This paper examines the relationship between the United States and the Republic of Korea (South Korea) from the end of World War II through the early 2010s. Beginning with the post-war partition of the Korean Peninsula and the 1950–1953 Korean War, the paper traces the development of the US–ROK military alliance, the evolution of bilateral trade and economic ties, South Korea's democratic transition, and the expansion of the partnership into a comprehensive global alliance. Key issues discussed include North Korea's nuclear program, anti-Americanism, troop relocation, the Special Measures Agreement, and South Korea's growing role in international forums.
When Japan lost control over the Republic of Korea (ROK) at the end of World War II, the Soviet Union and the United States split the Peninsula into two territories, with promises of national elections that never took place. This led to a disagreement between Washington and Moscow, forcing the United Nations to declare the ROK, with its capital in Seoul, as the legitimate government on the Peninsula in 1948.
However, the Soviet Union rejected this assertion, and in 1950 the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) invaded the South (Lee, 2011). The United States came to the aid of South Korea, and war ensued until 1953, when a ceasefire froze the front line at the thirty-eighth parallel. This paper discusses the relationship between the United States of America and the ROK from the Korean War to the current period.
The United States' relations with the Republic of South Korea have been among the most intense since 1948. Various sources report that this relationship was perhaps inevitable because South Korea was established with US support and was defended during the Korean War of 1950 to 1953. South Korea is one of the United States' most important strategic partners in Asia, and for many years the relations between these two countries have been at their strongest. Since the end of the Korean War, the US and the ROK have maintained strong ties. The United States and South Korea have been allies since the 1950s, which is a major reason why members of Congress have maintained sustained interest in South Korea-related issues.
South Korea first came under US protection in 1945; its republic was not immediately prepared for democracy. For much of its history, South Korea had been under authoritarian rule — from kingdoms and dynasties to Japanese colonial administration. Over time, South Korea achieved several conditions considered preconditions for democracy, including economic growth, high levels of education, and a cohesive cultural and social foundation (U.S. Relations With South Korea, 2014).
The United States and South Korea are important economic partners to one another. A trade volume of over 60 billion dollars between the two countries reflects a significant degree of economic interdependence. According to available reports, South Korea is more economically reliant on the United States than the reverse — a reality supported by the fact that the US ranks first as a trading partner of South Korea. However, policy analyses note that South Korea's export ratio to the United States had significantly declined, from 40 percent to less than 20 percent by 2002 (Lee, 2011).
The ROK's relationship with the United States has been extensive since 1950, when the US government helped establish a modern South Korean state and fought on the UN-sponsored side during the Korean War (1950–1953) (Power, 2007). Over the following four decades, South Korea experienced remarkable political, economic, and military growth, which significantly reduced its dependence on the United States. From the administration of Roh Tae-woo to that of Roh Moo-hyun, South Korea managed to maintain its American partnership; however, this made the Seoul–Washington relationship subject to a number of strains, particularly anti-American and Korean nationalist sentiments. Research has also shown that relations between the two countries subsequently strengthened under conservative administrations (France-Presse, 2013).
In August 1945, Washington and Moscow agreed that the ROK would be temporarily partitioned at the thirty-eighth parallel. This act was a turning point in modern Korean history. The temporary partition hardened into a de facto and eventually a de jure division between two mutually hostile states. The establishment of a Soviet-sponsored DPRK and a US-supported ROK in 1948 brought an end to the political and administrative unity of the Korean nation (Weitz, 2012).
In 1953, the ROK and the United States agreed to a military alliance — often described as "the relationship forged in blood" — and in 2009 the two countries developed the alliance's vision for future defense cooperation. Should war resume, South Korean forces would operate under US command. Research has also shown that members of Congress and their staff remain optimistic about the future of the US–South Korea relationship. Among the issues receiving greatest attention in Congress are North Korea's nuclear weapons program and human rights abuses, as well as concerns about the growth of anti-Americanism in South Korea (Lee, 2011).
"Cold War alliance roots and South Korean democracy"
"Post-2009 reforms and Special Measures Agreement"
"South Korea's expanding role in international forums"
The United States and South Korea have for many decades shared a long history of cooperation and closeness based on common interests and shared values. The two countries have worked together to combat regional and global threats, and in doing so have also strengthened their respective economies. The United States has maintained Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine personnel in South Korea in support of its commitment to the ROK. The Mutual Defense Treaty was established to help South Korea defend against external aggression. The two nations have also marked the 60th anniversary of their alliance (France-Presse, 2013).
You’re 59% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.