The soldiers here, as in all overseas deployments for US troops, are governed by Status of Forces Agreements (SOFA) which come under often sharp criticism by critics in foreign nations and also by Americans. (One such prominent critic is the always provocative and interesting anti-empire scholar Chalmers Johnson).
The American troop presence here does indeed sometimes generate dispute, especially when there is a mishap, accident, or crime that involves troops and Korean civilians. These protests can be quite large, often violent, and have huge political consequences. The most recent example were the enormous protests and violent incidents against troops which followed after U.S. soldiers accidentally killed two Korean girls. Today there are always riot police guarding the American installations here, walking along the outside walls of the bases, the embassy, and so on, and even though this is a peaceful place, the possiblity for anger bubbling up is always there.
The SOFAs are all extraterritorial agreements and are the modern reverberations of unalloyed imperialistic extraterritorial agreements from one hundred years ago. The SOFAs are alloyed though, to some extent, because of the tenor and political constraints of the American informal empire. But there is definitely no doubt that these are relatively easy targets for critics of American foreign policy and they produce a lot of ill will when deployed to protect lawbreakers. It is worth noting that this is an age of excess extraterritorial jurisdictional claims in many directions, as I have written about here and elsewhere before.
The State Department defines them very simply. The United States Forces Korea has a much more detailed site. The site has an interesting section about the potential problems that soldiers abroad can produce:
All of these things come to mind with the news that the Bush Administration is seeking to construct new SOFAs for troops in Iraq. There are many interesting parallels, and some striking differences. One of the biggest is that, despite claims that the Iraq occupation should be be modeled on the longstanding U.S. invovlvement in Korea (with the sly implication that Iraq will one day be as successful and prosperous as Korea), the U.S. was defending South Korea from aggression and invasion. In Iraq, the US preemptively and unnecessarily launched a war of invasion. Furthermore, there were no guerrilla attacks on US troops in South Korea, whereas Iraq is hostile to the American troop presence (to put it mildly).
What is even more striking and alarming is that the Bush administration is seeking not just an accommodating SOFA for the troops, but a 'get-out-of-jail-free' system for the "private contractor" mercenaries who are running amok in Iraq. This is unprecedented, and it is a regression to the unalloyed imperial extraterritoriality
The American troop presence here does indeed sometimes generate dispute, especially when there is a mishap, accident, or crime that involves troops and Korean civilians. These protests can be quite large, often violent, and have huge political consequences. The most recent example were the enormous protests and violent incidents against troops which followed after U.S. soldiers accidentally killed two Korean girls. Today there are always riot police guarding the American installations here, walking along the outside walls of the bases, the embassy, and so on, and even though this is a peaceful place, the possiblity for anger bubbling up is always there.
The SOFAs are all extraterritorial agreements and are the modern reverberations of unalloyed imperialistic extraterritorial agreements from one hundred years ago. The SOFAs are alloyed though, to some extent, because of the tenor and political constraints of the American informal empire. But there is definitely no doubt that these are relatively easy targets for critics of American foreign policy and they produce a lot of ill will when deployed to protect lawbreakers. It is worth noting that this is an age of excess extraterritorial jurisdictional claims in many directions, as I have written about here and elsewhere before.
The State Department defines them very simply. The United States Forces Korea has a much more detailed site. The site has an interesting section about the potential problems that soldiers abroad can produce:
"Anti-U.S. protests
Small but aggressive radical elements gain widespread media coverage of their demonstrations against the United States. These radical groups capitalize on any negative actions which can be used to depict the U.S. and Americans as the culprits. Most of the protests are against what is perceived to be unjust U.S. policies and laws which are interpreted as having a detrimental affect on Korea.
Crimes such as murder and rape allegedly committed by U.S. personnel trigger immediate and repeated protests at USFK installations. Even disorderly conduct with or without injuries or property damage can become distorted out of proportion and become a major problem for those U.S. personnel involved.
Although the ROK government and USFK take steps to minimize risk to USFK personnel and property, all personnel and their family members must obey Korean laws and regulations.
Showing respect for the host nation's culture and customs will enhance the chances of a tour of duty in Korea being interesting and enjoyable.
Those who are boisterous, arrogant, rude and/or disrespectful can expect to become enbroiled in physical altercations resulting in bodily injury and legal complications.
The dividends of being friendly are significant and pleasant. The consequences of being an ugly American can be painful, costly and long lasting."
All of these things come to mind with the news that the Bush Administration is seeking to construct new SOFAs for troops in Iraq. There are many interesting parallels, and some striking differences. One of the biggest is that, despite claims that the Iraq occupation should be be modeled on the longstanding U.S. invovlvement in Korea (with the sly implication that Iraq will one day be as successful and prosperous as Korea), the U.S. was defending South Korea from aggression and invasion. In Iraq, the US preemptively and unnecessarily launched a war of invasion. Furthermore, there were no guerrilla attacks on US troops in South Korea, whereas Iraq is hostile to the American troop presence (to put it mildly).
What is even more striking and alarming is that the Bush administration is seeking not just an accommodating SOFA for the troops, but a 'get-out-of-jail-free' system for the "private contractor" mercenaries who are running amok in Iraq. This is unprecedented, and it is a regression to the unalloyed imperial extraterritoriality
"The American negotiating position for a formal military-to-military relationship, one that would replace the current United Nations mandate, is laid out in a draft proposal that was described by White House, Pentagon, State Department and military officials on ground rules of anonymity. It also includes less controversial demands that American troops be immune from Iraqi prosecution, and that they maintain the power to detain Iraqi prisoners.
However, the American quest for protections for civilian contractors is expected to be particularly vexing, because in no other country are contractors working with the American military granted protection from local laws. Some American officials want contractors to have full immunity from Iraqi law, while others envision less sweeping protections. These officials said the negotiations with the Iraqis, expected to begin next month, would also determine whether the American authority to conduct combat operations in the future would be unilateral, as it is now, or whether it would require consultation with the Iraqis or even Iraqi approval.
“These are going to be tough negotiations,” said one senior Bush administration official preparing for negotiations with the Iraqis. “They’re not supplicants.”
Democrats in Congress, as well as the party’s two leading presidential contenders, Senators Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama, have accused the White House of sponsoring negotiations that will set into law a long-term security relationship with Iraq.
But administration officials said that the American proposal specifically did not set future troop levels in Iraq or ask for permanent American bases there. Nor, they said, did it offer a security guarantee defining Washington’s specific responsibilities should Iraq come under attack.
Including such long-term commitments in the agreement would turn the accord into a bilateral treaty, one that would require Senate approval. The Bush administration faces the political reality that it cannot count on the two-thirds vote that would be required to approve a treaty with Iraq setting out such a military commitment.
Administration officials are describing their draft proposal in terms of a traditional status-of-forces agreement, an accord that has historically been negotiated by the executive branch and signed by the executive branch without a Senate vote. "
Comments