It seems that the ROK has deemed the Kirkuk area a little too hot for their liking:
SEOUL, South Korea - South Korea canceled plans to send troops to the northern Iraqi city of Kirkuk, citing U.S. pressure to participate in “offensive operations,” but still plans to send the forces to help rebuild the country, the Defense Ministry said Friday.
The ministry said it was looking for another location to send the promised 3,600 forces.Seoul’s dispatch, which would make South Korea the biggest coalition partner after the United States and Britain, was scheduled to come as early as next month. But Friday’s decision means the mission might be delayed.
South Korea’s Defense Ministry said the “United States cited inevitability for offensive operations to keep security in order in the Kirkuk area,” and proposed that a certain number of U.S. troops remain in Kirkuk to operate under South Korean control.
South Korea said the U.S. proposal does not jibe with South Korea’s intention to “keep its own independent operational command system and conduct peaceful reconstruction.”
Foreign Minister Ban Gi-moon, however, was quick to point out that nothing has really changed in the government’s stance concerning Iraq:
The South Korean government’s decision to dispatch its additional Iraq-bound troops to an area other than the initially planned northern city of Kirkuk is not an indication of any change in the government’s basic policies on the issue, Foreign Minister Ban Ki-moon said Friday.
The comment came just hours after the announcement by the Defense Ministry that it will station its additional troops in an area other than Kirkuk where they can operate independently.
“In a series of consultations with the U.S. military in Iraq, we realized there were still military operations going on in Kirkuk,” Ban said at a luncheon meeting hosted by the European Union Chamber of Commerce in Korea.
“However, there will be no change in our basic policies to help the Iraqi people reconstruct their war-torn country,” Ban said. “It is more of a technical and tactical matter than a political one.”
He also said, in reference to events in Spain:
Commenting on last week’s terrorist attacks in Madrid, Ban said that the troop dispatch plan will “not be affected” by such events and that South Korea “stands firm and committed to fighting against international terrorism.”
Anyway, it should take about two weeks to choose a new site, and YTN mentioned that a dispatch might get pushed back to June.
24 Comments
God and to think that if both of my grandfathers hadn’t gotten disabled in WWII they might have been able to suffer for the good of the valient and brave Korean people! [/irony]
Seriously, where do the Korean people FIND politicians like this? “stands firm and committed to fighting against international terrorism.” What, unless it involves using bullets?
Yeah, but I should point out that they’re going to help a lot more than most countries.
This is just the first step. Korea will not send troops to Iraq. The Uri Party will sweep the April 15 elections, Comrade Roh will be reinstated and boot USFK out of Korea.
“Comrade Roh will be reinstated and boot USFK out of Korea”
From your keybord to G_D’s ears. The US doesn’t have the sense to leave on their own. The Koreans will do as little as possible to help out in Iraq. Like Europe Korea is populated by people who woke up on third base and think that they hit a tripple. We must not disturbe their hard earned rest. They are not warmongering hedgmons like Uncle Sammy.
[http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03.....MS.html?hp
"Why should Koreans send their young people halfway around the globe to be killed or wounded in Iraq?" ]
Why indeed. A Face culture turns into a Ass culture.
Regards,
Tim
i noticed that the liberal media is trying to make it sound like korea isn’t sending troops at all.
blue eyed is going to get our Defenders of Korean Culture all riled up.
The Koreans are actually pretty smart. They don’t want to find themselves in a situation 50 yrs. from now where they’re accused of waging THEIR war on Iraqi territory. Maybe if they could somehow be convinced that Iraq will be a big export market for them… Just think of all the Hyundai spare parts they’ll sell.
The only thing standing between the Defenders Of Korean Culture and a nice cold bowl of grass soup at the local Reeducation Camp is the filthy, sex crazed, baby killin’ US Army.
The next date for deployment is rumored to be June. But isn’t June the national month of mourning for the viciously murdered school girls? They better move the deployment back to August or Sept. Or maybe the 15th of Never.
Tim
man, this is exactly when we need a true leader like park chung-hee… just send our troops and show the world what we can do… and yes,at the risk of losing young korean lives. it’s a frickin’ war!
What an ally.
By the way, with Seoul’s hand-wringing, to American public Japan’s contributions will become far more visible and appreciated. It will be recalled as another shot in the foot on the part the current administration.
Josh,
do the American public acknowledge/ remember/ appreciate the participation of three army infantery divisions and ROK marines in the Vietnam War? Nearly 300 000 ROKA troops have gone through combat action over the years in the 60s and 70s with nearly 3500 soldiers KIA or MIA. What did Japan then?
‘convinced…iraq will be a big export market.’
devil
well, devil, maybe we should ask halliburton. or maybe, dick cheney. isn’t it funny that you rant about korean behavior and yet can’t demostrate the behavior you want to see in them? know what that means? that means you want a pet. the koreans will no longer be your pet. talk to japan, she might be available.
now, the koreans already said they’re still sending the troops. why not just show some apreciation? show them you’re the mature one. why not? perhaps, it’s time.
and btw, the war in iraq has nothing to do with the war on terrorism, therefore, the war in iraq is not korea’s war. it’s bush’s war and the descendents of the shilla, baekche, and koguryo have decided to help him out. no thanks for that, i suppose.
‘one need not seek the heart of darkness for it already exists within.’ sakuda kentezor, duchess of gorb, fith in line to the house of gamaka
I don’t like the way in which the gov’t has handled the Iraq issue — personally, I think the way in which the Roh administration has handled the situation has squandered a considerable amount of good will that you’d think would come with contributing 3,500 troops (half of which are combat troops) to an operation that is, let’s face it, less than popular (and in the view of much of Roh’s support base, criminal). I think it was the Yomiuri that was quite surprised that Japan sends 1,000 non-combat troops to Iraq, and they’re heros in Washington, while the Koreans are sending three times that number — including special forces and marines — and they’re still in Bush’s doghouse. Now, having said that, I still believe the Koreans will come through on this in the end, and at this stage, it’s really hard to bitch — the fact that they’re helping at all needs to be appreciated. Yes, the delays and some of the rhetoric coming from certain quarters might be annoying, but the Koreans already have 600 troops on the ground in Iraq (which is exactly 600 more than France or Germany has provided), with another 2,500 on the way (which is exactly 2,500 more than either France or Germany has offered). The process might not have been pretty, but if they come through in the end (and I think they will), I’ll be thankful, nonetheless.
It should be pointed out, too, that the change in location probably has nothing to do with Spain — this was a discussion that goes back before the Madrid bombings, and has more to do with chain of command issues (and a wish to avoid getting in over their heads) than anything else.
Sugar,
Hm … that’s because of an obvious reason - regarding it as a lost war, most Americans - right and left - want to forget about war in Vietnam. As well, it needs to be pointed out that back then, no matter how lame it might sound, a combination of the constitutional ban and prevalent antiwar public sentiment kept Japan from sending troops overseas.
That in fact, is one of many reasons why in the States, people who care about foreign affairs - not that many - see the island nation’s swift decision to commit troops on the ground favorably. They are aware of legal and sentimental obstacles PM Koizumi had to overcome. And they recognize that it represents a dramatic departure from its reputed checkbook diplomacy.
That makes a clear contrast with the way in which South Korean government is handling the issue, or the way in which they presented their efforts to American public. Far from being seen as going extra miles to stand with its supposedly most important ally, Seoul is perceived as reluctant at best, and opportunistic at worst, reminiscent of the way in which Tokyo was viewed during and after the Gulf War.
Well said Marm. As to Koizuimi and his “overcoming of the legal and sentimental obstacle,” I have to say is strictly rhetoric. This is Koizumi’s many attempts to pander to the right wing in Japan; and when we talk about constitutional issues, what of the prohibited visits to the military shrines specifically stated in their constitution? And what of their Supreme Court’s reluctance to make a decision on such a constitutionality question? The mere difference between Japan and Korea to the US is their geopolitical significance to US “defense parameters.” Japan 1, Korea 0.
It’s a shame about Vietnam. It never should have happened. I have heard that the Korean government was paid the going US G.I. rate for every ROK soldier they supplied. They in turn paid their soldiers their regular ROK pay and pocketed the difference. Korea also snagged many shipping and transport contracts in thanks for their support.
I hate to be negative but I really don’t think we’ll ever see anything like 3000 ROK troops in Iraq. The Pax Peeps control the agenda and they believe that the US is the “Root Cause” of all the problems in the world. Hell holes like North Korea and massacres like 9/11 can all be traced back to some arrogant unilateral action taken by the evil AmeriKans who are controlled by the Jooos. The Koreans aren’t unique. If you have millions of students repeating the party line in order to get a “C” in Social Studies you end up with millions of utopian seekers ready for a revolution. (after spring break of course)
The Gulags of Utopia are favorably compared to county prisons in the USA. It seems it’s still true that a lie in furtherance of the revolution is the supreme truth.
Tim
First, let me say that I love this silly peninsula….. been here for over 5 years of my life.
And when I see Korea consistently burying its collective head in the ground…..it disturbs me….no it angers me… no…actually….it FUCKING PISSES ME OFF!!!!
America needs to be much stronger with S. Korea. Force them to take a stand..
Simple…. either you support the United States or you want them to LEAVE……
Either help the Americans or pursue a divorce from the USA.
You simply can NO LONGER have it both ways. Make a choice. Soon.
SundubuMan,
you?쨈re right. The South Koreans must make a unanimous decision about the alliance with the US and th presence of the USFK. As you have seen in your everyday life, the society is ideologically splitted about this urgent question. I don’t fear a retreat of the USFK nor do I condemn their presence on the peninsula, but the 50 years old worn-out security agreement must get a new drift or (re)form or be mutually abandoned once and for all. The first option of a reform must consider the changed economical, political and international standing of the now ROK. It is not a piss-poor, wrecked third world “client” country of the mighty USA anymore. The second option of a broken alliance would also possibly result in a absence of the US nuclear security shield provided for the ROK. Thus means, that the ROK in this case would seek for its own nuclear capability and shake off the shackles of their missile range restriction. Furthermore the South Koreans would seek a economical and military reconciliation/ partnership with rising Mainland China (which I would not favour anyway!The times of “sadae” were not that harmonious and beautiful..). This scenario could also end up in a nuclear arms race in North East Asia and a deterriorating relationship (maybe conflict)of China/ DPRK/ ROK/ ROC/ Japan against each other or with the US further Asian presence in Okinawa/ Japan. Japan as an economcial and technical powerhouse would also seek a full-fledged openly operated military build-up without any constitutional or ethical boundaries or fig leafs, that would include nuclear weapons(even against US will), aircraft carriers, SSNs and ICBM. All options forementioned options sound not desireable, which makes the decision process of the ROK society even more difficult.
Hanin,
I really like your comment. It was always 1:0 for Japan in the eyes of the USA. The Koreans are the big-mouthed bitch and the Japanese are their real Mr. Butterfly, to simplyfy it heavily.
Blue Eyed Devil,
Black Eyed Peas, man, Black Eyed Peas!
Marmot,
You and Yangban are the few expat Korea-blogger (hm, I don?쨈t read any further than Mr. oranckay besides you two) or commentor, who have shown leniency and appreciation for the ROK “Zaytun”-dispatch. This is more than any other has expressed so far and I?쨈m thankful for that.
Mr. Shin: You argue immediately above from a false premise. Who said anything about altering the alliance?
I don’t say “all or nothing” with regards to the US/ROK alliance — I just say pull out all of the conventional ground troops in USFK. We (US) can continue to support you from offshore with our air and sea power (the best in the world), if you (ROK) still want it.
You won’t have to worry about a nuclear arms race in NE Asia, which you portray as an inevitable consequence. That’s a straw man.
You’re absolutely right that South Korea is “all grown up now”, which means you don’t need conventional US forces to defend yourselves against a June-1950 style invasion from the North anymore.
Your society is ambivalent about the presence of the US ground troops for a very good reason — you don’t want to have to make this choice. Well, we should “renegotiate” the US/ROK treaty by requiring you to carry the burden of your own ground defense.
By the way, your trade with mainland China now exceeds that with the U.S., and I’m sure they don’t want anything to happen between the two Koreas to disrupt that.
Why don’t you invite the PRC to take up the UN mantle, and station an observer force in the DMZ, to “ensure good manners” between your two Korean societies? Meanwhile you can both decide on whatever strategy you think will work as regards eventual reunification. With the US now only an offshore presence, maybe the North Koreans will begin to “lighten up”. After all, they say they only want nukes because of the U.S. threat.
Many ROK citizens will be happy to see us gone, and we can use these withdrawn forces in “Kirkuk” or anywhere else they are needed.
I see this as a “win-win” for both of our societies (I’m not being sarcastic but totally serious).
Paul H.
“Either help the Americans or pursue a divorce from the USA.” - SundubuMan
I was referring to this sentence of SundubuMan. My sentence of a new “drift or (re)form” of the US-ROK alliance implicated in my mind also your option of an withdrawal of USFK from Korean soil and further “offshore” protection and a US nuclear shield. The description of the second option with the “NE Asian nuclear arms race” was done by an eventual/ hypothetical break-up of any military cooperation or any form of an alliance with the US.
The most important and profitable open market for the full range of South Korean export products is IMO still the USA and not China, which functions today as a cheap labor manufacturing base for Korean products. Maybe this will change with the rapid sophistication of the Chinese market and economy in the short future.
I guess this topic came up before; at least since I joined this worthwhile blogoshere. Why can’t US govt agree to a South Korean government with its own nuclear deterrant against the North?
I think you (ROK) are constrained from developing your own nuclear deterrent by your signature on the nuclear nonproliferation treaty — the same treaty that North Korea signed and then renounced, if I’m not mistaken.
When the ROK agreed to nuclear nonproliferation, it undertook an obligation to the whole world — not just to its U.S. ally.
If South Korea is no longer a “client state” of the U.S., then it’s not just a matter of whether the
“…US govt agree[s] to a South Korean government with its own nuclear deterrent against the North…”.
It’s a matter of whether the other signatories to the nuclear non-proliferation treaty agree! (ie most of the rest of the world).
I strongly believe that we (U.S.) will certainly not condone ROK development of its own nuclear weapons, because of the destablizing effects to NE Asia and the world that Mr Shin so eloquently details in his post above.
But as said before, South Korea is no longer a “client state” of the U.S. If ROK wants to violate the nuclear non-proliferation treaty and develop its own nuclear weapons, I don’t think the U.S. can stop ROK from doing so.
But if you (ROK) do decide to develop your own nuclear deterrent, then we (U.S.) should feel free to withdraw from our mutual self-defense treaty, in the “divorce” Mr. Shin decries above.
Paul, you should know that the deterrant issue and the non-nuclear proliferation agreement signing was a very difficult and complex process for the South Koreans; dating back to the 60’s. Whether you want to term it as being a sign of the South Koreans being muscled into the act or being subconsciously obligated to their allies, the South Koreans made a decision to forego the nuclear deterrant consideration precisely because the United States placed so much political pressure on them—and of course tied to the US argument were the many reminders of the many admirable Korean War veterans (of the US).
I don’t want to merely term the agreement as some letter of parchment that has no bearing in the real world. But like any state in the world, South Korea faces a specific enemy across their northern border. For a country to be denied its autonomy to protect their well being and fight against a realizable threat to their posterity is an rationale no person of any right mind can in any way support. For all the controversy, what was the reverberated argument that Americans stated prior to the invasion on Iraq? ‘United States will not place the security of its nation and citizens to a vote by the UN security council.’ Of course many will argue that this is many steps back in “international law;” however, assuming that the WMD’s and the al Queda connection was valid and that Hussein had absolutely taken part in the 9/11 bombings, it made a lot of sense to us(Americans) why we could not rely on the letters of parchment of an organization who did not feel the global threat of terror as we did—and this was regardless of how “united” and “nations” they were.
By the way I should mention that in the American argument to persuade South Koreans to sign the agreement, we(US) assured the South Koreans that our commitment to the Korean peninsula was for the long run. No South Korean statesmen, however imperfect, would have placed their own country in such a place of risk in face of a North Korea problem. It was in our(US) global interest to have as many nations sign the agreement, because we wanted to keep the nuclear club to a minimum as possible. However, I do believe, as circumstances direct the means to our political ends and fate, the correct approach for the South Koreans to quell North Korean communism is to present an equal(if not better) and respectful measure of deterrance against their Northern enemy. Remember the “cold war” is nowhere over in the Far East. We should realize that our(US) “destiny” was realized by taking a certain faith in deterrance; we should learn from our own very good expereinces and encourage and support our allies to do the same.
By the way, academic reasearch into this nuclear proliferation issue will also point to the unbelievable amounts of revenue Americans gain by having such nations sign non-nuclear proliferation agreements. Anti-missile defense technology, primarily dominated by America’s military industry and its contracted companies, is a very much an area the US govt and the pertinent parties of interests are unwilling to let go of. Without their deterrant, the South Koreans are stuck in their hole of buying these anti-missile systems, which actually are not as effective as the Dept of Defense might have you believe; often times they are more defective than not. I also think it should be pointed out again that North Korea’s highest military hope—if they can even afford to venture into one—in this regional quagmire remains limited to South Korea; NK neither have the political will nor economic resources to come after us(US). One would be jumping to conclusions if he thought that the Nork’s were planning an attack on the Santa Monica shores. Their despicable ranting and rhetoric of hatred is merely the result of being tagged as one of the trinity evil in our campaign against terror concerning the Middle East. The lesson really is, let sleeping dogs lie. This whole business of securing US interests in the global sphere must be approached from a regional perspective than the current practice of tying one rogue to the other and its rest.
As a side note, I’m absolutely against anti-missile defense systems as serving as a nation’s sole form of military defense. One, its actual effectiveness remains a joke. Two, more importantly, it tends to appease the the nation’s citizens, leading them to the stupid cloud nine of utopianesque jibberish and the “possibility” of peace and mutual understanding only if one engaged in some hoaky “dialogue” with the North. Once again, if I hear one more time from these South Korean officials about how we need to have more “dialogue” with the North Koreans, I swear to the gods that I’m going to buy a plane ticket to Seoul so I can go and stranggle whoever’s neck til the elderman comes to better senses.
dear mrs johnson:
you don’t know me but i wanted to write to you about your son’s recent death in iraq. may i briefly introduce myself? my name is mrs. sook hwangbo and i live in the republic of korea. my son died in the vietnam war; his helicopter was shot down just minutes after takeoff. my son was 20. i read in the paper of your son’s passing. i read that he died when his chopter was shot down just moments after takeoff. that is why i am writing you today.
i want to to tell you that you need not feel sorrow at your son’s death. you should rejoice in the fact that his death will bring jobs to a good many americans. you should feel happy that your son falling to the ground means the american economy will benefit. and besides, mrs johnson, your son was paid, now, wasn’t he?
i imagine you’re a bit emotional right now with my apparent insensitivity but you’ll come to see the truth like i did long ago. you see, mrs johnson, an american guy told me about the same thing i am telling you now. my son’s death brought a good many jobs to korea, he told me. i should feel happy my son falling to the ground meant the korean economy benefited. he pointed out that my son was paid.
i hope my letter helps you in your grief, mrs johnson. remember, your son’s death means dollars for america. be strong. and do not expect thanks. remember, your son was paid.
sincerely,
sook hwangbo
your friend
sook hwangbo
btw, i hope mr marmot will allow me to go a bit off subject here. i want to tell you that twoenjang stew can be made many differnt ways. try flavoring it with bits of american bacon. put spam in it. start with a chicken or beef broth. pine nuts are good too. lots of onions, please. clam is a must for the that indescribable flavor of the ocean. put two kinds of tofu, hard and silken. man, that is some good shit! you’re going to feel full for a long time if you eat that with some rice and kimchi.
enjoy the positive of korea. eating is a pleasure.
UHMMMM, the dwoenjanggook-recipe sounds delicious, Mr. Shin Jong-Il. But what about another mouthwatering ingredient like mushrooms?
Ah, I?쨈m getting hungry…
PING:
TITLE: ‘??쨈?????? ?째쨍?????쩌 ?????짚’
BLOG NAME: Budaechigae ?쨋??흸??째흸?째흹
The menu over here at the Chigae house now seems to include crow…and I’m eating it. My puny attempt at punditry regarding the ROK deployment to Iraq fell pretty flat last week as both sides pretty much woked out that
PING:
TITLE: ‘??쨈?????? ?째쨍?????쩌 ?????짚’
BLOG NAME: Budaechigae ?쨋??흸??째흸?째흹
The menu over here at the Chigae house now seems to include crow…and I’m eating it. My puny attempt at punditry regarding the ROK deployment to Iraq fell pretty flat last week as both sides pretty much woked out that
PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-04-13
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
Does NK’s latest offer mean anything? Aid subsidizing NK regime’s depravity?; ROK forces to Iraq; RAND study of ROK-US relations; Major US military realignment; SK elections and key info sources; More on SK & Iraq; NK Freedom Day April 28; NK budget & …
PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-04-13
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
Does NK’s latest offer mean anything? Aid subsidizing NK regime’s depravity?; ROK forces to Iraq; RAND study of ROK-US relations; Major US military realignment; SK elections and key info sources; More on SK & Iraq; NK Freedom Day April 28; NK budget & …
PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-04-13
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
Does NK’s latest offer mean anything? Aid subsidizing NK regime’s depravity?; ROK forces to Iraq; RAND study of ROK-US relations; Major US military realignment; SK elections and key info sources; More on SK & Iraq; NK Freedom Day April 28; NK budget & …
PING:
TITLE: Eyes on Korea: 2004-04-13
BLOG NAME: Winds of Change.NET
Does NK’s latest offer mean anything? Aid subsidizing NK regime’s depravity?; ROK forces to Iraq; RAND study of ROK-US relations; Major US military realignment; SK elections and key info sources; More on SK & Iraq; NK Freedom Day April 28; NK budget & …