President Carter stated in a secret memorandum at the beginning of his administration that "U.S.- Korean relations as determined by Congress and American people are at an all time low." This statement, coupled with his iron determination to withdraw forces from South Korea, reflected the end of what is often known as the "Golden Age" of Korean-American relations. During Park Chung Hee's 18-year authoritarian reign over South Korea, the late 1970s portray a complex web of alliance relations and tumultuous security commitment that threatened the overall strength of the two allies. Constant U.S. intervention and attempts to influence Korea's political process were met with massive resistance and did not deter then president Park from steadfastly continuing his Yushin system of authoritarian rule until his sudden assassination in 1979 (Gleysteen 4). However, the decades following the 1970s portray yet another shift in Korean-American relations. Once opposed to Western style democracy, the government of the 1990s (namely, Kim Dae Jung) has shed its authoritarian foundation and now supports a policy that reflects the idea

In reply to Lee's view that an individual exists within the context of the family, Kim points out that industrialization has brought the inevitable consequence of self-centered individualism. Also, Lee's statement that "the ruler or government does not try to provide for a person what the family best provides," rejects what he perceives as the intrusive nature of Western governments. In it, Lee claims that this intrusiveness is not suited for family-oriented East Asia. However, Kim argues that this is not true, for East Asian government are much more intrusive than Western governments into the daily affairs of their people. Whereas Western people exercise much more individual liberties than Eastern people, the Eastern governments tend to limit individual behavior. Singapore, for example, strictly regulates activities such as gum chewing, spitting, and littering. Lee even dislikes the "one man, one vote" principle that Kim states is a fundamental part of democracy, saying that he is not "intellectually convinced" that it is best (Kim 190).

Upon Park Chung Hee's rise to power following the military coup of 1961, it was inevitable that Korea would not follow a trend towards democracy. Given Park's military background, Confucian heritage and Japanese education, there was nothing in his history to suggest that he would embrace democracy American-style. In fact, he considered this practice to be "inconvenient and unproductive" (Oberdorfer 32). A U.S. military assessment noted:

Park began his most anti-democratic line of rule in 1972 with the advent of his "Yushin" system that disbanded the National Assembly, declared martial law, discarded the existing Constitution and prepared for indirect election of the president. To silence opposition, Park arrested many of the senior political leaders of the country. He justified this radical line of rule by declaring that they were "revitalizing reforms" that were necessary to strengthen and unify the nation to prepare for possible Northern invasion and maintain national independence (Oberdorfer 38). All pretense of a civilian government was thus ended by this blatant grab for complete authoritarian power. Following a policy that encouraged gradually lower levels of U.S. engagement with Korea, the U.S. responded to this maneuver by stating that they had not been consulted or involved in Park's actions and would seek to avoid involvement in Korea's internal affairs (Oberdorfer 41). In effect, the U.S. was attempting to not endorse the Yushin plan as a whole by following a policy of disassociation that diminished the role of the U.S. in Korea's political system.

Kim asserts that though Lee stresses cultural values throughout his interview, that alone does not determine a country's fate. Furthermore, he believes that Lee's view is not only unsupportable but also self-serving. Throughout the article, Kim disputes Lee's arguments of incompatibility and implies that Lee's "democracy is incompatible with Eastern culture" argument is only used to justify his personal anti-democratic beliefs. The effects of Kim's history of political oppression and opposition against authoritarianism can be seen throughout this response.

Although heavy U.S. pressure influenced Park to return to nominal civilian rule following his coup, one can see that from the beginning there were prominent factors that foreshadowed the clash of ideologies to come.

Much to the U.S.'s pleasure, Kim suggests that Asia look towards the models of the democracy in the West and learn from their successes and failures. He advocates a "rebirth of democracy that promotes freedom, prosperity, and justice both within each country and among nations, (193)" and using the traditional strengths of Asian society to better the implementation of democracy. Kim says, "such a democracy is the only true expression of a people, but it requires the full participation of all elements of society. Only then will

Some common words found in the essay are:
Dae Jung, Asia Kim, South Korea, Furthermore Kim, National Assembly, President Carter, Carter January, Chung Hee's, Kim Korea's, Whereas Western, kim dae, korean-american relations, park chung, kim dae jung, dae jung, south korea, democracy kim, chung hee's, dae jung's, park chung hee's, western style, kim dae jung's, western style democracy, park chung hee, late 1970s,
Approximate Word count = 2962
Approximate Pages = 12 (250 words per page double spaced)