10-15 years. Don’t think it matters who follows in the White House. I don’t see anyone currently running for President with the stomach or will for a war in Asia. As far as economic partners, Asia will continue to export to the US far more than we export to the them due to their low labor costs. That won’t change regardless of military alliances. They have to sell those goods to someone and the West is their best customer.

There are more economic decisions than who exports what and where that controls the market. China will have their hands on the levers on who gets raw materials, and profits off the supply chain more. Eventually we will make less money off of what we are selling. We are always fighting these kinds of battles, but with China and Russia's increased influence, we will start losing these battles more and more. That's what our military dollars did to keep us in the game. So now we spend those same military dollars but throw away a lot of the benefits with bad decisions and inaction by Trump. It's a lose lose situation.

China is offering their help for pennies on the dollar because they realize the value to them as a country. They see the value of the security/sovereignty trade off that counties like South Korea make.(We used to, really recently.) Do you think they would be doing it so cheaply if they didn't see the value.

They also have the added benefit that Trump is making massive demands for more money from them. He feels like they owe us for all the years we have been providing them with protection. Maybe to a certain extent, but you don't get it all back at once, and you see the sovereignty/autonomy value weighing into it. They don't just blindly follow our lead if they don't owe us for something. So China can charge a little more and still come out on top. They would probably do it for less and still value the deal, but they don't have to, thanks to Trump's boneheaded demands.

I don't think it would take a war in Asia for everybody in Asia not to rely on China for defense It would take somebody not ignoring our allies over there. It is tense over there but that is no reason to give in and bow down to China. Trump ignored South Korea and only paid North Korea any mind. There were signs South Korea was getting closer to China ever since President Moon made overtures toward China and N Korea about talks between US and N Korea. The way that happened made me nervous back then.

The Olympics were a bonafide warning sign. You don't think this is what China was shooting for back then? There were likely even warning signs when they(SKorea) impeached their former President and it created a brief power vacuum. Instead Trump ignored it all, paying way too much attention to N Korea and his failed attempt to get them to denuclearize.

You don't demand a 400% contribution from the year before. That is, not if you want the other side to listen, or even approach paying the amount you are asking for. So he throws a temper tantrum and demands money again, when they announce the defense deal. That's what got him into this situation in the first place. He really expects them to pay that when they are essentially telling him to leave. That is the definition of a temper tantrum.

His demand pushed them into an act of desperate retributory action with the Chinese. They couldn't come up with the $3 billion without a substantial raise in their taxes. If he was serious about it, he would have raised it 35%(instead of 20%) and told them it would be raised the same amount or more next year.

Obama and Bush handled things much differently over there in similar situations. If either of them were still in power, this deal with China would not have happened. Most if not all of our former and hopefully future presidents would not have let this happen.

We are laying down our role as world power and China is stepping in wherever we are leaving openings. Russia is doing the same. We are going to find out why we spent all this money on the military when our influence disappears in most of the world. That won't truly happen until Trump is gone and we pay for decisions he made years earlier.

It wouldn't be horrible if this was one bad decision done in a vacuum. It is just one of Trump's many similar moves in foreign policy that have hurt us. The pull out of Syria and abandoning of the Kurds is just the most recent boneheaded move he has made recently. His policies are getting progressively more and more damaging. He had wise people holding him back before. Not anymore, he has pushed them all out.

We can't handle the world as an enemy. Trump is taking them down(allies) one at a time, at a fairly rapid pace. The ones we still have don't necessarily trust us at the moment. It is easier to take down the next one, if they are already skittish.

 

[lawpoke87]

I’ve been a hawk all my life. However, I can see the writing on the wall in the current political climate. With a $22T debt and all the proposed social and green program it will be defense which will be cut in the coming years. There’s not a candidate running for the top office who has any interest in defense spending. I’m not sure there’s a heck of a lot we can do in the next twenty years to prevent China from being the dominate force in their own back yard. It is what it is.

I believe we should use our force in strategic locations such as the Middle East. I support keeping our base in South Korea which will happen. However, as defense budget cuts occur (they are coming), we must be judicial with our actions. Having 30k troops in South Korea because we fought a war 60 years ago over Communism frankly seems a bit outdated. Like it or not China provides more of a deterrent against the North than the US. Stability is improved.

We lost Syria when we allowed Putin to move troops into that country to back Assad’s push against the rebels we supported. We had two options...send troops of our own to reinforce the rebels and match Putin’s move or sit back and do nothing. We chose the latter....and I backed that decision. With Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, etc... in that area of the world Syria wasn’t worth the potential risk of life such a move would have caused.

Trump will be gone in a year. His predecessor can reverse most of the damage (if you want to call it that) with some of our allies. Obama caused a strained relationship with Israel and that was quickly mended. Leaders of countries understand the difference between US policy and Trump policy.

Happy Thanksgiving .

 

[Gmoney4WW]

I’ve been a hawk all my life. However, I can see the writing on the wall in the current political climate. With a $22T debt and all the proposed social and green program it will be defense which will be cut in the coming years. There’s not a candidate running for the top office who has any interest in defense spending. I’m not sure there’s a heck of a lot we can do in the next twenty years to prevent China from being the dominate force in their own back yard. It is what it is.

I believe we should use our force in strategic locations such as the Middle East. I support keeping our base in South Korea which will happen. However, as defense budget cuts occur (they are coming), we must be judicial with our actions. Having 30k troops in South Korea because we fought a war 60 years ago over Communism frankly seems a bit outdated. Like it or not China provides more of a deterrent against the North than the US. Stability is improved.

We lost Syria when we allowed Putin to move troops into that country to back Assad’s push against the rebels we supported. We had two options...send troops of our own to reinforce the rebels and match Putin’s move or sit back and do nothing. We chose the latter....and I backed that decision. With Iraq, Saudi, Kuwait, etc... in that area of the world Syria wasn’t worth the potential risk of life such a move would have caused.

Trump will be gone in a year. His predecessor can reverse most of the damage (if you want to call it that) with some of our allies. Obama caused a strained relationship with Israel and that was quickly mended. Leaders of countries understand the difference between US policy and Trump policy.

Happy Thanksgiving .

Out of everything you said, there is one thing I hope is true beyond all truth. 'Trump will be gone in a year.' The more time passes, the more I'm unsure this will come to pass.

It would be nice if we spent less on the military and the world didn't come to an end.(Just kidding, kind of!) I just don't see it. No matter how much we manage to spend on all that other stuff, I think the military complex will maintain.

If Chinese Communism were less threatening than Soviet Communism I would agree with you on keeping troops in a country we helped fight a war 30 years ago. I'm just not so sure, especially with what's going on in Hong Kong.(They just couldn't leave well enough alone.)

The one thing that will come to pass is that I will probably watch Gandalf over Thanksgiving.
I might even put on Hand Luke for no reason whatsoever!

Merry Thanksgiving to you and all!

 

[Watu3]

As South Korea continues expanding business deals with China, it should be obvious that South Korea doesn’t consider China the enemy that the US (Trump) does. The same thing is happening with the EU, hence the issues regarding NATO. For the US to ramp up the cost to maintain US troops in South Korea by 500% is almost an insult or highway robbery. South Korea already pays about a billion dollars and provides the lands and utilities to maintain these bases, so asking $5 billion and stiffing South Korea with a trade agreement that favors the US, makes South Korea an unhappy camper. Today, if anything, Japan is a bigger threat to South Korea than China, but both countries are seeking more trade and business ties with China. Both are leaning towards participating in China's Belt and Road Initiative (BRI). South Korea wants a rail line from South Korea through North Korea to connect to Russia and China and points beyond. The BRI is the logical system to accomplish this. To pose a threat to China is the opposite of what South Korea is trying to accomplish.

Also, as South Korea tries to increase friendly ties with the North, US troops in South Korea are a possible barrier. The demand for higher costs to maintain US troops in South Korea may be the excuse South Korea was looking for to change its mindset of how the world is changing. I wouldn’t be surprised if South Korea, aside from a defense agreement with China, it might join the Shanghia Cooperation Organization (SCO) or ASEAN, or both. The China-South Korea defense agreement is just another step in the realignment that is taking place in Asia. Another big change worth noting is that in 2018, both Pakistan and India joined the SCO and just recently ASEAN reaffirmed its goals to be further aligned with the SCO. These moves and actions show that the US is being edged out of the Asian hemisphere and Russia and China are emerging as the clear winners in this alignment.

Contrast Trump's exiting or undermining multinational agreements that formed the basis for US military and trade dominance while other countries are joining agreements set up by others that leave the US out. The TPP was likely the US's last big opportunity to maintain its economic influence in Asia.