Hi kimikazu,
On June 13 2002, two Korean schoolgirls were crushed to death when
they were run
over by a US armoured mine-sweeping vehicle during a training exercise
in
Uijongbu in South Korea. Under the controversial Status of Forces
Agreement
between the United States and South Korea, United States retains the
right to
try its troops implicated in any criminal offense arising out of
professional
duty.
On November 20, 2002, Sgt. Fernando Nino was acquitted in a court
martial of all
homicide charges of the accident. It may be noted that at the time of
the
accident and the remonstrations that followed, General Leon LaPorte
said that
"the US Army accepts full responsibility for this tragic accident".
Sgt.
Fernando Nino was the track commander while Sgt. Mark Walker was the
driver of
the truck in question. Sgt. Mark Walker is being tried for the same
charges.
In Sgt. Nino's defense, the counsel argued that "Nino had done
"everything he
could to stop the vehicle" but that faulty communications equipment
had
prevented his warning from getting through to Walker, who was
driving".
Prosecutors representing the State, on the other hand, argued that
"Nino had
failed to act "as a careful track commander should have," and said the
incident
was a "needless tragedy," not an accident."
Immediately following news of the acquittal, there have been
anti-American
protests all over South Korea. While civic groups in South Korea have
called for
the United States to give up jurisdiction rights over the crime to
South Korea
and that the accused soldiers be retried under South Korean law. Some
have also
called for the withdrawal of U.S. troops at the military base at Camp
Casey, 40
miles north of Seoul.
Key to this controversy lies the SOFA or the Status of Forces
Agreement. This is
an agreement that is normally signed between the United States and the
host
country where US military troops are stationed. Broadly, the Status of
Forces
Agreement deals over a number of issues concerning the nature of
authority that
is imposed upon US troops while they are stationed in the host
country. While
the host country is granted "primary jurisdiction": the laws of that
country
apply to U.S. military personnel, the United States reserves the right
to
jurisdiction in cases when a crime has been committed by an American
against
American or when a crime has been committed while in the course of
duty, the
latter being invoked in the case of the South Korean tragedy. East
Timor,
Republic of Philippines and Japan are other signatories to similar
bilateral
agreements over the United States. It has been alleged that the Status
of Forces
Agreement is subservient to United States' interests and does not give
fair
consideration to the rights of the citizens of the host country. There
have been
numerous remonstrations against the signing of the SOFA in countries
like
Philippines and South Korea. In fact, in the latter's case, the
agreement
underwent two revisions, the most recent in 1991 before it came to be
in its
present form.
Links:
1. Status-of-Forces Agreement,
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/facility/sofa.htm
2. "U.S. Soldiers charged for Korean deaths" (BBC)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/2097137.stm
3. "US Soldier Cleared in Deaths of S. Korea Schoolgirls in
Controversial Case"
http://www.voanews.com/article.cfm?objectID=60F0228C-7913-4B39-9F43E693B3076963
4. "National Anger Escalates Over Acquittal of US Solider"
http://times.hankooki.com/lpage/nation/200211/kt2002112117374610510.htm
5. "Acquittal Of US Soldier Prompts Fury In South Korea"
http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewForeignBureaus.asp?Page=%5CForeignBureaus%5Carchive%5C200211%5CFOR20021121a.html
Search strategies:
1. Google groups keyword: Status of forces agreement
2. Google keywords: Status of forces agreement, "acquittal us
soldier", "south
korean schoolgirls" (Google and Google news)
--
With reference to your teacher's statement regarding "American
arrogance"
leading to perpetration of international conflicts, I am afraid that
is a touchy
issue. However, I shall strive my best to present a balanced picture.
With the
fall of the Soviet Union in the last decade, the United States is the
only
superpower left in the current global setup - more popularly called a
unipolar
setup. William Walker, Professor of International Relations at the
University of
St Andrews, Scotland, in a presentation, talks of the Cold War era
when the then
situation was best described in terms of "an equation and a
structure", the
equation being "Nuclear deterrence + arms control (including
non-proliferation)
= coexistence and survival". He further goes on to mention that the
structure
emanated from "power balancing between armed alliances". He further
goes on to
mention that there are at best two alternatives to choose from in
order to
establish peace and order in a unipolar world - "restrained, unselfish
hegemony"
or "restrained, selfish hegemony". It is Walker's opinion that the
United States
has been favouring a policy suited towards the latter wherein "the
dominant
state seeks to maximise its relative power and is prepared to maintain
order,
including compliance with international obligations, through
unilateral
decisions on coercive measures". Examples like the rejection of CTBT,
while
exhorting other nations to decelerate and bring to a standstill their
own
nuclear programmes, withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missiles
treaty, and the
recent drive against Iraq bear testimony to this fact. Walker observes
that the
United States has had to veer round to this as the central theme of
their
foreign policy owing to increased hostility from "minor actors" who
the United
States label as "rogue states". Walker goes on to offer three other
compelling
factors that motivate and seem to justify the present course of action
that
United States has chosen to take.
The stance that the United States has exploited its technological and
military
prowess to its advantage and has adversely interfered with domestic
policy of
other nations, is one taken by pacifists. This becomes immediately
relevant
given that the United States is heading for a showdown with Iraq on
the issue of
the latter allegedly possessing weapons of "mass destruction". It
further gains
significance in the aftermath of the September 11 attacks which the
United
States deems as an attack on its sovereignty. It has often been
claimed that
these attacks have been an unfortunate backlash of the United States'
"hostile"
policy "favouring" Israel in its "acts of aggression" towards the
Palestinian
people. In the past also, the United States has been accused of
playing truant
in the case of the Iran-Iraq war, when the United States seemingly
backed Iraq
to plot the downfall of the then supreme religious leader of Iran -
Ayatollah
Khomeini. The anti-war activists believe that, in addition to
destroying the delicate balance of power in the Middle East, any act
of aggression against Iraq will only lead to an angry backlash down
the years akin to 09/11.
How much of this can one put down to purported U.S. arrogance? I
believe that an
answer to this has to do with one's own beliefs, ideals and
convictions and what
one is prepared to sacrifice in order to attain the cherished ideals
of freedom
and peace.
I am afraid that beyond this, I am not qualified enough to offer an
opinion.
However, I have put together a collage of links that you might be
interested in
and I hope that these will help form a better picture.
1. "Establishing Legitimate & Effective Order in a Unipolar World"
http://www.acronym.org.uk/43unipol.htm
This presentation formed part of the answer to my question and I'm
sure you'll
find it insightful in understanding the dynamics governing the current
status of
foreign policy.
2. "Policies Rooted In Arrogance Are Certain To Fail"
http://www.wagingpeace.org/articles/02.08/0802kriegerarrogance.htm
3. http://www.wagingpeace.org
4. "Causes of 9/11: U.S. Power and Arrogance?"
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/causes/power.html
This site gives a detailed, albeit biased, substantiation of "U.S.
arrogance"
that has allegedly subverted the peace process in the Middle East.
5. "Supercop America?"
http://www.rediff.com/news/1998/dec/24arvind.htm
This article offers another scathing indictment of the United States'
foreign
policy with particular emphasis laid on South Asia.
Search strategy:
Google keyword: "united states arrogance", "united states supercop"
Regards. |
