South Korea Votes to Send Non - Combat Troops to Iraq

New York Times ^ | 4/2/03

[areafiftyone]

SEOUL (Reuters) - South Korea's parliament voted on Wednesday to send non-combat troops to Iraq, handing a political victory to new President Roh Moo-hyun in the face of widespread opposition to the U.S.-led war to oust President Saddam Hussein.

The National Assembly voted to send about 700 medical and engineering personnel to Iraq after Roh told lawmakers that cementing close ties with Washington was key to securing peace on the divided Korean peninsula.

The vote in the opposition-led assembly was 179 in favor and 68 against, with nine abstentions.

Lawmakers had already delayed the vote three times because of public hostility to the proposal.

As they debated, about 2,000 anti-war protesters shouting slogans and brandishing placards scuffled with riot police outside parliament. One demonstrator was led away, blood streaming from a head wound.

An opinion poll released by the presidential Blue House on Wednesday showed 54.9 percent of South Korean respondents favor sending non-combat troops to Iraq, but 86.3 percent oppose the war.

South Korea is one of the United States' closest allies, but many of Roh's supporters, particularly young voters, chafe at the presence of 37,000 U.S. troops in the country.

The president himself, who took office on February 25, won election pledging a more mature and equal partnership with Washington.

In a speech to parliament, Roh acknowledged the case made by his opponents that the war against Iraq lacked moral justification. Global politics, he said, were being driven by the ``forces of reality.''

But Roh said South Korea could not ignore that its national interest lay in maintaining close ties with the United States because of the role it played in deterring communist North Korea.

North Korea has 1.1 million men in its armed forces, many of them deployed near the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ), which has divided the two Koreas since the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce rather than a peace treaty.

``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,'' Roh said.

GOING BALLISTIC?

Conservatives backed Roh's initiative, citing the need for U.S. help in defusing tensions generated by North Korea's suspected nuclear arms program, which the president said still posed a danger for the South.

South Korea is on high alert in case the North seeks to grab attention during the Iraq war by conducting a ballistic missile test that would break deals it reached with Washington and Tokyo.

Pyongyang set alarm bells ringing when it tested a ballistic missile in 1998 that flew across Japan and into the sea beyond, and U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage said a new test was quite possible.

``I would not be surprised to see a test, particularly after the launch of the satellite,'' Armitage said in an interview with Japan's Yomiuiri Shimbun newspaper published on Wednesday.

Armitage was referring to the launch last week by Japan of two spy satellites giving Tokyo its first independent opportunity to scrutinize North Korea from space.

Pyongyang, which denounced the launch as a ``hostile act'' that could trigger a regional arms race, is demanding two-way security talks with the United States and has sought to sideline Seoul.

North Korea has taken a series of steps to ratchet up pressure on the United States since Washington's announcement in October that Pyongyang had admitted to pursuing a covert program to enrich uranium for weapons.

The United States wants multilateral talks, but Armitage said Washington would be flexible on the framework.

``We don't have a condition on the size of the table, or the shape of the table -- we just need to make it very clear that this is not a bilateral issue between the U.S. and North Korea, it affects many of the neighbors,'' he told the Yomiuri Shimbun.

[RoseofTexas]

Close to 90% oppose the Iraq WAR?? Hell don't they know what's in their BACKYARD?? The NK is practically chewing their BUTTS off and they oppose OUR war?? MY,MY, they better pray ROYALLY to their gods that they will never need the USA if they EVER get attack by NK!! Because I'll be one, of the 90% here at home that will OPPOSE covering their butts!!! COUNT ON IT!

[Frapster]

It was not very well reported but there was a demonstration in Seoul recently that garnered at least 100,000 people in demonstration of their SUPPORT of the war. I know I've seen pictures on FR.

[kellynla]

I wish South Korea would send the ROK Marines. The ROK's are some of the finest troops I have ever had the priviledge of knowing and fighting with. The ROK's were with us in Nam. And don't kid yourself, the NK's don't want any part of the SK forces. The South Koreans armed forces are some of the bravest on the planet and I would go into combat with them on any day. The ROK's would chew up the NK's and spit them out in a NY second. Semper Fi

[Exit148]

Another little slap-in-the-face to France.

[gcruse]

No, let's just take the US combat troops we already have in SK and bring them to the battle. SK troops should be guarding South Korea anyway. And since SK thinks NK has such peaceful aims, then the non-combat troops they want to send to Iraq should be just fine for border duty at the DMZ.

[dead]

While they're at it, could they send some dry water?

[OahuBreeze]

This is a very strange dillemma. Pres Roh said yesterday that, regardless of whether the ROK supported the war in principle, they needed to try to repair damage done to the alliance and to try to restore investors' confidence in the strength of the US/ROK alliance. A Grand National Party lawmaker immediately said that was a dangerous thing to say. He is exactly right: Roh is supporting this for mercenary, not principled, purposes. Granted, they are only non-combat troops -- though, they can easily be perceived, if we follow propaganda, as an occupying force, and could be attacked, and, as a military force, will defend themselves (vice just sending money or civilian aid workers over). It is unfortunate this President and this nation needs to compromise their principle on this issue. Personally, I had no problem with Turkey doing it, since 80% of the electorate was against it, and the percentage of split in the congress was much narrower -- they can still be a good ally. The problem in the ROK is, Pres Roh ingenuously played the anti-American card to get elected, and now he is being called to account (waste your credibility on baubles, and the day of reckoning is more expensive). There is a real problem with saying you are supporting sending troops to a war you don't believe in, just to get goodies. I think the discrepancy in the ROK polls -- 86% opposing war but 54.9% favoring sending troops tells you where the interests of the electorate lies -- and, trust me, it's not in getting the back of their faithful ally.