A realistic choice for South Korea

The Korea Herald, Asia News Network, Seoul

Not only Iraq but the entire world was shocked. Nobody had doubted the precipitous imbalance of firepower of the adversaries in this war of disputed moral justification. Still, the world had to hold its breath watching the U.S. wage another major "war with terror," demonstrating the dreadful capabilities of its high-tech weapons at stratospheric costs each hour.

While Pope John Paul lamented "a threat against the fate of humanity," Seoul was embroiled in a split of opinion since the outbreak of the war. Thousands continued rallies against the war and the Roh Moo-hyun administration's plan to dispatch troops to the war.

The debate cannot be dismissed as an impact of the universal anti-war sentiment and mounting criticism of the U.S. hegemony. There is clear reason why many Koreans believe South Korea's role in the Iraqi war is a serious issue calling for extra caution. They believe the issue involves crucial considerations in relation to North Korea's nuclear threats and Washington's anti- terror strategy of eliminating weapons of mass destruction possessed by "rogue states."

There is doubt that most South Koreans -- including the staunch anti-communist conservatives -- welcome President Roh's last-minute decision to support President George W. Bush's campaign to disarm Saddam Hussein.

In an obvious gesture to soothe the misgivings in Washington about his foreign policy, Roh announced last week that he supports the war and plans to send up to 700 non-combat troops, including some 600 engineers and 100 medical personnel.

No wonder Roh's decision is considered the most realistic choice when considering potential factors to determine the post- Iraq world order and geopolitics surrounding the peninsula. But such an acceptance has a somber lining of remorse stemming from concerns about possible consequences in the future.

It is unlikely that South Korea would voice skepticism about dispatching its troops to a war zone for the U.S. However, this war fails to warrant such a moral obligation between the two traditional allies. Witnessing the air raids in Iraq, it may be natural that quite a number of Koreans feel apprehensive about Bush's moves after Iraq -- how he will deal with North Korea that is on the other pole of his "axis of evil."

Faced with what they perceive as a looming danger to the security on the peninsula, it is understandable that more Koreans feel uneasy about the Bush administration's unilateral decision to go to war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime. Little wonder they are also concerned about the dominant opinion that, the U.S. interest in Iraq's rich oil reserves notwithstanding, the North Korean weapons of mass destruction pose greater danger than those of Iraq.

Now, an annoying question for these purists is whether South Korea will be justified in asking Bush to rule out military strike on Pyongyang from the many options on his table, when it has supported his war effort in Iraq. Will the world understand Seoul's bending of its principle? They insist that, by assisting with the war in Iraq, the nation will violate the Constitution that renounces "all aggressive wars."

The best scenario for peace-loving South Koreans should be that Kim Jong-il takes the hint from Bush's action against Saddam Hussein. They may also hope that President Bush and his policy advisors reconsider a preemptive strike as a means for "regime change" in countries already impoverished under ruthless dictators.

President Roh and his administration must make all possible efforts to create a diplomatic environment to prompt both leaders in Washington and Pyongyang toward a peaceful solution to their dangerous standoff. Roh also has to reconcile the anti-war passions of his young supporters with the practical need to improve relations with the U.S.