Realism Requires That S. Korea Support the US

[DaShi]

Despite Protests, Seoul to Send Troops to Iraq for Reconstruction
By HOWARD W. FRENCH


EOUL, South Korea, April 2 — Ending several days of bitter stalemate, South Korea's Parliament today approved the sending of 700 soldiers to Iraq to help in the country's reconstruction effort.

The approval, which was blocked last week, was won only after a remarkable speech by South Korea's liberal new president, Roh Moo Hyun, in which he pleaded with members of his own Millennium Democratic Party, saying that "realism" required his country to support the United States.

"I decided to dispatch troops, despite ongoing antiwar protests, because of the fate of our country and the people," Mr. Roh said in his speech to the National Assembly this morning.

"In order to resolve the North Korea nuclear issue peacefully, it is important to maintain strong cooperation with the U.S."

Political analysts here described Mr. Roh's decision to push for the troop deployment as part of a shrewd but risky bid to preserve this country's alliance with the United States. Mr. Roh himself holds pronouncedly antiwar views, and there is widespread opposition to the war in Iraq both among the population and the governing party.

Mr. Roh is also seeking to maximize Seoul's influence on Washington in any moves it makes toward North Korea once the Iraq war has ended.

In neighboring Japan, Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi has suffered a serious erosion of political support because of his unequivocal backing for the United States' war effort in the face of strong popular opposition to the war.

The United States-South Korean alliance has been strained for months, however, in part because of Mr. Roh's blunt criticisms of Bush administration policy toward North Korea as too belligerent.

Mr. Roh has also irritated the United States by forswearing the use of force in resolving the dispute with North Korea over that country's weapons of mass destruction programs. In addition, Mr. Roh has said he wants a "more equal" alliance with the United States.

Washington has responded recently with hints that it could soon pull roughly 14,000 American troops far away from positions guarding the demilitarized zone separating North and South Korea, and could ultimately withdraw many of its 37,000 troops from this country altogether.

This prospect has alarmed many South Koreans, because the presence of American troops in forward positions near North Korea, where they would presumably suffer heavy casualties in any conflict, is thought here to be the best guarantee of American restraint in dealing with Pyongyang.

In his speech to the National Assembly, Mr. Roh acknowledged the strong domestic opposition to the war in Iraq, particularly among his liberal political base, but said his decision was driven by the "forces of reality."

"It would be imprudent to make a decision that threatens the survival of our people in the name of an equal relationship with the United States," he said.

Good, when Bush is gone, there may still be a relationship to salvage between the US and South Korea.

[SlowwHand]

Wow, DaShi! I thoght you were about to make sense.
Should have known better.

[DaShi]

Thanks, I posted it for you.

[Drake Tungsten]

Good, when Bush is gone, there may still be a relationship to salvage between the US and South Korea.

You act like the strain in US-Korean relations is all Bush's fault. Why?

[SlowwHand]

Here's a ban warning coming.

Because he's stupid?

[Zero]

because bush is a ******. When korea wrongfully demanded an apology from him, al he had to do was say how tragic it was and just look like he's saddened by it. Instead he refused to apologies. That's not smart politics.

[Drake Tungsten]

DaShi has never struck me as unintelligent, which is why I'm curious about the reasoning behind his statement. I wouldn't be asking if one of the usual leftist morons had posted this...

[SlowwHand]

.

[Timexwatch]

That's because it's not his responsibility to apologize for some goobers running over schoolgirls. They should look for an apology from the soldiers who did it. Bush knows full well that if he did give an apology that it would open a Pandora's box in terms of relations with other countries and possibly legal responsability.

[Japher]

What really happened;

Bush: "I am deeply saddened that such a tragic event occured. Corrective measures have been taken to ensure that those responsible are held responsible, and that such an event never happens again."

What SK is saying;

"You are responsible Mr. Bush, say sorry... like you mean it."

What should happen now;

"Oh, sorry S. Korea, sorry you're not a load of Commie Bastards too! Fight your own war! Boys, lets blow this joint."

[Q Classic]

why is this such a surprise? the official government line for skorea has always been to go get iraq.

yes, you do all hear about these anti-war protesters, and the anti-us protesters, but you almost never hear about the anti-saddam and war supporters. apparently nobody even remembers that skorea had one of the largest outpourings of support in the wake of sept 11 with mass prayers and demonstrations in support of the us in that tragic time, or that skorea has traditionally been america's staunchest ally in the region. why? because it's a lot easier to paint the world as not liking america when you see notable foreign countries protesting against the action in iraq.

the debate in korea is just as fractious as it is here; in korea, though, you have the added complexity of anti-american sentiment because of the accident and because of the perception of the alliance.

i will spell this out for you people who think that korea doesn't deserve american support due to its "ungratefulness" again:
the common perception of the alliance is that although americans in korea to help defend it is good, the koreans feel patronized by american actions and behavior in korea. this is evidenced by several things: one, that the entire active military force of south korea is under the direct leadership of an american general and not a korean general; two, american soldiers who commit crimes are not prosecuted under a korean court, but rather sent home and tried there; three, the common perception that korea is still an agrarian society and is nothing like modern japan.
add to that the oppressed mentality of the koreans (dominated by japan in the first half of the twentieth century, dominated by the soviet union and the united states in the latter half, with the united states influence being largely benign and profitable) which leads them to see slights against them in many many things, their spectacular economic growth and relative strength, and newfound confidence from things like the olympics and the world cup, and that's how you get the anti-american sentiment.

all this would have boiled over had bush not decided to completely make his foreign relations with north korea look like it came from bumblefvck, texas. why do i say this? simple. one, as soon as bush entered office, in order to make himself completely unlike the clinton that his conservatives disliked so much, bush immediately broke off all talks with nkorea, without so much as informing japan or skorea that he was doing this; two, with the support of his conservatives, bush added in nkorea to his "axis of evil", which although makes a very valid point, was perhaps not the best way of approaching this extremely delicate matter; three, during this entire nuclear bull**** posturing between nkorea the rest of east asia, bush has gone from being the anti-clinton to doing a full-180 into doing exactly what clinton did. had he stuck to one consistent message or path, things would be a lot easier to work out.
clinton, for all his sins, actually wanted to bomb nkorea when he found out that it was constructing the facilities that are now without observers; it was precisely because of his sins, however, that he couldn't, lest it be tarred as a wag-the-dog deal. this, naturally, gave carter the beautiful opportunity to waltz in and make the agreed framework, for ill or for worse.

skorea, being in one of the most economically affluent periods of its history, sees bush's foreign idiocy in regards to nkorea as foolhardy, and threatining to them. the complete 360 that bush has done doesn't assuage their fears that he might be some cowboy yokel who will bring ruin to that part of the world.

now, skorea cannot be held entirely blameless. the young people who don't remember the war, because of their affluence, see no reason to depart from the status quo; buy off nkorea for just a little longer, and wait for the horrid day that it falls. the agreed framework is working for them, by and large, and frankly they don't see a nuclear nkorea as a threat. why? because they are convinced, for no reason that i can understand, that nkorea wouldn't use such weapons on korean soil. a nuclear nkorea, once it unifies with skorea, would only make the new korea a strong nuclear power, and for them, that's not a bad deal at all--never again would they feel threatened by their neighbors, because they have the fvcking bomb. this short-sighted and self-centered nationalistic view has done nothing to remedy the situation, and if anything, has only delayed a working and useful resolution to the entire area. it was precisely this sentiment among the young people that president roh was able to come to office.

what it all boils down to is this:
1. korea isn't ungrateful; it just doesn't want to feel subordinate to america on its home turf
2. bush's foreign idiocy in the region has cost him valuable time and much respect
3. the self-centered view that the skoreans have hinderes a true constructive process to resolving the situation in nkorea
4. skorea, being one of the 40 "coalition of the willing" nations, has never had a problem supporting the united states when push comes to shove in many matters, including this fight on terrorism; it just has a nasty case of nimby. it sees this war in iraq, and is terrified that the warhawks of the bush administration will want to try something similar in nkorea.
5. all that needs to be done to repair the fraying relations between skorea and the us is for an appearance by the us to look as if is actually concerned about the same thing the skoreans are, and maybe a few small alterations to the current agreements between the two nations. bush could do it, if he tried. he so far doesn't seem to care (only natural, his attention is focused on another part of asia). i say again: there's no real danger to the relationship or the alliance; if anything, it's a small spat over how to deal with one major, pressing issue.

[Arrian]

That was quite a read, Q Cubed, but I enjoyed it. Probably because I agree with it.

-Arrian

[DanS]

Our Asian allies, including SK, Japan, and Australia, have all been very supportive with regard to Iraq. They have all said explicitly that they know who provides their security umbrella, and they dare not put that in jeopardy. They know who to root for when comparing the US and Saddam.

[Drake Tungsten]

1. korea isn't ungrateful; it just doesn't want to feel subordinate to america on its home turf

If this is true, then why have the South Koreans been so unreceptive to Bush's efforts to solve the North Korean problem in a multilateral fashion? Bush is offering South Korea a place at the big table, but they don't seem to want it. I have a feeling that they would rather see America continue to bear the costs of placating North Korea while they sit back and play the good neighbor...

[muppet]

North Korea has more or less stated, "No America? No negotiations!"

I believe the South Koreans, Chinese and Japanese don't see much point in multilateral negotiations without North Korea's attendance.