The actual story here is that the South Korean (ROK) army
doesn't act independently of the US. While officially the US doesn't take over
operational control unless a war breaks out, practically speaking the South
Korean military is a creature of Washington.
Conservative elements in the United States did not want to
see Park Geun-hye brought down. The relationships run deep and her dictatorial
father was backed for many years by the United States.
Of course the US Right is split at the moment due to Donald
Trump. Previously they would have unanimously denounced a US president sitting
down with Kim Jong-un and South Korean presidents who have supported peace with
the North have been frowned upon by their Washington masters.
The takedown of Park and her being replaced by Moon Jae-in
proved upsetting to some in Washington but then everything was thrown into
turmoil with the Donald Trump presidency. The fact that all of this was
happening during the chaos of the US presidential election and inauguration
didn't help matters.
This story of a planned army coup might be shocking to some
but it shouldn't be if you know South Korea's history. Many view 1980 as the
key year in which South Korea broke with US domination and military
dictatorship but it's not that simple. While Seoul is relatively independent
when compared with their pre-1980 status, the country still struggles to break
free of Washington's grip. The US controls its intelligence agencies, military
and foreign policy. South Korea is not independent and yet they are no longer
brutalised by military regimes.
Was the military just being prudent in their planning? One
expects such replies and explanations. Maybe their preparations were 'innocent'
enough but Marshall Law and emergency rule have been used as platforms for
military takeover in many countries over the past century. It's all the more
suspicious given the nature of South Korea's history and the situation in
2016-17.
Of course ABC does its best to whitewash the story and
explain it away and yet I find their list of 'impossibles' to be wanting.
The thing here is that the author glides by the fact that the army would've had a clear and reasonable (for Western audiences at least) excuse for a crackdown, and yet goes on to say that a 'coup' would be impossible. Well, does any coup actually call itself a coup? Like Honduras in 2009, it was the army that prevented dictatorship and a coup when it was the one doing it. Few batted an eye. I don't know what smart phones would do. You can google all the violence US police enact against defenseless teenagers, or French police against suburban (usually North/West African) youth, and only a minority care enough to remember after the next news cycle.
ReplyDeleteAnd regarding your piece on Sasse: It's not only Westminster who endorses him, but Escondido! In an interview with World Magazine, Sasse says he became Reformed from reading, among others, Horton. I know it's a grim recognition, but Sasse vindicates your claim that the R2K theology of Westminster West has been, and is, Dominionist-lite.