I think what the USFK commander had to say in today's Stars and Stripes is great in putting the environment and base handover in the plain perspective in which it should be viewed.

I've read and heard all kinds of expats and Koreans say things like, "The US polluted the land, they occupied it, they must clean it up." Or, that USFK should leave the land "in its original condition."

These are all perhaps OK on the surface as a general, loose principle, but when you start getting down to nuts and bolts, and the reality of the situation, they make no sense as guiding principles.

What was the original condition of the land? Many bases were taken over from the Japanese occupation forces who had been on the land for a couple of decades. Also, many bases were founded during or immediately after Korean War when South Korea was a devastated land. What were the original conditions then!?

What about what the Korean government has done when - say - Hyundai or Daewoo or other Korean industrial leader closes down a factory or factory complex and sells the land? Or, when a local airport or transportation section or some other type government owned facility is closed down and going to be sold to the public --

----do they require Korean conglomerates, city governments, or even small businesses to clean up the land until it is good enough to be turned into a park ---- like you always hear is a plan under discussion about what to do with US bases in Korea's congested society where free space is at a premium?

It is abnormal - not natural - to demand USFK clean up these bases to a standard Korea does not demand of itself, and nations routinely do not demand of its own citizens or industry.

What this mind-set that sounds good, but distorts reality, does is demand the US spend a lot of money on an atypical clean up project then hand the land over to the Korean government who will sell it at a significant price or take it over to use for the Korean military at a major profit.

That is not fair.

USFK should do what is fair in terms of clean up and cost sharing.

I don't know exactly what they woud entail ---- but I do know I am not hearing that kind of fairness from either Korea or a good number of non-Koreans who voice an opinion.

On the base clean-up process

“Conducting military operations in the midst of this place … there were certainly some environmental issues with respect to utilization of the land. And whether it’s lead bullets in dirt berms on a range or whether it is the unfortunate spillage of petroleum products in motor parks, there is a certain environmental cost of doing business. And it’s regrettable but it’s been determined over the years as a price that has to be paid to secure the society.

“In our [status of forces agreement], we agreed to do certain things to that land to ensure the immediate threat to life and limb is removed.

“The land that is at issue is viewed as a valuable commodity for the receiving entity.

“In this shared-value issue, where the Republic of Korea gains significant value for this land, the agreement by our two nations in our SOFA has been that we will achieve these requirements and then hand the land over to the Republic of Korea. That process has been stifled for up to 17 months by interest groups that are concerned either about the environment and want to raise issues, or by other groups that are perhaps not friendly to the alliance.

“But I know this: that the United States’ view is that we will be good stewards but we must turn this land over. Now we have negotiated with our Korean hosts … over a year on many of these — and just prior to Gen. (Leon) LaPorte’s departure he laid out a plan that goes beyond the SOFA requirements.

“We’ve informed the Republic of Korea … and we’ve asked for their comment on that in the next month or so.

“We’re going to be good stewards. But we’ve got to get on with life here. And we’ve got to move. We’re paying a good deal of money each month ($400,000) just guarding these vacated installations — some of which have been vacated for up to 17 months. We’ve got to get this over with and solved.”

In many cases it is beyond that. I remember Reforger in Germany when a jeep hit a chicken the compensation was the cost of the chicken and all the little chickens could have been produced by that chicken. Same concept applied to trees. If they want it back in the same condition it was received in you should ask just this or the whole country. Then remind them of what Korea looked like in 1954...

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

I want to pull out the phrases I thought were excellent:

"there is a certain environmental cost of doing business"

If we can understand that about chaebol development of the Miracle on the Han --- but really - any economic development in any industrial nation - where the growth in industry has raised the standard of living but also impacted the environment - which in our post-modern society we have learned to seek a balance between the two ----- we can damn well understand the balance when it comes to National Defense against a nation like Pyongyang's controlled North Korea!

"it’s been determined over the years as a price that has to be paid to secure the society"

No poo....

But, a lot of people want to deny this now that bases are closing down. Why? Because the military is a fun thing to beat up on, especially an American foreign military in Korea. --- This goes for Koreans as well as a significant chunk of the expat community in Korea.

"The land that is at issue is viewed as a valuable commodity for the receiving entity."

File this under -- demanding to have the best of both worlds...

"That process has been stifled for up to 17 months by interest groups that are concerned either about the environment and want to raise issues, or by other groups that are perhaps not friendly to the alliance"

The bigger problem is something too many people can't pay enough attention to:

You can expect groups like that everywhere -- including in the United States.

They are thus not the problem.

The problem is, in Korean society, the bulk of it has been conditioned to share many of the same thoughts as these groups -

- and the society likes giving these groups free reign - not in the free speech sense - but in the sense that they like to listen to the groups and nod their heads and occasionally join with them in street protests - even if they don't agree with their idea that the best solution is to get all of USFK out right now.....This is a huge point to understand if you want to know the US-SK relationship...........

- you can see this in the Korean media -- where quotes (often exclusive quotes) from the anti-US groups or people against the bases will be presented at a much higher frequency than ----- quotes from USFK or the Korean government explaining why such things are necessary or laying things out like the US commander in this article.

The media and other institutions condition the people to give an ear to the anti-US groups....

But, the commander should know this about Korean society ---

they cannot stomach coming to grips with the Rice Farmers and other small farming agro industry sectors ----- they can't stomach making the transition from impoverished agriculture dominated society to a rich heavy industry one --- even though they are clearly a heavy industry world leader...

in short, they can't stomach making transitions that every developed nation has ------ for example ----- how are small farmers in the US doing these days after the 1970s? --- I believe the transition in the US when our small farmers were getting killed by imports was to making farming a corporate affair with larger entities with larger cash options gobbling up smaller, family farms. It was rough in American society, but the transition had to be made...

They can't stomach allowing more foreign (American) movies into the market even though Korea has increasingly prided itself on its ability to produce quality movies and TV shows becoming more and more popular around the world....

And they will not be able to stomach doing what is necessary to smooth the USFK transformation via the LPP plan (or moving the US Embassy for that matter).

Even though they know it is necessary for their national defense...

...they will not be able to stand up and speak out loud against the BS that will definately be flung about - as it is already -

and since this is an election year and the next a presidential election year --

it is a safe bet things will be made much worse by politicians playing on the factors that make it so difficult for Korea to stomach things that are good for it ----

to play up anti-US feeling about FTAs and LPPs and all the regular things

in order to win votes.

In short, this man who just took over the hot seat in Korea had better invest in a bun cooler ------ because there is absolutely no chance he isn't going to have a rougher first couple of years than the people who came before him....

Not bad- pretty good predictions for the future. I suspect big changes in the US operations in Korea as governmental changes take place on both sides. The move from Yongsan to the Hump will be a long dragged out affair, testing the patience of all concerned.
The US Army is trying to rush in overfilling the barracks facilities at Camp Humphreys, it appears. Stuffing three men in a room where two might be comfortable does not seem to me to be going in the right direction toward improving morale. Neither does the common practice of allowing inexperienced underage troops to be exposed to life in the fast lane until midnight, when they must turn back immediately into disciplined soldiers and go to bed on Post. I do not speak for those over 21. They have reached the magic age when they are immediately responsible for their own actions. But the kids need to be offered intelligent alternatives.

Even 3 in a room is better than what you and I had back in the day. I agree they need to fix the problem but what is the fix? More restriction like no off base until Friday and Saturday and formation Sunday afternoon? I think the true answer is more along the lines of better equiping the young soldiers to journey onto the economy. This would mean providing the NCO's with the tools and the trainingto help their soldiers. Taking care of soldiers was a big deal to me when I became an NCO as Many times I was left to fend for myself with no NCO help or guidenance. I think it is time to get back to forcing the NCO Corps to do its job instead of just looking for that next promotion. I know there are some good Nco's out there but that needs to be the rule instead of the exception. Yes it is a lot of work to take care of the soldier which is why Drill Sgts don't stay one very long. Just my 2 cents

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

I got to rambling off the subject of environment and started talking about the troops/ I'll now continue that subject over under "General Military" ....>>


GI in Korea has a good thread going here/!

I can see where we were getting off track but it is still kind of a related as the way our soldiers conduct themselves when out and about in the ROK. This is not a cure but may ease some of the pain.

I agree that it is an eventuality that Any US presence in Korea will in the future will be very limited with no large troop deployment there.

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

Getting bback on track with thea theme of this thread I found this interesting article in my searching of the web. I am providing the link, thought I would post the article as a whole here but felt it was better to let the reader see it on the web site and then comment. This is one of the few articles I could find that just talked about Korean companies polluting their rivers and environment. I believe it was written in the late 90’s. This is only excerpts from the article that I found interesting click on the link to read the whole thing.
Here are some parts that I found Interesting:

Cleaning Up South Korea
by Gong Dan Lee


A 1992 World Health Organization (WHO) study ranks the sulfur-dioxide content of Seoul's air as the second highest among the world's major cities. Korea's people now consume toxic grain and vegetables tainted by pesticide residue. Average Koreans have five times more cadmium in their blood, on average, than the Japanese.


The export-oriented industrialization of South Korea has been strongly endorsed by the state. Beginning in the 1970s, family businesses received massive government benefits and grew into state-sponsored conglomerates known as chaebols. Some 30 chaebols in South Korea are responsible for the majority of the country's environmental degradation

"Households should be most responsible for groundwater contamination since domestic wastewater and industrial wastewater constitute respectively 68 percent and 31.5 percent of water pollution," one chaebol claimed. However, they do not say that factories without wastewater treatment facilities were not included in the survey. Moreover, unlike domestic sewage, industrial wastewater contains high levels of hazardous heavy metals such as mercury, zinc and cadmium.
On paper, South Korea's current environmental laws and regulations are impressive, but the government has been reluctant to enforce them. The environmental impact assessment system, introduced in 1982, was never intended to work as an effective monitoring tool. Rather, the government tried to protect polluters from public protest by concealing the data related to accidents and silencing protester's calls for environmental justice. At most, the government levied fines - which most polluters found to be far less than the cost of installing and maintaining pollution prevention systems.

In response to the people's growing awareness about the enormity of the environmental crisis, the government designated 1990 as the First Year of the Environment and the Environmental Agency was raised to a ministerial level. But little has changed. The Ministry of Environment has no authority to enforce rigorous environmental regulations. (Among government officials, the minister's office is known as "a place for rest" before one moves up the ladder).

The environmental movement in South Korea has galvanized people into action on environmental issues and created the possibility of monitoring and halting pollution problems. However, many environmental activists in South Korea believe that the movement has yet to carry out more in-depth scientific research on environmental problems or to provide a "green alternative" that goes beyond simply exposing the ongoing environmental crisis.


Any Thoughts?

__________________
Just my humble opinion!

They might has well go after the Japanese for their WW2 just on general principle. Why not include more parties.

__________________
BOOM, BOOM. Out goes the Lights