Keynote Speech: Perspectives on the Iraq War and the Dispatch of Korean Troops

Keynote Speech: Rhee Yueng-hui

Urgent Public Forum: The Passage of the Government Resolution to Dispatch Troops in Support of the U.S. War Against Iraq

and the Anti-War Movement for Peace

Organised by:

Korean Political Studies Association

Sponsored by:

Democracy and Social Policy Institute, National Association of University Professors for Democracy, Korean Council of Academic Associations

Keynote Speech: “Perspectives on the Iraq War and the Dispatch of Korean Troops”

by Professor Emeritus Rhee Yueng-hui

1.. The U.S. Aggression of Iraq and After

The “Iraq War”has come to an end. As we need to use terms which correspond to the phenomenon they seek to describe, in terms of the motivations, characteristics, and objectives involved, the “Iraq War”should be called as the U.S. War of “aggression of Iraq”. Here I will endeavour to track through the kind of world that will emerge in its aftermath and what we should be thinking about.

Following the war, the 21st Century will, for some time, be a world of domination by a single power of the U.S., whose precedents can be found in the Roman Empire or the British Empire in the 18th and 19th Century.

There is, at least for the moment, no actor which can exercise a check against the tyranny and unilateral decision and action of the U.S., as has been demonstrated in the process of the current war. As has been shown in the current war, the “victory”secured by the U.S. will bring about a consolidation of the right wing war-loving forces within the U.S. The oil capital, military industry , the financial capital dominated by American Jews, media capital, and fundamental Christian movement, and the political forces which ride on them, will continue to bolster their strength, and become bold in their unchallenged drive for world domination.

The “New World Order”doctrine proclaimed by the former president Bush following the disappearance of the U.S.S.R. from the world map (1991), is brought to reality by the second president Bush. The new doctrine calls for:-

l no toleration for the emergence of a superpower state or a collective power group, in place of the Soviet Union, which was rivalry with, or stood hostile to, the U.S.;

l no toleration for the emergence and/or continuation of non-capitalistic state or system;

l deal swiftly with small nations, in cost effective manner, which do not comply with or submit to the American authority (five nations, Iran, Iraq, Syria, north Korea, and Cuba, have been named as the initial targets);

l the U.S. shall maintain a military power and capability that is absolutely superior to the total military power of the rest of the world;

l the U.S., will be effect to secure the consent and cooperation of the United Nations to achieve these objectives, but, if and when this is not possible, the U.S. shall undertake this effort militarily, on her own, unhindered by the UN.

The son Bush has set out to implement the plan of domination set in motion by the father Bush. The plan calls for achieving a global domination, which even the Roman Empire and the British Empire failed to accomplish. The humanity is poised to live through for a considerable time into the future in an era of invasion, war, and destruction. The prospect can be likened to the barbaric drive for world domination launched in 1930 by the Nazi Germany under Hitler.

The aggression of Iraq by the U.S. sets in motion a future whose terrible features have already began to take form and substance:

First, the America’s war is the start of a new 100-years religious war that sets out to divide the world into the Christian World and Muslim World. The U.S. is setting out alone to conduct the “Crusade”in every corner of the world, as the European Christendom had, in 12th and 13th Century, set out to plunder and massacre the Arab people in its Crusade in the name of God.

In the aftermath of the first world war, the nations of the world endeavoured to establish the League of Nations on the basis of Kantian ideals, such as “permanent peace”, as a multilateral system for discussion of universal norms, and peaceful resolution of conflicts. This initiative collapsed with the eruption of the second world war, starting with invasion of Manchuria and China by Japan and the drive for world domination undertaken by fascist states of Hittler Germany and of Mussoliny Italy.

The United Nations, that was established following the end of the second world war, emerged as the only international institution, despite its many weaknesses, that contributed to the maintenance of the stability in the world. Its capacity, however, suffered a major damage in the course of the U.S. Aggression of Iraq.

Second, there has emerged a deep schism between Europe and the U.S., which have, since the end of the second world war, engaged in common effort of dialogue and cooperation for democracy, peace, and prosperity. This signifies a crisis in the mechanism that has worked to ensure world peace.

Third, the peoples and nations of the Arab world, having suffered a major humiliation since the Crusade due to the war, are struck with a serious sense of powerlessness. The 1.5 billion Arab people and moslems are bound to develop a long-lasting hostility towards the U.S.

Conflicts that arise from political or economic issues can be resolved and healed through the efforts of parties involved. But, a religious conflict which derives from denying god of one by the other, and a disregard for one’s religion by another, as this war has become, is bound to call for more blood in the future.

Four, Israel, which has been moulded into an instrument of the U.S. for the domination of the Arab world, and having become strengthened as the “homeland”of Jews worldwide, is likely to step up its imperialistic and hostile orientation and policy. When the Arab world was able to maintain a common position, the U.S., having to appease the Arab World, had to press Israel to lessen the tension. But, there is no longer such imperative on the part of the U.S. to attempt to reign in Israel. A greater drive of repression and domination against the people of Palestine and the Arab world is likely to gain momentum.

Five, the successful capture of the control over oil by the U.S. through the war has made it an oil-superpower. The U.S. has established a firm control over the 4 major oil nations in the Black Sea area, stretching out from Afghanistan-Pakistan. Having established a firm control over the major central Asian nations of the former Soviet Union, such as, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan and the east Europe nations of Poland, Czech, Romania, and Hungary, the U.S. has successfully completed erecting a new cordon of political and economic, and especially military hegemonic-control over a vast region of the world, from eastern Europe to Pakistan. The U.S. has set in place a global infrastructure of domination in those areas, which were for few years following the Soviet Union’s exit left in power vacuum.

2.. Turning the Focus to the Korean Peninsula

The U.S. has secured a position whence it does not feel the need to engage in diplomatic negotiations or compromise with north Korea. This signifies the rise of an extremely serious crisis for the Korean peninsula and people.

The most crucial element of U.S.’s East Asia policy, within its medium term objective for the next 20 to 30 years in its global strategy, is to maintain a check on China, which has a potential to grow into a political, economic, and military power like the Soviet Union in the past. Keeping China in check is the central element of the long term plan of the U.S. in the 21st Century. Such a U.S. strategy lies behind the effort to rebuild Japan as a military power. The new military strategy that the Japanese government is expected to obtain parliamentary approval in Autumn 2003 calls for the establishment of a defence network in the outer most front aimed at applying pressure on and seal off Russia and China.

The various changes scheduled to be undertaken, such as, the revision of the Peace Constitution, the U.S.-Japan Military Operation Plan, the consolidation of military capacity, and the creation of a capacity to unilaterally conduct military operations, the repeal of the various legal impediments to military empowerment, will provide the U.S.-Japan military alliance a material and legal foundation for offensive capacity. All this is – while always pointing to north Korea as the pretext – aimed at consolidating the offensive character of the trilateral military alliance between the U.S., Japan, and south Korea, as the U.S. has put forward weapons of mass destruction as the rationale for its invasion of Iraq.

The ruling clique which dominates the U.S. is already speaking openly about the absence of the need to dialogue with north Korea. For them, there is no need for consultation, and action is the only remaining step left to be implemented. The next step is transforming the current defence treaty alliance arrangement from the parallel arrangement of alliance between the U.S. and south Korea and the U.S. and Japan into a solid triangular system by linking Japan and south Korea.

The long term vision of the military alliance system contemplated by the U.S. in countering China calls for Korea to come under the military hegemonic sponsorship of Japan which stands a proxy for the U.S. in the region. Japan, apart from the nuclear dimension, is already a military power that stands on the par with Russia or China. It is difficult to summarise in simple terms what kind of attitude or posture north Korea would take once the U.S. design begins to materialise.

Looking at northeast Asia from a global perspective, China will not be able to secure a capacity to stand on parity with the U.S. for a foreseeable future (perhaps 30 years). Consequently, she will not be ready to stress an independent posture, and will not wish to confront the U.S. head on. This leaves Taiwan and north Korea in the equation.

The fourth generation leadership in China emphasises pragmatism, that is, immediate concrete interest is preferred ahead of ideological considerations. Despite the firm agreement between Chou Enlai and Nixon in 1972, in which the U.S. recognised Taiwan as an integral part of China territorially and renounced the support for Taiwan’s ambition for independence, the U.S. is pursuing a policy of separating China and Taiwan. Taiwan’s military capacity, supported by the U.S. military assistance, has already reached a level which cannot be dismissed easily by China. The Chinese leadership, which cannot abandon the goal of restoring Taiwan into China’s territorial integrity, can entertain a new exchange deal in order to accomplish its historical mandate. It could, in a negotiation with the U.S. over north Korean issues, agree to accept the U.S. design for north Korea in return for securing its design over Taiwan. One cannot overlook an exchange or compensatory measure that can be contemplated by the U.S. which involves the likelihood of an tacit acceptance of nuclearisation of Taiwan as a means of deterrence against north Korea’s nuclear weapons development programme.

What lies ahead is a complex and difficult set of problems that requires great wealth and depth of international perspective and wisdom for the people of Korea to counter effectively. Peaceful coexistence, the survival and sovereignty of north Korea, the overall configuration of forces in and surrounding the Korean peninsula need to be considered in a systematic way.

Following the completion of the aggression of Iraq, the U.S. may make an effort to garnish its actions with an effort to develop consultation with south Korea. In reality, however, the U.S. will be demanding a meaningful progress in south Korea and Japan military alliance to be positioned against China-Russia alliance.

Mounting pressure to adopt a hard-line posture against north Korea, the re-affirmation of the operational command over the south Korean armed forces, the issue of re-deployment of the U.S. military bases in south Korea, programmes to build up the military capacity, the large scale purchase of new American weaponry, and many other demands are likely to inundate the south Korea-U.S. relations.

It will be gross mistake to expect the U.S. (especially the U.S. under the Bush Administration) to maintain a sincere adherence to a peace policy of Korean War 1950. The conservative groups in south Korea which have vested interest in rolling back the progress will ally closely with the war-loving forces of the U.S. and Japan to undertake much more determined, orchestrated, and cunning approach.

The position of the forces in south Korea which have struggled so hard to bring democracy, peace, reunification-movement, and human rights into the central stage in the society will become ever more difficult. What the future holds for them is an unprecedented conflict with those groups that are intent on solidifying the permanent U.S. military presence in south Korea and the permanent dependent relationship with the U.S. that may usher in a serious social and political rupture.

This has been an exercise to sketch an outline of the 21st century history of 100 years in broad strokes. In order to peer into future, it is important to have a clear understanding of the path taken by the U.S. in its imperialistic history (going back last half century). The most recent – or the current – mark of this history is its aggression of Iraq.

How surreal and unreal is this rhetoric of overthrowing a dictatorial regime and paving the way for the establishment of a democratic government! One only needs to look at the actions of the U.S. Over the past 50 years, the U.S. has never supported – in the Third World – a government that has refused to be founded on violence, corruption, plunder, foreign dependence, and anti-people orientation.

Of all the governments of countries in the Third World that have received the U.S. support, there is none which was not dictatorial, tyrannical, and corrupt. One only needs to recall regimes like the Samosa regime in Nicaragua and the Marcos regime in the Philippines. The U.S. has constantly supported regimes that were far worse than Iraq’s Hussein and his regime in terms of their anti-people policies. One common trait runs through all these regimes: they have all handed their countries over to the U.S.’s domination. The south Vietnam regime, Indonesia’s Suharto regime, etc.: their number runs into over 30.

On the other hand, governments which have pursued the effort to undertake a programme of social reform and progress based on independence, democracy, and the support of the people, have all been subjected to various coup d’etat with the support of covert and/or overt operations orchestrated by the U.S. The Mossadegh government in Iran, the Allende government in Chile are just two on top of the heap of subversive examples left in trail by the U.S.

Prior to the second world war, the U.S. had maintained its military bases overseas only in two countries: Panama and the Philippines. However, following the second world war, the number increased to 29, and in 2003 there are U.S. troops stationed in 69 countries. The current network of the overseas presence of the U.S. military is not aimed at “national defence”.

The south Korean government grounds its decision to dispatch the troops in support of the U.S. invasion of Iraq on the reality of the alliance south Korea is committed to with the United States of America. The “alliance”invoked by the south Korean government is the military alliance, defined in the “MUTUAL DEFENSE TREATY BETWEEN THE REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA”(1954).

The three corner stone of the 6 articles that make up the treaty are:

One, engage in military action only in compliance with spirit and resolution of the United Nations (Article 1, Mutual Defense Treaty [“refrain from … use of force in any manner inconsistent with the purpose of the United Nations, or obligations assumed … toward the United Nations”]);

Two, military action is to be confined to Pacific region (in all of the three sentences of the Preamble and Article 3, Mutual Defense Treaty [“Each party recognizes that an armed attack in the Pacific area on either of the Parties … would be dangerous to its own peace and safety and declares that it would act to meet the common danger in accordance with its constitutional processes”]);

Three, engage in military action only in response to an attack or threat from external armed attack (Article 2, [“The parties will consult together whenever … either of the Parties is threatened by external armed attack”]).

The “Note of Understanding”attached to the Treaty specifies that the U.S. has no obligation to come in support of south Korea in case of north Korean counter-attack arising from south Korea’s armed provocation against north Korea. The document repeats the key ‘message’ “shall note provoke”on six occasions in its short 6 articles of the treaty. Furthermore, it can be said that the document is at pains to impress that the commitment for cooperative military action should be spatially limited to Pacific area, reiterating it four times. Altogether, the Treaty outlines strictly limited conditions for military action that can be initiated under its auspice.

Given the specification of the Treaty, if the U.S. has no obligation to come to assist south Korea’s military action which is beyond the terms of the Treaty, then south Korea has no obligation to assist the provocative military action of the U.S. conducted outside the Pacific area, without the resolution of the United Nations.

The 29th General Assembly of the United Nations (December 14, 1974) adopted a resolution on the definition of “invasion”. All the actions of the United States towards Iraq falls within the authoritative definition.

Given this, the people of south Korea and the government need to consider thoutfully whether dispatching its troops for a war of invasion, a war that is in contravention of the Constititution of the country, is indeed in national interest.

At the time of the Vietnam War, the United States made repeated requests to the Great Britain to send troops. However, as the NATO’s military action was confined to Europe and that the American war in Vietnam was not based on the United Nations authorisation, the Great Britain made a unique decision. In the end, the British government did send 6 men guard of honour!

The American war of aggression against Iraq is a repeat of its Vietnam war. (One key factor in this is that the war is started on the basis of purely fabricated evidence and rationale.) Why should we send our troops to Iraq? A government that is more discriminating and capable of discerning the situation should give more thought to its actions.

I had an opportunity to present the arguments in a newspaper outlining the illegality of the war of invasion against Iraq being conducted by the U.S. and the reasons that speak against the dispatch of Korean troops for this war. Following is what I had conveyed to the President of the nation, the Speaker of the National Assembly, and all the members of the National Assembly, who were deliberating on the government bill for troop dispatch. I called on them to become cognizant of the following facts and/considerations in making their decision on the issue.

First, the United States of America is a country, which, in the past 50 years, gave support and encouraged those regimes which have been recorded in history as violent, barbaric, corrupt, decayed, anti-human rights, and dictatorial. The United States has no right or qualification to speak about the liberation for the Hussein regime or the effort to build a democratic government. All the rationale and grounds the U.S. has presented in an effort to justify and give legitimacy to its attack on Iraq have been found to be false. No weapons of mass destruction has been found in Iraq. No credible evidence on the basis of which the UN Security Council could decide to undertake sanctions against Iraq or to support the assertions of the United States has been brought to the attention of the international community.

Second, the UN Security Council’s deliberation on the various assertions made by the U.S. and/or the investigation of the UN monitoring mission sent to Iraq have all failed to bring to light any evidence that could corroborate the American claim. Thus, the military action undertaken by the U.S. constitutes a war of aggression. The U.S. is violating all the stipulation of the UN Security Council and the UN Charter that define the behaviour of nations in the society of nations. Hence, the military attack initiated by the U.S. against Iraq is clearly an act of a war of aggression.

Third, the dispatch of troops is in violation of the spirit of the United Nations Charter which forms the foundation of the Constitution of the Republic of Korea. The Constitution calls for contribution to world peace and common prosperity through international relations. Furthermore, the Constitution contains a specific provision ruling out a war of invasion (Article 5). The dispatch of troops stands in violation of the fundamental corner stone of the nation. As Republic of Korea is a state that was born out of a decision of the United Nations, contributing to the illegal war of invasion conducted by the United States that is not authorised by the United Nations Charter and the Security Council decision is a violation of the Charter itself.

Four, the attack on Iraq launched by the U.S. falls within the definition of “aggression”as outlined in the United Nations resolution on the definition of “aggression”(29th General Assembly, United Nations, December 14, 1974, Resolution No. 3314xxix) in all accounts (Articles 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7). Therefore, joining such an action is also an attack of aggression.

Five, the government officials, starting from the president, who support the troops dispatch, justify it in terms of the alliance between south Korea and the U.S. The “Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America”, entered into force in 1954, establishes very strict limits to military action. Alliance itself does not justify all kind of military action. The “Treaty”sets forward 4 conditions for military cooperation between the two countries. Of these, two are pertinent to current issue.

Military action by one party in the aid of another party – whether it is by Korea or by the U.S. – is possible and justified only in case where there is an “external armed attack”. And such legitimate military cooperation is to take place only within the confines of the “Pacific area”.

The “Treaty”does not call on Korea to take actions in support of a military action by the U.S. in the absence of an “armed attack”on the U.S. The reference to the “Treaty”to justify the decision to send troops to Iraq is not valid. Furthermore, the “Treaty”calls for the parties to “settle any international dispute in which they may be involved by peaceful means”. The “Treaty”, therefore, asks Korea and the U.S. whether they have done everything possible through peaceful means.

Has Iraq initiated an armed attack? Has the people of Iraq threatened any Korean national? Is Iraq located in Asia? Is it located in “Far East”, is it in the Pacific area?

The “Treaty”, in its first Article, stipulates “peaceful means”and “refrain from use of force”as its founding spirit. It reiterates “external armed attack”6 times, “Pacific area”4 times, and the exclusion of military action for all other cases 3 times in its 6 articles.

Six, we need to remind ourselves of the Vietnam war. In total, 350,000 Korean military personnel were sent to Vietnam; at any moment, there were 50,000 Korean troops waging war in support of the United States. At the time, the dispatch of Korean troops was not justified with reference to the “Treaty”. The United States knew very well that the “Treaty”did not provide a legitimate grounds to call on Korea to send troops to Vietnam.

The United States persuaded the south Vietnam regime to independently request the government of south Korea to assist in its military action. There are many, however, who, based on ignorance or deceit, claim that Korean troops did not go to Vietnam on the basis of the request of the United States, that the Korean government made a voluntary decision without the U.S. request. The reality was that, the U.S., knowing that it had no grounds to ask the government of Korea to send troops on the basis of the “Treaty”brought in the government of south Vietnam to make the “formal”request to by-pass the problem raised by the “Treaty”.

Seven, one needs to counter properly the assertions of rightist conservatives, U.S.-worshippers, and/or the so-called anti-communists, who are insist that the gratitude Koreans should pay to the U.S. for its help in the Korean war can never be exhausted. Countering this argument does not require any thing more than pointing to some other historical cases.

At the time of the Vietnam war, the Great Britain did not make any contribution to the U.S. war campaign. However, unable to entirely turn its back to the U.S. request, it sent a 6-men guard of honour to be stationed at the Saigon airport, to receive incoming delegations. This was all the Great Britain did to create an appearance of its support for the U.S. campaign in Vietnam. The Great Britain, we should recall, was revived after the decimating impact of the second world war because of the support and assistance of the United States. Political logic and circumstances would require such a country, especially as it is bound with the U.S. through family and blood ties, to have supported the U.S. far more enthusiastically than Korea had done. But, it is a lesson in political relations and international relations to be reminded that Britain had only send a 6-men guard of honour.

Eight, “national interest”is important, but the means through which it is secured is paramount. The means to achieve “national interest”should be guided by moral or ethical criteria. There are “materialistic”forces which would resort to murders, plunder, destruction, arson to invade and dominate another country to make money, to create market, and to seize control of oil. The damage to nation’s dignity and moral integrity of its people suffered in the course of securing economic interest cannot be calculated. How useful would the wealth obtained in such a way contribute to the well-being of the people and the national interest?

Nine, President Roh Moo-hyun was at pains to explain that his decision to send the troops to Iraq was out of a strategic consideration for a peaceful resolution of the tension between north Korea and the U.S. over the question of north Korea’s nuclear weapons development programme. However, it is an incomprehensible error of reason to arrive at a decision to support war to resolve the crisis of war in the Korean peninsula and to dissipate the U.S. military threat against north Korea.

The United States of America, especially under the control of the Bush Administration and the hawkish elements of the Republican Party, is guided only by what is in its interest. The “wish and aspiration of an ally nation”does not enter into consideration in deciding on its course of action. It is an enormous error of judgement and reason to think our “flattering”and “platitudes”can influence the U.S. decision to go to war. The regime that guide the actions of the U.S. are totally guided by its own philosophy, policy, and interests and no others!

Eleven, people of south Korea, through a long process of struggle for democracy, have developed a high level of democratic consciousness and moral standard. Korean people have earned the respect of the world and it is vital that the integrity be upheld through a decision not to join in the war of aggression. Korea, as people and a nation, need to show the world the independence and integrity of mind and action in the current situation.

There are reports that Korean government is requested to dispatch military personnel to guard POW camps. POW camp guards are, in future when a war crimes tribunal is held, most prone to be held for indictment. During the second world war, Japanese military assigned Korean nationals as guards at the POW camps which held the soldiers of the Allied nations. Following the war, Korean POW camp guards were indicted as lackeys of the Japanese military in war crimes tribunal and many were sentenced to death. Working as POW camp guards exposes oneself to being categorised as first class war criminal and liable to death penalty.

Thirteen, do the people of Korea have a reason to turn 1.5 billion Arab people into enemies? There is no reason at all to create new enemies which will only hinder the already difficult and complex international relations and diplomacy. The Arab people and the Muslim world are bound to harness themselves to overcome the humiliation they have suffered. We need to place ourselves at the receiving end of such a justified anger.

Fourteen, around the time of inauguration, president Roh Moo-hyun has stressed his determination to “speak what needs to be spoken about the U.S. Korea needs to uphold a stance of independence of mind and action in its relationship with the U.S.”The recent development, however, begs the question, “is this what is meant by speaking out what needs to be spoken”? What is happening is a series of self-betrayal, and betrayal of the people who had trusted the commitment. This is bound to cause severe damage to the integrity of the nation and the state.

Fifteen, if south Korea ends up sending troops to Iraq and comply with the wishes of the U.S., south Korea will further enmesh itself in a relationship of dependence to the U.S. South Korea has for long been regarded as a “protectorate”of the U.S. in the eyes of the international community and this perception will be aggravated by the long term consequences of the decision to send its troops in support of the U.S.

Lastly, can there be any credible ground to counter the U.S.’s policy towards the Korean peninsula and its hostile attitude to north Korea after having approved, supported, and given legitimacy to the U.S. decision to resort to invasion to deal with the issue at hand?

The U.S. is, in all likelihood, open to act without due regard to south Korea’s demands and wishes. This prompts a question: is there a secret treaty which binds south Korea to support the U.S. aggression of Iraq and send troops in spite of these grave concerns? Is there another, secret, treaty which stands over the “Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America”which stipulate obligations on south Korea over and above those specified in the “Mutual Defense Treaty”? If there is, then it should be made known to the people. And it must be nullified on the basis of the Constitution of the country and the “Mutual Defense Treaty between the Republic of Korea and the United States of America”.

Professor Emeritus Rhee Yueng Hui

Born in 1929 in Sakju, North Pyungan-do province

Army major (Ret), infantry

Studied in Korea Maritime University, Graduate School of Northwestern University (US)

Editor of the international news department of Hapdong News Agency and Daily Chosun Ilbo newspaper

Worked as professor of journalism at Hanyang University, visiting professor at the Social Sciences Institute of the University of Tokyo, assistant professor at the University of California – Berkeley (teaching “100 year history of Korean people’s struggle against foreign domination”and “struggle for democratisation in south Korea”

Served as a member in the Reunification Policy Review Commission of the National Board of Unification

Books

– the arguments in period of transition (1974)

– dialogue with 800 million people (1977)

– idol and reason (1977)

– white paper on China (1982)

– a country of billion people (1983)

– path of struggle and toil (1988)

– a bird flies with left and right wings (1994)

– the nose of Sphinx (1998)

the myth of a half century (1999)