•
been wrong. Ambassador Hwang performed well and was soon given a more
prestigious assignment, subsequently becoming an important player in the
diplomatic hierarchy of South Korea. After the rise of Kim Dae Jung to the
presidency, Hwang was appointed national security adviser to the president.Gleysteen Meets with Chun Doo HwanFollowing Ambassador Gleysteen’s unproductive meeting with President
Choi on December , there was a division of opinion among the embassy
staff as to whether it would be appropriate to meet with Chun Doo Hwan.
The Political Section believed that it was inappropriate for the ambassador,
who was the personal representative of the U.S. president, to meet with a
major general on a coequal basis. As was often the case, the assessments
and recommendations of Brewster’s office and the Defense Attaché Office
were somewhat different. I ascribe this primarily to the fact that diplomats
sometimes seem to be more concerned with protocol and what is proper than
with the reality of a situation. Intelligence officers and military men are
more often action oriented, looking for information, and tend to approach
a problem directly and with less concern for the subtleties of diplomacy. To
us, Chun was a force to be reckoned with, and we saw no reason not to meet
with him. Also, a direct meeting would lessen the chance that he would
interpret our failure to show concern as acquiescence. General Wickham,
who was still seething over the events of /, argued against the meet-
ing. At any rate, rather uncharacteristically, Ambassador Gleysteen ulti-
mately decided to meet with Chun, although my recollection is that it was
Chun who made the first suggestion of the meeting.^3 Regardless of who
actually initiated it, the two men sat down together on December .
Gleysteen and Chun were very different types of people. The ambassador
was soft-spoken, diplomatic, and tended to react unemotionally and ana-
lytically. He was a fine man but had a reputation of not being particularly
forceful.^4 Chun, however, had spent most of his life in the army and was
much more direct and forthright in his manner and demeanor. I had met
him previously and considered him a strong personality, more than a match
for Gleysteen.
At the meeting Ambassador Gleysteen made several points.^5 He expressed
the U.S. government’s deep concern over the events of /. Much of his
rhetoric was directed at the factionalism and disunity in the army, which
invited North Korea to take advantage of the situation. Gleysteen’s words
in this regard were strong, but his quiet demeanor may have given the im-