Previous posts in this discussion:
PostDid the US Congress Start the Korean War? (Bienvenido Macario, USA, 08/10/17 2:54 pm)
John E asked me on August 7th:
"Bienvenido, are you saying that the US Congress started the Korean war because it stated that South Korea was outside the US 'defense perimeter'? Meaning, that if the US had drawn a firm line in the sand, the North never would have invaded?"
The UN's decolonization program using FDR's Four Freedoms Doctrine has been a cure worse than the disease, in most cases. Today, people from failed and failing states that became independent after WWII are voting with their feet. Trying to immigrate to or seek refuge in developed nations is the best proof that decolonization is a failure.
FDR was so obsessed with the dismantling of the British Empire that he provided only one option: independence to the colonies.
Genuine democracy is about choices and options. The Left has always been biased towards a one-party system. Another option FDR could have offered was the Compact of Free Association, just like what the Commonwealth of North Mariana Islands, Palau and Marshall Islands enjoy today.
It was in the spirit of the sweet-sounding albeit unenforceable Four Freedom doctrine and decolonization that the decision to abandon South Korea to the communists was made. As John mentioned, South Korea was a colony, not a territory, of Japan. It would be absurd to let Japan keep Korea under its control after WWII and therefore it made perfect sense for Secretary of State Dean Acheson to declare that Korea is outside the US defense perimeter, something US Sen. Tom Connally, Chairman of the U.S. Senate Foreign Relations Committee, confirmed.
For the Philippines, an abandoned US territory that FDR sacrificed to prove to Churchill that the US is committed to the decolonization and the Four Freedoms doctrine, the preferred solution is granting me official recognition as a Native American.
Sometime after 2004 Prof. Hilton asked me to research the UN Decolonization program. This prompted me to look for alternatives to decolonization. He asked me to pinpoint the exact time in history when the problem or crisis started, and how it might have been avoided. Using lessons learned from previous or ongoing crises such as the refugee crisis in Europe or to avoid future crises would be better.
Prof. Hilton referred me to this 2002 WAIS post: "The United Nations. Decolonization":
I consider the US Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman Tom Connally's answer in that crucial interview on May 2, 1950 as the ratification of the executive branch's proposal to abandon South Korea.
What is terrifying is the fact that today no one in Washington DC seems to be aware of how the North Koreans were encouraged by the State Department and the US Senate to attack South Korea.
Those were very irresponsible statements made by Acheson, an American diplomat and Tom Connally, a powerful US Senator. These were very significant episodes in the months before the outbreak of the Korean War and yet no historian, educator or foreign policy expert seemed to remember or even know the true story behind the 1950 Korean War.
JE comments: Weren't similar arguments made about the first Gulf War--i.e., that the US did not warn Saddam severely enough not to invade Kuwait? Are statements of non-involvement the same as appeasement? I don't know the answer to this. Only hindsight provides clarity.
Decolonization was/is historically inevitable. A question for Bienvenido: if the British Empire hadn't been dismantled in 1945-'46, then when? Never? France tried to hold on to Algeria, and paid the price for it.
One not-so-small detail: Empires are extremely expensive, especially because the paternalistic model of shamelessly exploiting your colonized population is no longer an option. What nation would now want the bother--and the negative world opinion?