Scholar Assesses Korea-U.S. Alliance

At the root of the controversies surrounding the U.S. and North Korea, such as the wartime military control issue, oppositions to the relocation of U.S. bases in Korea and South Korean policies toward North Korea is entrenched differences of opinion on how we assess the role of the U.S. in Korea’s modern history. One side argues that the U.S. was the foundation of prosperity of Korean society, and on the other, the leftists say that the U.S. is mainly responsible for tragic Korean history, which is still widespread.

The most influential scholar since the 1980s on the leftist interpretation is Bruce Cumings (63), professor emeritus of Chicago University. His revisionist view gave birth to theses in the 1970s, some of which were translated into Korean in the early 1980s. Just five years after his “Origins of the Korean War” was published in the U.S., it was translated into Korean in October 1986, bringing big changes in the young Koreans’ view on the Korean War.

Twenty years on, what is the opinion of Cumings on Korea-U.S. relations? Dong-A Ilbo had an e-mail and telephone interview with him.

-How do you assess the relationship between Korea and the U.S.?

“The Korea-U.S. alliance is in its worst era since the 1950s. The fundamental reason is President George Bush’s North Korean policy. Yet in Washington, both Democratic and Republican Parties believe that Korean President Roh Moo-hyun is radical and is solely responsible for the strained alliance, on which I don’t agree, of course. Therefore, even though the Democratic Party will take office in the next election, it will be difficult to recover the relations like when the alliance was in best shape.”

-What about the future security environment in Northeast Asia?

“Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld can withdraw U.S. troops stationed in Korea as a punitive measure (toward the Roh administration). But the Department of Defense wants to have their troops stationed on the Korean peninsula to keep China in check. Therefore, the U.S. will not push ahead with a complete troop withdrawal. Japan is now making the situation more difficult. Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe is unreconstructed nationalist. When he replaces the incumbent prime minister, things will become even worse. Secretary Rumsfeld and Vice President Dick Cheney want Japan to be armed again. Then Korea will be in a very uncomfortable situation.”

-A question about the Korean War. There are historical interpretations that so-called Acheson Line that excluded Korea from the U.S. defense line led to the North’s invasion into the South.

“In January 1950, nobody paid attention to the address of then Secretary of State Dean G. Acheson. He made the address before the Newspaper Association of America, which was not recorded. The New York Times mistakenly reported that Korea was within the defense line on its Sunday edition review. North Korea’s Rodong Sinmun reported the same when it saw a Russian daily that translated the article of the Times.”

-Anyway, there are claims that the then U.S. administration incited the North’s invasion through the Acheson Line.

“This issue is delicate and hard to understand. While he had concerns about Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Iran and Europe, he tried to establish a defensive position, which is understandable. He couldn’t guarantee security to all. Arguing he drew the ‘Acheson Line’ to induce war is very improbable. Declassified documents showed that Stalin was far more deeply involved than I expected. According to a British intelligence agency document, Stalin told Kim Il Sung that the U.S. will not protect South Korea.”

-In Korea, some argue that General Douglas MacArthur is the chief instigator of a massacre.

“Among historians who studied declassified documents, no one regards that General MacArthur led the U.S. policies prior to and during the Korean War. The ones who decided the march toward North Korea in August 1950 were President Harry Truman and Secretary of State Acheson. Speaking of who is responsible for the massacre, maybe MacArthur is the worst American who had racial prejudice against Korea and China, but he was Commander of occupation forces in Japan at the time of massacre. He did not order the mass killing. We have confidential document that MacArthur ordered (his subordinates) to stop killing Koreans.”

-What is your view on the modern history of Korea? There are two contradicting views of history and our period of miraculous growth.

“Koreans always take pride in what they have achieved. The 20th Century was cruel for Koreans but the 21st Century will not be so, because human resources and high education level are the ticket for success in this century. Korea made a victory of democratization under the harsh oppressive regime.”

-Former President Park Jung-hee is once again the subject of controversy.

“He was one of the industrial sovereigns. Industrial sovereigns like Bismarck, Henry Ford and Stalin were not all fine people. The reason why Koreans have respect for former President Park is because he was the leader of industrialization. Park’s approach was effective in developing the heavy industry. Yet that also kicked democracy out of the nation in a generation and hurt many workers and the public.”

-Some Koreans still quote your book as the ground of their argument that the U.S. is responsible for the tragic Korean War.

“The problem is that people quote only part of the book when it is lengthy. Many do not know at all how historians work. I am the first American scholar who had access to thousands of classified documents and North Korean documents. What I can say to the people is that they should read the book and conclude.”

-With the intention of correcting the view on modern history, which has been skewed to one side due to the influence of revisionism in Korea, “A New Understanding of Korea`s Liberation” was published, which fueled controversies.

“Such climate is desirable. I welcome debates. History is not solid. New information comes with new interpretation. Yet my understanding on Korean modern history will remain firm.”

“A New Understanding of Korea`s Liberation” published in February, 2006, carries the article of Woo Jung-eun, politics professor at University of Michigan and Cumings’ wife, on the review of 1950s. When asked the couple have too different views, Cumings said, laughing, “We have several issues that we have different opinions, like former President Park Jung-hee as leader of industrialization. We debate.”

sechepa@donga.com srkim@donga.com