The fruits of Bush's visit to South Korea

Cracks emerge in US - S. Korea unity on Iraq, other issues
Decision to withdraw one-third of Seoul's troops next year catches US by surprise.
By Tom Regan | csmonitor.com

In a move that caught the Bush administration off-guard, South Korea's Defense Ministry said Friday that it would withdraw 1,000 of its 3,200 troops serving in Iraq. The Associated Press reports that the statement to the ruling Uri party came the day after President Bush met with South Korean leader Roh Moo-hyun, and the two leaders "insisted their countries' alliance was strong and agreed to work together to curb North Korea's nuclear weapons ambitions."

"We judge it's possible to withdraw some of the troops, considering the scale of projects scheduled for next year, the status of stabilization of Iraq and the trend in coalition forces," [Defense Minister Yoon Kwang-ung] said in a meeting with the ruling party, according to South Korea's Yonhap news agency.

South Korea's announcement caught the White House by surprise. "They have not informed the United States government of that," said National Security Council spokesman Frederick Jones.

The Los Angeles Times reports that South Korea's decision to withdraw troops "could prove embarrassing" to Mr. Bush because he was in that country to take part in a meeting of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) summit where "cooperation on Iraq promises to be a major discussion point." The S. Korean plan would see "doctors, nurses and construction workers" come home first. While a withdrawal of these forces would not be "a setback from a military standpoint," it reflects the "extreme" unpopularity of the conflict in the country, and ruling party leaders have been calling for a withdrawal for months.
While US media portrayed the discussion between Bush and Mr. Roh over N. Korea as one area where the two leaders saw eye-to-eye, South Korea media painted a somewhat more compolicated picture.

An editorial in the national newspaper Dong-A IIbo says that "the soundness of relations will only be proven when conflicts going on behind the diplomatic rhetoric are fully addressed."

Differences between the two countries have surfaced on several issues, such as the transfer of operational military control authority [in time of emergency, the US will command the theater of operations], the potential abolition of the War Reserve Stocks for Allies program [the maintenance of a reserve stock of weapons and ammunition by the US in South Korea], and the enhancement of Joint Operation Plan 5029 [yearly joint military exercises].

The Roh Administration's policy of greater self-reliance and stronger inter-Korean cooperation is pulling Korea and the US further apart. The resulting chasm between the two sides will end up being a huge burden that will weigh down the Korean people.

Comparing the remarks of Bush and Roh to the statements Roh made when meeting with Chinese President Hu Jintao on Wednesday, the Chosen IIbo writes that unlike China, "the Seoul-Washington relationship requires complicated verbal maneuvering." But, the paper argues, the South Korean leadership needs to realistically consider whom it can count on in a crisis.

The US and China are engaged in a war of nerves over hegemony in the Asia-Pacific, and no magic will allow South Korea, sandwiched between the two great powers, to strengthen ties with both at the same time. If "needless to say,? the Seoul-Beijing relationship is excellent, then the Seoul-Washington relationship must "needless to say" be less than excellent. Yet no one except those in the ruling party believes we can depend on China if a situation on the peninsula develops that we can't handle alone.

In an editorial, the Korean Herald portrayed the talks on North Korea as being positive and praised the two leaders for moving towards a unified stand on the issue. It also noted, however, that comments by Roh and Hu Jintao on North Korea needed to be considered by Pyongyang and Washington.

In this regard, Roh and Chinese President Hu Jintao were right to urge the two main antagonists to make concessions to move the two-year-long process forward. Roh and Hu said that "both parties shared the view that each party to the talks should show sincere flexibility on its position." One can easily guess to which parties they were referring.

The main point of the US-North Korea standoff is who should act first. The US side demands that Pyongyang dismantle its nuclear-related programs and activities before it gets new light water reactors, while the North insists the opposite. President George W. Bush, after meeting Roh, made it clear that the light water reactor will be considered only after "they have verifiably given up their nuclear weapons and, or, programs." We hope this should not be the precondition for conducting behind-the-scenes negotiations with the North before the resumption expected early next year of the six-party talks.

The New York Times also reported Thursday that while the two leaders made public statements of unity, "they steered clear of the differences in tactics that aides said formed the subtext of their daylong conversation."

The differences were underscored even as Mr Bush arrived in the country on Wednesday. South Korea's Unification Minister - whose office develops many of the new initiatives to entice the North - was telling reporters that he envisioned some kind of economic union between North and South Korea within 15 years. Mr Bush, in contrast, warned on Wednesday in a speech in Kyoto of "prison camps the size of whole cities" in the North, and many of his officials make no secret of their desire to see the government's collapse.

Meanwhile, The Washington Post reports that about 4,000 demonstrators marched on the APEC summit, being held in the port city of Pusan, carrying signs that read "Get rid of APEC" and "Let's get Bush." They were led by thousands of farmers, who have been angrily outspoken in South Korea over plans to liberalize the country's rice market.