Abstract
Chapter 3 has shown how alliance specificities create powerful domestic constituents with interests in maintaining the alliance, but such constituents represent a small segment of the state and society involved in the alliance. Even in Korea, the military industry’s portion of the economy and society was small. In 1991, the Ministry of National Defense designated as “defense industry” 84 companies, which produced 260 defense products, with a total sales of 1.7 trillion won—only 7 percent of the total sales of the companies and a meager 0.7 percent of Korea’s gross national product (GNP).1 Korea’s military, with about 600,000 men in uniform, was not a small group by any measure, but almost all of the soldiers were draftees who derived little, if any, personal gain from the alliance. Very few higher-echelon officers in powerful and profitable positions had a personal stake in it. Also, though the Ministry of National Defense was one of the largest bureaucratic bodies in the Korean government, only a small number of its officials had direct contact with their counterparts in the United States, and an even smaller number had an immediate interest in the alliance. In the United States, the alliance constituency was an even smaller fraction of state and society. Hence the previous chapter leaves a crucial question unanswered: How could this small segment produce a policy that would benefit it at the cost of the larger society?
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
Herman and Chomsky explain such silence in democracy in terms of the influence that mass media has over public opinion. Although their argument is not specifically about threat perception or state identities, their general argument about the processes that manufacture consensus provides insight into how hegemonic conceptions of state identity are produced. Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media, 1st ed. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1988).
Peter J. Katzenstein, ed., The Culture of National Security: Norms and Identity in World Politics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996).
For a good account of the politics in this period, see Katharine Moon, Sex among Allies: Military Prostitution in U.S.-Korea Relations (New York: Columbia University Press, 1997).
Ministry of National Defense, Defense White Paper, 1992–1993 (Seoul: Korea Institute of Defense Analysis, 1993), p. 197.
Ronald D. Asmus, “Germany in Transition: National Self-Confidence and International Reticence,” in U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe and the Middle East, Hearings, U.S.-German Relations, January 29, 1992, 102nd Congress, 2nd Session (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1992), pp. 16 and 19; German Strategy and Opinion after the Wall, 1990–1993 (Santa Monica, CA: Rand, 1994), pp. 32, 37–39.
Tim Shorrock, “The Struggle for Democracy in South Korea in the 1980s and the Rise of Anti-Americanism,” Third World Quarterly 8, no. 4 (1986): 1198–1199.
Benedict Anderson, Imagined Communities: Reflections on the Origin and Spread of Nationalism, rev. and extended ed. (New York: Verso, 1991).
Hyun-Chin Lim, Dependent Development in Korea, 1963–1979 (Seoul: Seoul National University Press, 1985), p. 81.
Robert K. Sawyer, Military Advisors in Korea: KMAG in Peace and War (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1962), pp. 60–66; see also
Han Yong-Wŏn, “Kunbuŭi chedojŏk sŏngjanggwa chŏngch’ijŏk haengdongjuŭi [Military’s Systemic Growth and Political Behaviorism],” in Han’gukhyŏndaechŏngch’iron I: cheilkonghwakukŭi kukkahyŏngsŏng, chŏngch’ikwajŏng, chŏngch’aek [Modern Politics of Korea I: State Formation, Political Process, and Policies of the First Republic], ed. Han Pae-Ho (Seoul: Nanam, 1990), pp. 253–275.
Ernest Graves, “ROK-U.S. Security Cooperation: Current Status,” in The Future of South Korean-U.S. Security Relations, ed. William J. Taylor, Jr., Young Koo Cha, John Q. Blodgett, and Michael Mazarr (Boulder, CO: Westview Press, 1989), p. 19.
Quoted from Kim Min-Ung, “Migukŭi ch’inmigunbu yuksŏng chŏllyak [The U.S. Plan to Produce Pro-American Military Officers],” in Hanmi kwan’gyesa [History of the Korea-U.S. Relationship] (Seoul: Silch’on Munhaksa, 1990), p. 264.
Jung-En Woo, Race to the Swift: State and Finance in Korean Industrialization (New York: Columbia University Press, 1991), pp. 45–46. Ogle cites $12 billion of American aid going to Korea from 1945 to 1965. See
George E. Ogle, South Korea: Dissent within the Economic Miracle (Atlantic Highlands, NJ: Zed Books, 1990), p. 35.
Jutta Weldes, “The Cultural Production of Crises: U.S. Identity and Missiles in Cuba,” in Cultures of Insecurity: States, Communities, and the Production of Danger, ed. Jutta Weldes (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1999), pp. 35–62.
Chung Hee Park, The Country, the Revolution and I (Seoul: Hollym Corporation, 1962), p. 153.
Stuart Hall, “The Rediscovery of ‘Ideology’: Return of the Repressed in Media Studies,” in: Culture, Society and the Media, ed. Michael Gurevitch, Tony Bennett, James Curran, and Janet Woollacott (New York: Methuen, 1982), p. 74.
Hyŏn Ki-Yŏng, Suni samch’on [Soon’s Uncle] (Seoul: Ch’angjakkwa Pip’yŏng, 1979).
Robert L. Bateman, No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident (Mechanicsburg, PA: Stackpole Books, 2002);
Charles J. Hanley, Sang-Hun Choe, and Martha Mendoza, The Bridge at No Gun Ri: A Hidden Nightmare from the Korean War, 1st ed. (New York: Henry Holt, 2001);
United States Army, Office of the Inspector General, No Gun Ri Review Team, Report of the No Gun Ri Review (Washington, DC: Dept. of the Army Inspector General, 2001);
Frances Stonor Saunders, The Cultural Cold War: The CIA and the World of Arts and Letters (New York: New Press, 1999).
Charles K Armstrong, “The Cultural Cold War in Korea, 1945–1950,” Journal of Asian Studies 62, no. 1 (2003), pp. 71–99.
For a critical evaluation of the influence that the United States has had on Korea’s academia, see Haksuldanch’ehyŏpŭihoe [Korean Progressive Academy Council], ed., Urihakmun sokŭi miguk: Migukchŏk hakmun P’aerŏdaim isike taehan pip’anjŏk sŏngch’al [Americanized Paradigms in the Korean Academism: Reflections on the Pro-American Colonization of the Korean Academic Societies] (Seoul: Hanul, 2003), pp. 155–156.
Suzuki Masayuki, Kita Chosen: Shakai Shugi to Dento No Kyomei, ed. Shohan (Tokyo: Tokyo Daigaku Shuppankai, 1992);
Bruce Cumings, Korea’s Place in the Sun: A Modern History, 1st ed. (New York: W.W. Norton, 1997).
Meredith Woo-Cumings, Political Ecology of Famine: The North Korean Catastrophe and Its Lessons, ADB Institute Research Paper Series 31 (Tokyo: Asian Development Bank Institute, 2002);
Phillip H. Park, Self Reliance or Self Destruction? Success and Failure of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Development Strategy of Self Reliance “Juche” (New York: Routledge, 2002);
Andrew S. Natsios, The Great North Korean Famine (Washington, DC: Institute of Peace Press, 2001);
Kang Chŏnggu, Kim Yŏnch’ŏl, Im Wonhyŏk, and Pŏmnyun, Minjokŭi hŭimangch’atki [Seeking the Nation’s Hope] (Seoul: Chŏngt’o ch’ulp’an, 1999);
Choŭnbŏttŭl, ed., Saramdapke Salgo Sipso [I Want to Live Like a Human Being] (Seoul: Chŏngt’o ch’ulp’an, 1999).
Choŭnbŏttŭl, Pukhan sikryangnan’gwa pukhanin’gwon pogosŏ [Report on North Korea’s Food Crisis and North Korean Human Rights] (Seoul: Choŭnbŏttŭl, 2004);
David Hawk, The Hidden Gulag: Exposing North Korea’s Prison Camps (Washington, DC: U.S. Committee for Human Rights in North Korea, 2003);
Chŏr-hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulot, The Aquariums of Pyongyang: Ten Years in a North Korean Gulag, trans. Yair Reiner (New York: Basic Books, 2001);
Helen-Louise Hunter, Kim Ii-Song’s North Korea (Westport, CT: Praeger, 1999).
Patricia G. Steinhoff, “Kidnapped Japanese in North Korea: The New Left Connection,” Journal of Japanese Studies 30, no. 1 (2004): 123–142.
Wada Haruki, Pukchosŏn: yugyŏktaikukkaesŏ chŏnggyugun’gukkaro [North Korea: From a Guerilla State to a Regular Army State], trans. Nam Ki-Jung and Suh Dong-Man (Seoul: Tolbegai, 2002), pp 162–163. See also
Cho Chin’gu, “Chungsodaerib, betŭnam jŏnjaenggwa pukhanŭi namjosŏnhyŏngmyŏngnon, 1964–68 [The Sino-Soviet Dispute, the Vietnam War, and North Korea’s South Korean Revolution Policy during the Mid-1960s],” Aseayŏn’gu [Asian Studies], 46, no. 4 (2003): 227–256.
Dae-Sook Suh, Kim Il Sung: The North Korean Leader (New York: Columbia University Press, 1988), pp. 220–223.
For the best treatment of the North’s defense policies, see Ham T’aekyŏng, “Chuch’esasangkwa pukhanŭi kukpangchŏngch’aek: Chawinosŏnŭi ŏpchŏk mit han’gye [Juche Ideology and North Korea’s Defense Policy: Achievements and Limits of Self-Defense],” in Pukhanŭi Chŏngch’iinyŏm: chuch’esasang [North Korea’s Political Ideology: Juche], ed. Kyŏngnam University Institute of Far Eastern Studies (Seoul: Kyŏngnam Taehakkyo Kŭktongmunjeyŏn’guso, 1990), pp. 155–183.
E.g., see Kukpangbu, Kukpangbaeksŏ [Defense White Paper] 2000 (Seoul: Ministry of National Defense, 2002).
See, for example, Nick Eberstadt, The End of North Korea (Washington, DC: AEI Press, 1999).
I Sang-Chŏl, “Hanbando chŏngjŏnch’ejewa UNC wisang [Korean Peninsula Armistice System and UNC’s Status],” Hanbando kunbit’ongje [Korean Peninsula Arms Control], 34 (2003): 309.
Paek Nakch’ŏng, Hŭndŭllinŭn pundanch’eje [Shaky Division System] (Seoul: Ch’angjakkwa pip’yongsa, 1998).
Nationalist discourse is so strong in both Koreas that it is unthinkable to conceive of North and South Korea as two nations. See Henry Em, “The Nationalist Discourse in Modern Korea: Minjok as a Democratic Imagery,” Ph.D. dissertation, Department of History, University of Chicago, 1995;
Andre Schmid, Korea between Empires, 1895–1919 (New York: Columbia University Press, 2002);
Gi-Wook Shin and Michael E. Robinson, eds., Colonial Modernity in Korea (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Asia Center, 1999).
As far as North Korea is concerned, the South Koreans see little distinction between the state and nation, because the North Korean state is perceived as too totalitarian to leave room for a distinct national identity. Charles K. Armstrong, “The Myth of North Korea,” in Chicago Occasional Papers on Korea, ed. Bruce Cumings, vol. 6, Select Papers (Chicago: Center for East Asian Studies, University of Chicago, 1991), pp. 177–203.
Jang Jip Choi, “Political Cleavages in South Korea,” in State and Society in Contemporary Korea, ed. Hagen Koo (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1993), p. 23.
Roy Richard Grinker, “The ‘Real Enemy’ of the Nation: Exhibiting North Korea at the Demilitarized Zone,” Museum Anthropology 19, no. 2 (1995): 31–40.
For the best historical, and critical, overview of the law, see Pak Wŏnsun, Kukkaboanbŏpyŏn’gu (jŭngbop’an) [A Study on the National Security Law (expanded and revised edition)], 3 vols. (Seoul: Yŏsabip’yŏngsa, 1994); and The National Security Law (Los Angeles: Korea NGO Network for the UN World Conference on Human Rights, 1993).
Jang Jip Choi, Labor and the Authoritarian State: Labor Unions in South Korean Manufacturing Industries (Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press, 1990), p. 30. For the text of the Anti-Communist Law, see Pak Wŏnsun, op. cit., pp. 310–314.
Kim Nam-Kuk, Kungminŭi kundae, kŭdŭrŭi kundae [People’s Army, Their Army] (Seoul: P’ulbit 1995), pp. 57–58.
For the military’s position in Korea’s society, see Sŏ Kwan-Mo, “Han’gukkunbu elitŭŭi t’oeyŏkhu min’gan’gyŏngryŏke kwanhan yŏn’gu [A Study on Civilian Careers of Korean Military Elite after Retirement]” (master’s thesis, Seoul National University, 1982). For its views on North Korea, see Hong Tu-Sŭng, Han’gukkundaeŭi sahoehak, chŭngbop’an [Sociology of the Korean Military, rev. ed.] (Seoul: Nanam Ch’ulp’an, 1996), pp. 266–269.
See, for example, Anthony Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1985); “Nation-States and Violence,” in Social Theory and Modern Sociology (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1987), pp. 166–182.
Maury Feld, The Structure of Violence (London: Sage, 1977);
Morris Janowitz, “Military Institutions and Citizenship in Western Societies,” Armed Forces and Society 7 (1976): 107–208;
Morris Janowitz, The Reconstruction of Patriotism: Education for Civic Consciousness (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1983).
Ministry of National Defense, 21segirŭl chihyanghanŭn han’gukŭi kukpang [Korea’s National Defense toward 21st Century] (Seoul: Force Planning Bureau, Ministry of National Defense, June 1995), pp. 227–228.
Seungsook Moon, “Begetting the Nation: The Androcentric Discourse of National History and Tradition in South Korea,” in Dangerous Women: Gender and Korean Nationalism, ed. Elaine H. Kim and Chungmoo Choi (New York: Routledge, 1998), pp. 33–66.
For example, Sara Helman shows how the Israelis’ participation in the military and reserve system generates the subjectivity of Israeli-Jewish males. Sara Helman, “Militarism and the Construction of Community,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 25, no. 2 (Winter 1997): 305–332.
Craig S. Coleman, American Images of Korea (Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International Corp., 1997).
Wayne A. Kirkbride, DMZ: A Story of the Panmunjom Axe Murder (Elizabeth, NJ: Hollym International Corp., 1980).
David Campbell, Writing Security: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Politics of Identity (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1992).
For American construction of the “Soviet threat” during the Cold War, see Bradley Klein, “How the West Was One: Representational Politics of NATO,” International Studies Quarterly 34, no. 3 (1990): 311–325;
Charles Nathanson, “The Social Construction of the Soviet Threat: A Study in the Politics of Representation,” Alternatives 13, no. 4 (1988): 443–483.
Edward W. Said, Orientalism (New York: Vintage Books, 1978).
For a critical examination of Asian Studies in the United States, see Bulletin of Concerned Asian Scholars, special issue, 29, no. 1 (January–March 1997). Recent scholarship has produced analyses that overcome the Orientalist perception, which is still prevalent in common perceptions. Some of these works include Leon V. Sigal, Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1998);
Don Oberdorfer, The Two Koreas: A Contemporary History (New York: Basic Books, 2001);
Han S. Park, North Korea: The Politics of Unconventional Wisdom (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner, 2002);
Phillip Hookon Park, Self-Reliance or Self-Destruction? Success and Failure of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea’s Development Strategy of Self-Reliance “Juche” (New York: Routledge, 2002);
Bruce Cumings, North Korea: Another Country (New York: New Press, 2004).
Chŏng Yonguk, “6.25chŏnjaenggwa bbira: Simrijŏn’gwa pundan naengjŏn ideologi [The Korean War and Leaflets: Psychological Warfare and Division/Cold War Ideology],” Yŏksawa hyŏnsil [History and Reality], 51 (March 2004): 97–133.
Occidentalism, which represents the West as the Other, makes up the other side of Orientalism and is prevalent in the non-Western world. It indicates that binary, oppositional understanding of the world is not limited to the West. See Ian Buruma and Avishai Margalit, Occidentalism: The West in the Eyes of Its Enemies (New York: Penguin Press, 2004);
James G. Carrier, ed., Occidentalism: Images of the West (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995);
Xiaomei Chen, Occidentalism: A Theory of Counter-Discourse in Post-Mao China, 2nd ed., rev. and expand eds. (Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield, 2002).
Herman and Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent; Robert M. Entman, Projections of Power: Framing News, Public Opinion, and U.S. Foreign Policy (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2004).
Denny Roy, “The U.S. Print Media and the Conventional Military Balance in Europe,” Armed Forces and Society 16, no. 4 (Summer 1990): 509–528.
John J. Mearsheimer, “Correspondence,” International Security 13, no. 4 (Spring 1989): 128–130.
Bruce Cumings, “Bringing Korea Back In: Structured Absence, Glaring Presence, and Invisibility,” in Pacific Passage: The Study of American—East Asian Relations on the Eve of the Twenty-First Century, ed. Warren I. Cohen (New York: Columbia University Press, 1996), pp. 335–374.
Li Sang-Chŏl, “Hanbando chŏngjŏnch’ejewa UNC wisang [Korean Peninsula Armistice System and UNC’s Status],” Hanbando kunbit’ongje [Korean Peninsula Arms Control] 34 (2003): 275–321.
Zachary S. Davis et. al., Korea: Procedural and Jurisdictional Questions regarding Possible Normalization of Relations with North Korea (Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service, 1994).
Edward A. Olsen, “North Korea,” in Arms Production in Developing Countries: An Analysis of Decision Making, ed. James Everett Katz (Lexington, MA: Lexington Books, 1984), p. 235.
Anthony Giddens, The Nation-State and Violence (Cambridge: Polity Press, 1985), p. 192.
Mary Kaldor, The Imaginary War: Understanding the East-West Conflict (Cambridge, MA: Basil Blackwell, 1990), p. 17.
Copyright information
© 2007 Jae-Jung Suh
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Suh, JJ. (2007). Alliance and Identity. In: Power, Interest, and Identity in Military Alliances. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230605015_4
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230605015_4
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, New York
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-53818-8
Online ISBN: 978-0-230-60501-5
eBook Packages: Palgrave Political & Intern. Studies CollectionPolitical Science and International Studies (R0)