This report summarizes the findings of the conference, "A World without the U.S.-ROK Alliance: Thinking about 'Alternative Futures'," held in Seoul, South Korea on September 10-11, 2007.
Main Findings
Conference participants surveyed the full range of ways in which a world without the U.S.-ROK alliance would differ from the current status quo--politically, militarily, economically, and in civil society--not only for the U.S. and South Korea, but also for the broader region. Despite often stark differences, some clear points of consensus emerged:
- Inter-Korean relations would hinge on North Korea's intentions, goals, and capabilities, with regional security mechanisms playing a secondary role.
- Replacing the full range of military capabilities gained through the alliance would be very difficult and costly for South Korea, should the ROK deem this necessary.
- The termination of the alliance would not benefit the ROK economically, either on an absolute basis or relative to the rest of the region; rather it could pose substantial costs and obstacles to continued growth and integration.
- The alliance constitutes an important "support beam" in the edifice of the broader U.S.-ROK relationship and fosters the emergence of knowledgeable and experienced policymakers, producing long-term effects independent of regional security threats.
Click here to view this paper as an Adobe Acrobat PDF.
Nicholas Eberstadt is the Henry Wendt scholar in political economy at AEI. Richard J. Ellings is the president of the National Bureau of Asian Research. Aaron L. Friedberg is a professor of politics and international affairs at Princeton University. Christopher Griffin is a research fellow at AEI. Roy D. Kamphausen is vice president for political and security affairs and director of the National Bureau of Asian Research 's Washington D.C. office. Travis Tanner is director of the National Bureau of Asian Research Pyle Center for Northeast Asian Studies.
