[Yang Nak-gyu's Defense Club] U.S. Troop Withdrawal from South Korea... North Korea's True Intentions Were Different

1992 Chairman Kim Il-sung: "US Troops May Remain on Korean Peninsula After Unification"
2000 Inter-Korean Summit: Chairman Kim Jong-il Acknowledges "Necessity of US Forces in South Korea"

Appearance of US Forces Korea (Photo by Asia Economy DB)

[Asia Economy Yang Nak-gyu Reporter] Amid rumors of a reduction of U.S. Forces Korea originating from the United States, attention is focused on what stance North Korea will take in the future. While the North Korean leadership outwardly demands the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea, they have tacitly tolerated their presence, making it highly likely that their public and private positions will differ.

On the 19th, North Korea's state-run media released a photo. It revealed a closed meeting of the expanded Central Military Commission of the Workers' Party of Korea and a secret meeting, stating that key issues to strengthen war deterrence were discussed. The expanded Central Military Commission meeting corresponds to the National Security Council (NSC) in South Korea and the U.S.

The meeting drew attention because it was held shortly after news emerged that discussions about withdrawing U.S. Forces Korea were underway in the U.S. North Korean media only reported that the meeting "reviewed the strategic missions and operational mobilization readiness of important units in preparation for the military situation and potential military threats around the Korean Peninsula, and discussed key issues to further strengthen the country's war deterrence." There was no direct mention of U.S. Forces Korea.

North Korea has long demanded the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea as a precondition for establishing a peace regime on the Korean Peninsula. However, it has been revealed in various ways that they have tacitly accepted the stationing of U.S. troops.

In January 1992, when a peace agreement between North Korea and the U.S. was being discussed, Chairman Kim Il-sung sent Secretary Kim Yong-sun of the Workers' Party to the U.S. At that time, Secretary Kim proposed to Arnold Kanter, U.S. Deputy Secretary of State, that if diplomatic relations were established between North Korea and the U.S., they would not demand the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea and said that U.S. troops could remain on the peninsula even after unification. However, the U.S. rejected this.

Chairman Kim Jong-il also effectively acknowledged the necessity of U.S. Forces Korea. According to former President Kim Dae-jung's autobiography, during the inter-Korean summit held on June 14, 2000, Kim Jong-il acknowledged the necessity of U.S. Forces Korea. Kim Jong-il also conveyed this to the U.S., mentioning that he had sent Secretary Kim Yong-sun as a special envoy to the U.S. in 1992, requesting that U.S. troops remain to prevent war between the North and South, and expressed that he shared the same view as former President Kim that U.S. troops should remain even after unification.

This stance of the North Korean leadership has also been confirmed among foreign politicians and scholars familiar with North Korea.

Former U.S. Secretary of State Madeleine Albright revealed in her 2003 memoir, "Madam Secretary," that when she visited North Korea in 2000 and met Kim Jong-il, she asked about North Korea's position on the stationing of U.S. Forces Korea, and he responded in a way that acknowledged their role. According to the memoir, Kim said, "The North Korean government's perspective has changed since the Cold War," and "U.S. forces now play a role in stabilizing (the Northeast Asian order)."

This is to efficiently operate by consolidating and closing U.S. military bases and training grounds and to significantly reduce complaints from residents near U.S. Forces Korea bases.

North Korea outwardly demands U.S. Forces Korea withdrawal... for internal control and appeasing public sentiment
Official stance on U.S. Forces Korea withdrawal also to align with China and Russia

The late Selig Harrison, a specialist in Korean Peninsula issues, consistently emphasized that North Korea acknowledges the stationing of U.S. Forces Korea. Harrison was a prominent U.S. expert on North Korea who visited North Korea 11 times from May 1972, when he met Kim Il-sung during his tenure as Northeast Asia bureau chief for The Washington Post, until January 2009.

At a Korean Peninsula seminar held in the U.S. in 1996, Harrison met Kim Young-nam, head of the Military Armistice Commission and Foreign Ministry (Chairman of the Supreme People's Assembly Standing Committee), who showed an attitude that U.S. forces should remain on the peninsula for the time being to maintain stability. He also introduced that other North Korean officials recognized the necessity of U.S. Forces Korea.

So why has North Korea publicly demanded the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea through its internal media? Experts on North Korea evaluate this as a measure for internal control and to appease public sentiment. Since the Korean War, North Korea has internally regarded the U.S. as its "greatest and highest enemy," and has defined U.S. Forces Korea as a cancerous element that could reignite war on the peninsula. Therefore, even if the top North Korean leadership tacitly accepts U.S. Forces Korea, it is inferred that persuading the North Korean people of this would not be easy.

To align with China and Russia, North Korea has no choice but to officially advocate the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea. It is a "joint goal of North Korea and China." China also naturally desires the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea because, like U.S. Forces Japan, their presence in Northeast Asia, including the Korean Peninsula, supports U.S. influence through military power.

Contrary to the South Korea-U.S. claim that U.S. Forces Korea is a product of the ROK-U.S. alliance to counter North Korea's invasion threat, China views it as U.S. military power aimed at Beijing and northeastern China beyond North Korea. China's "shock" and vehement opposition to the deployment of the THAAD (Terminal High Altitude Area Defense) system in South Korea can be understood in this context.

On the other hand, from the U.S. perspective, the withdrawal of U.S. Forces Korea could be argued to benefit China and North Korea. The Washington Post (WP) editorial on the 22nd (local time), titled "Trump threatens new troop withdrawals. It risks another alliance," expressed concern that "President Trump views U.S. troops stationed in allied countries as defending only foreign countries and not benefiting U.S. security."

WP noted, "Since early in his administration, President Trump has advanced the severely mistaken notion that close allies like Germany, Japan, and South Korea are not paying enough for U.S. troops stationed in their countries," and pointed out that amid a shaky re-election campaign, Trump is realizing reductions in Europe and Asia.

Last month, President Trump ordered the withdrawal of a quarter of U.S. troops stationed in Germany. WP evaluated this as "a huge gift to Russian ruler Vladimir Putin, who only wants to see the NATO alliance collapse."

WP also referred to a Wall Street Journal (WSJ) report that the Department of Defense presented options for reducing U.S. Forces Korea to President Trump. WP analyzed that "this is good news not only for North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un but also for China's Xi Jinping regime."