In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

BOOK REVIEWS 269 forty years that are too often left out ofthe Big Picture. In attention to detail and chronological breadth, it is unique. U.S. Policy and the Two Koreas. By Edward A. Olsen. Boulder, Colo.: Westview Press, 1988. 109 pp. $11.95/paper. Reviewed by Hanya Marie Kim, M.A. Candidate, SAIS. Olsen's U.S. Policy and The Two Koreas presents an apt and insightful survey and analysis of the field. The author's subsequent policy recommendations indicate a cogent grasp of the history as well as the plausible future of security relations between the United States and the Republic of South Korea. However, the economic aspects of his policy suggestions lack cohesiveness, substantiating arguments, and adequate mastery of the subject matter. The first section traces the evolution of U.S.-Korean relations from 1945 to the 1980s. Olsen summarizes the division of the Korean peninsula, the Korean War, and subsequent American interests in the country in a fairly orthodox manner. His portrayal of exactly how and when the United States began to support the military regime in South Korea provides a useful framework for the key issues and policy recommendations in the following sections. The second section of the book, which addresses some key issues in contemporary U.S.-Korean relations, begins with a concise delineation ofsecurity issues stemming from South Korea's peninsular concerns versus the regional and global interests of the United States. Olsen addresses contested topics, ranging from deployment ofnuclear-capable Lance missiles to South Korea as a potential nuclear power, from his viewpoint as a security expert. The book's summary ofrecent economic relations is essentially a brief recap of South Korea's "economic miracle." Political relations and regional affairs are similarly presented in a mainly factual, non-objectionable manner. However, since the title includes both Koreas, one would expect some coverage of Kim IIsong ^ reclusive nation. Granted, North Korea does not readily yield itself to investigation, but studies have been done before, and Olsen should have at least tried. The majority of the book is devoted to recommendations for U.S. policy toward Korea. Unfortunately, Olsen's grasp ofthe essentials ofbilateral security clash with his poor mastery of the economics involved. Judging from the disparity in the two presentations, this text should have concentrated on military issues and security studies. Olsen divides future U.S. economic policy choices into either "outcompeting the rest of the world or shutting out the rest of the world." The latter possibility is a "beguiling argument" of self-sufficiency, which he likens in spirit to the North Korean slogan "juche" (which means, contrary to Olsen's interpretation, self-sufficiency in all spheres of national and individual life rather than simply in economics). He acknowledges, though, that the North Koreans haven't been very successful. Olsen's message to U.S. trading partners is simple and blunt: behave or our "deep-seated latent isolationist tendencies" 270 SAISREVIEW will rise to the surface, a la Gephardt. It is particularly at this point that readers may notice the book's complete dearth offootnotes or bibliography. Also, there are recurring syntax errors which, coupled with a sometimes awkward stylistic approach, affects the readability of the book. Olsen arrives at the amenable though not unique conclusion that the U.S. and South Korea have reached an impasse in shifting from a relationship of dependency to one of parity, and that adjustments are needed to resolve this difficulty. Similarly, Olsen's advocation of a U.S. policy comprised of a firm yet consistent approach to the North Koreans with a concurrent possibility of economic involvement with the flourishing Pacific Rim countries is a solid conclusion. However, the reasoning behind the advocation of this stance is odd. Olsen urges the United States to "emulate South Korea's flexibility toward the U.S.S.R. and [the Peoples Republic of China] by adopting comparable flexibility toward North Korea." But the relative military and economic positions and concerns of the two nations are so different that the comparison is ludicrous. South Korea is merely following the lead of other countries similarly assured of U.S. military protection, such as NATO members, who seek economic relations...

pdf

Share