Anti-Americanism in South Korea: Causes and Context

The Korean War and the Origins of U.S. Military Presence

Koreans seem to have grown tired of the American presence in their country. Is this actually the case? What are its causes, and how has it come to this? The American presence on the Korean Peninsula dates from the Korean War, the first major conflict after the Second World War. The war began in 1950 with the invasion of South Korea by the Communist North. The threat had been building for some time — the Communists had gained power in China in 1949 — yet the United States had previously declared that it held no strategic interest in the region and would not intervene.

Despite this, President Harry Truman and his advisors decided to launch air strikes against North Korea and secured a United Nations mandate to send troops to the Peninsula under its emblem. This was possible only because the Soviet Union had boycotted the Security Council and therefore could not use its veto. Yugoslavia was the only country to oppose UN assistance to South Korea. The early stages of the war proved disastrous for the American-led forces: the overwhelming North Korean offensive drove the combined Allied armies toward the southern tip of the Peninsula, into a small perimeter around the city of Pusan, where the front eventually stabilized.

An inspired maneuver by General Douglas MacArthur, who ordered an amphibious landing behind enemy lines near the city of Inchon, reversed the course of the war and pushed the North Koreans all the way back to the Yalu River. This advance proved to be a strategic miscalculation, however, as China — fearing an American invasion of its own territory — entered the war against the UN armies. Soviet involvement materialized only in the limited form of MiG-15 aircraft flown in Chinese markings, which helped give Communist forces a degree of air superiority. The Chinese drove the Allied troops back to the 38th parallel, the former border between Communist North Korea and the southern part of the Peninsula. The war stabilized there for the remaining years of the conflict, while negotiations dragged on until 1953, when a general ceasefire was signed. No formal peace treaty has been signed to this day, and North Korean troops on one side and American and South Korean troops on the other still defend their respective territories.

This is the origin of the American military presence in Korea. As the historical record shows, those troops remain there with the stated purpose of protecting the democratic South from Communist aggression. The legal framework governing their conduct is the Status of Forces Agreement.

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA)

The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) signed between the Republic of Korea and the United States provides the legal basis for the troops stationed there. SOFA applies not only to members of the armed forces, but also to civilian employees, invited contractors, technical representatives and their dependents, as well as to civilian and military personnel of the U.S. Embassy. It functions, in practical terms, as the governing law by which stationed Americans must abide.

Although it is claimed to carry "few privileges and many requirements," SOFA was clearly designed primarily in the interest of Americans living in Korea. It first serves to protect U.S. rights under the U.S. Constitution. Economically, it permits the import of goods exempt from duty taxes, allowing U.S. service members to purchase items duty-free. This can pose a serious problem for the Korean government — not necessarily because it constitutes direct economic damage, but mainly because duty-free goods can subsequently be sold on the black market. A ration control system has been established to counter this, but questions remain about its effectiveness. Who can guarantee that goods purchased cheaply will not later be resold at higher prices? From the Korean government's perspective, this arrangement may encourage black-market activity that distorts legitimate economic processes. From the perspective of ordinary Korean consumers, however, cheaper black-market goods could be seen as a benefit. Whether this dynamic is a significant driver of anti-Americanism depends largely on whose point of view one adopts.

A second grievance Koreans hold against SOFA concerns criminal jurisdiction. Although the agreement acknowledges the right of the Korean government to enforce its laws against American citizens, the United States retains full custody of any accused person until all legal proceedings — including appeals — have been completed. This is a serious provision and one of the more tangible causes of Korean anti-Americanism. In practical terms, it means that until every proceeding has concluded, Korean authorities have no power over a person who may be accused of a serious crime. This situation can lead to two consequences: first, it represents an affront to Korean judicial sovereignty; second, and perhaps more seriously, it creates a scenario in which someone accused of, say, murder could potentially go free due to pressure from senior American officials.

Criminal Jurisdiction and the 2003 Schoolgirl Incident

A real and deeply troubling example occurred in June 2003, when a U.S. Army armored vehicle struck and killed two Korean schoolgirls. The two American soldiers driving the vehicle were court-martialed and subsequently acquitted of negligent homicide charges. The incident triggered a significant wave of anti-Americanism across the country. The official statement that followed from the Korean government expressed clear resentment and called for an immediate revision of the SOFA — a notable instance of the Korean government making its displeasure a matter of public record.

A third factor contributing to growing anti-Americanism in Korea is race and cultural difference. There is little doubt that some members of the new generation of Koreans — those who did not live through the War and have only read about the Communist threat in history books — are reluctant to accept an American presence and may perceive it as an occupation rather than a protection. It would arguably have been easier, psychologically, to accept troops of the same racial and cultural background. Consider, for comparison, the Chinese troops stationed in North Korea: they would likely be perceived as more akin to "our people" than, say, Russian forces would be. The American case is analogous.

Although we live in the twenty-first century, race and cultural identity still matter. The peoples of East Asia have a profoundly different culture from that of the West — different traditions, different models of human relations, and different conceptions of time and social space. Conducting business across that cultural divide is challenging enough; cohabiting on the same territory for half a century is far more so. It is probable that American troops have at times overstepped cultural boundaries in their habitual effort to promote American values wherever they are stationed, sometimes causing offense without being aware of it. Koreans are a culturally sensitive people, and small transgressions can carry significant weight. The seemingly simple act of shaking hands, for instance, is considered unhygienic in Korean culture and is not a customary practice, yet it is second nature to most Americans. When such small offenses accumulate over fifty years, a degree of cultural saturation becomes understandable.