NEA Troop Deployment to Iraq

With most press outlets focused on the U.S. military presence in Iraq, little is mentioned about the activities of other coalition forces in the region. Of these forces, the U.K. perhaps receives the most attention. But Japan and South Korea have a total of 4,100 military or defense personnel in the region of which 3,900 are specifically in Iraq.

As seen in my post on the Japan election, the fact that the Japanese Parliament allowed the Iraq deployment is an important topic for the NEA region:

"In addition to internal political opposition to the Iraq deployment -- which was agreed to only after a ferocious fight in the parliament that included a no-confidence vote against Mr. Koizumi and a filibuster -- there is the attitude of the other nations of Asia toward Japanese rearmament. The Chinese have declared themselves four-square against the Japanese Iraq deployment, for example.

Bitter memories of Japanese military occupation linger across the region. And there is no denying that the idea of a strong, vigorous, technologically advanced Japanese economy harnessed to military force could inspire fear among the neighbors."

In addition, South Korea’s deployment also occurred in the face of domestic hesitance, and in some cases, clear opposition:

The sensitive US request for South Korean troops came in September, splitting public opinion and triggering demonstrations both for and against the dispatch.

The Madrid bombings claimed by Al-Qaeda which killed more than 200 last week prompted South Korean Prime Minister Goh Kun, the acting president, to put the country on high alert against possible terror attacks.

He said countries with troops in Iraq were "main targets" for terrorist attacks.

Foreign Minster Ban said the troop deployment was not to be affected by the threat and said South Korea "stands firm and committed to fighting international terrorism."

A closer look at both deployment decisions reveals that they were quite conditional. In regards to Japan:

The advance team will set up camp in the relatively peaceful southern town of Samawah, in anticipation of the arrival of the main force of up to 600 soldiers. The full contingent, expected to arrive by March (2004), will carry out reconstruction tasks.

And for South Korea:

South Korea originally had planned to send troops to the northern Iraqi town of Kirkuk as early as April (2004). The plan was canceled amid concerns it would involve combat operations, in violation of a parliamentary mandate for peacekeeping duties only.

"In the early days, when we decided to send troops, there was a burden that our troops had to assist security directly or indirectly and take defensive actions, though the troops were only for reconstruction," Roh told Uri party members on Wednesday. "But the safety of the troops has increased as the destination changed to Irbil from Kirkuk," Roh said. He was quoted by South Korea's national news agency, Yonhap.

Seoul has portrayed the deployment as a way of strengthening South Korea's alliance with the United States and winning more support from Washington for a peaceful end to the North Korean nuclear crisis. Washington has a large troop presence in South Korea. South Korea already has 600 military medics and engineers in the southern Iraqi city of Nasiriyah.

Since those decisions, at least parts of the Japanese defense personnel have been in Iraq since January 19, 2004, and at least parts of the South Korean contingent since Summer 2003. This is a considerable amount of time and the results of each deployment reflect the level of investment made and risks taken.

Japan Self-Defense Forces

In Chrenkoff’s "Good News from Iraq" series, a couple news pieces on Japan:

"Japanese Self-Defence Forces, in conjunction with the official Japanese aid agency, will be repairing a sports stadium in Samawah, where the Japanese troops are based. "The 40 million yen [$0.35 million] project is expected to generate a large number of jobs for local people in the southern Iraqi city during the about four months it lasts.""

"And here are more details about the new power station that the Japanese government has committed itself to construct in Samawah city. It will add another 60 MW to the national power grid and more than double the electricity supply in the Al-Muthanna province."

"The Japanese Cabinet has made the decision to continue the activities of the Self Defense Forces (SDF) centering on humanitarian and reconstruction assistance by revising the Basic Plan on the measures based on the Special Measures Law on Humanitarian and Reconstruction Assistance in Iraq. Activities of the SDF such as water supply, medical services, as well as rehabilitation and maintenance of schools and other public facilities, have restored and enhanced the basic infrastructure for the life of local residents and also contributed to their job creation."

However, some have highlighted in the past suspicions about the Japanese presence:

The World Socialist Web Site has previously explained that one of the main reasons behind Japan’s decision to deploy troops to Iraq was to secure access to the country’s oil supplies. Japanese corporations are seeking rights to develop the one-billion-barrel Al Gharaf oilfield in southern Iraq. Interest in the oil field dates back to the late 1980s, when Iraq was one of Japan’s main suppliers of oil and Japan was one of Iraq’s largest trading partners.

As the Stratfor article noted, the oil field, which is estimated to produce 130,000 barrels a day, is located just 40 miles due east of Samawa. The military base is thus very conveniently located to look after Japanese corporate interests. And the 10 billion yen has been placed "in just the right hands" to ensure that local tribes will look after Japan’s oil investment in the long term, as well as Japanese troops in the short term.

While Koizumi claims that the troop deployment will be reconsidered in the event of fighting in the Samawa area, exactly the opposite is the case. The soldiers have been sent to Iraq to defend the interests of Japanese imperialism both immediately in the Al Gharaf oilfield and more broadly by establishing a precedent for dispatching troops elsewhere.

A recent Japan Times editorial from September 30 is more tempered:

The government has opted to extend by one year the Maritime Self-Defense Force mission to supply fuel in the Indian Ocean to ships of the U.S. Navy and allied nations engaged in antiterrorist activities related to security in Afghanistan. A law specifying a duration of two years—enacted after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in the United States—has enabled the MSDF mission so far. That law will expire Nov. 1. The legislation raised a constitutional question, and should not be extended offhandedly.

International cooperation is important for thwarting terrorism. Afghanistan took a landmark step in its march toward peace and democracy by holding elections Sept. 18 for the National Assembly and Provincial Councils, the first such elections under its new Constitution. The fact that the elections occurred with relatively little confusion was a sign of progress that strengthens the case for ending the MSDF's mission.

Regrettably, this issue was not publicly debated during the recent election campaign as Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi chose to focus on one issue essentially -- the postal service privatization bills. The government is scheduled to submit a revision bill that would extend the MSDF mission by one year to the current special session of the Diet. Thorough discussion is demanded of legislators.
The LDP's landslide victory in the Lower House election Sept. 11 may have led Mr. Koizumi to think that a revision to the law will easily pass the Diet. The government is also most likely to choose to extend the GSDF unit's mission in Samawa, which is due to expire in mid-December.

It is impossible to contain terrorism by military means alone. Japan should expand its activities that concentrate on eliminating the social and economic causes of terrorism in cooperation with other nations under the leadership of the United Nations.

Actually, the Australian troop contingent is currently providing the Japanese contingent armed protection as Australia's Prime Minister John Howard stated in an announcement in February:

"A task force of about 450 troops is to be sent to Iraq, increasing Australia's military contingent there by some 50 per cent... The task force, which will have infantry and cavalry units as well as some 40 armored vehicles, will be assisting the roles of Japanese troops currently serving in southern Iraq...

”Their primary task will be providing security for the Japanese engineering and support forces doing humanitarian work in the Al Mutthanna province. The first (task) will be to provide a secure environment for the Japanese engineering and support forces which are making a valuable humanitarian contribution to the rebuilding process,” Mr Howard said.

South Korean Military

The South Korean military has its own website established for the Zaytun unit in Iraq.The most recent headlines highlight the first anniversary of the unit’s deployment to Iraq:

The Republic of Korea's Zaytun Division, which is performing peacekeeping and reconstruction missions in Irbil, northern Iraq, marked the first anniversary of its deployment to the war-torn country on Aug. 3.  The division was created in February 2004 and its advance force left for Kuwait on Aug. 3 last year. In the following month, about 3,000 soldiers arrived in Irbil in several phases, after undergoing adaptation training in the desert at Camp Virginia.

Once the soldiers completed building barracks in the sprawled wilderness and installation of security equipment, they were immediately engaged in civil affairs operations for local residents and the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG).

So far, the Zaytun Division has been mainly involved in supporting the provision of various equipment and relief materials. It has also operated a technical training center where Iraqi people were educated on various skills including computer and bakery and a class for illiterate people in an effort to give substantive support.

They have been also involved in rehabilitating infrastructure facilities for residents such as water supply/sewerage, road pavements, school renovations, and constructing town halls.

Over the past year, Zaytun troops dedicated themselves to the peacekeeping and reconstruction missions, overcoming various barriers. As a result, they managed to succeed in winning over the minds and hearts of local residents.

One of the most popular projects has been a moving clinic and technical training center:

Among the division's multi-functioning civil-affairs operations, drawing the most enthusiastic receptions among local people are moving clinics and repairs of home appliances, the division officers say. The technical training center where a total of 127 locals were educated is also among popular programs.

The division spent a total of 17.1 billion won on carrying out those missions last year and has secured 18.3 billion won of budget this year.

Based on local sensitivities, Korean forces operate as troops committed to humanitarian causes.They have succeeded in being perceived as an exemplary force in support of peace and reconstruction. The 1,115 km-long journey from Kuwait to Irbil, not to mention the massive sea-borne transportation of Korean arms and equipment to Kuwait, has opened a new chapter in Korean troops' expeditionary history abroad.

The division officers say also that they feel most gratified in that it has succeeded in creating an image as a "model troop for peace and reconstruction" as a result of concentrating efforts on providing humanitarian aids. The division is soon supposed to provide security service for the Irbil regional office of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), in addition to its civil affairs operations.

In June of 2004, an editorial in the People’s Daily of China commented on the South Korean commitments:

After the news about the beheading of Kim Soong Il was confirmed, ROK President Roh Moo-hyun made a brief TV speech on June 23, in which he apologized to ROK nationals for the matter, meanwhile he reiterated that the ROK would not change its plan to send troops to Iraq. Roh Moo-hyun said, "Although all nationals and the government longed and prayed for a safe return of Kim Soong Il, yet the tragedy still occurred, I feel very sad and deeply sorry for this."

Seoul did not yield to terrorists and continued to carry out its commitment to dispatch additional troops to Iraq in August. That was expectable. If the ROK declared troop withdrawal because of its national being kidnapped, the ROK government's reputation in the international community would obviously be greatly impaired. Particularly after the United States declared in early June that it would pull 12,500 troops out of the ROK, Chong Wa Dae came out hurriedly to mend the rift in ROK-US alliance relations. So from whatever angle, President Roh Moo-hyun was left with no room for openly making concession on the question of the kidnapping of Kim Soong Il.

However, Chong Wa Dae is incapable of protecting its people. To maintain ROK-US military alliance at the expense of the life of Kim Soong Il will, under all circumstances, cause the Roh administration to leave a moral defect in the minds of the S. Korean people. Presently, the ROK is deeply grieved over the death of the innocent citizen, and indignant at terrorists' rampancy. And the world will inevitably feel distressed over the cruel scene. Kim Soong Il's event will definitely bring a new shock to the ROK political circle. But for the Roh administration, there are not many optional opportunities. The political force opposing the dispatch of troops may find it hard to get enough votes from the National Assembly to veto the proposal on sending additional troops to Iraq, which is soon to be put to vote.

The North Korean KCNA was predictably not so charitable about the South Korean deployment:

Pyongyang, June 27, 2004—The Reunification Solidarity of south Korea reportedly made public a statement on June 19 denouncing the government and the Uri Party for reconfirming the decision to send troops to Iraq at a time when the movement against the troop dispatch to Iraq is under way worldwide. At last the government and the ruling party have opted for joining in the war of aggression in defiance of the people's demand, the statement said.

It demanded the present political camp immediately stop deceiving the people aspiring after independence, peace and reunification and withdraw the decision to send troops to Iraq.

Labor organizations and students' organizations of south Korea also published statements on June 21 rapping at the government's decision to send additional troops to Iraq. The south Korean Confederation of Trade Unions in a statement noted that the decision of the government to send additional troops to Iraq without any justification and benefit is an unjustifiable and disgraceful action.

The General Students Council of Yonsei University issued a statement declaring that the real criminal that is driving the south Koreans to death was none other than the U.S. that started the Iraqi war of aggression and the government that decided to send troops there toeing the U.S. line.

And most recently:

Pyongyang, September 22—Yun Kwang Ung, minister of National Defence of south Korea, at a symposium held at the "National Assembly" on Sept. 15 said that he would keep Jaitun unit stationed in Arbil, Iraq, next year, too, according to south Korean MBC. All the fellow countrymen are now strongly demanding the immediate withdrawal of the south Korean troops from Iraq, bitterly denouncing the south Korean military authorities for their criminal acts of serving as a shock brigade of the U.S. imperialists' war of aggression.
   
However, the south Korean military authorities' balderdash is not only an open challenge to the public demand at home and abroad but also a reckless act betraying their bellicose character again.

Openly asserting that experience of actual war in Iraq will become hard core in pressurizing the north, the bellicose elements of south Korea have conducted all military operations there under the simulated conditions of "emergency" in the Korean Peninsula.

The south Korean military authorities' assertion is no more than an open revelation of their ulterior intention to accumulate more combat experience in Iraq to provide for a war of aggression against the north.

*********************************************************************************************************************

In looking at both Japan and South Korea’s deployments, the common theme is a domestic hesitance to tackle Iraq as an independent, assertive move. Rather, American influence, whether overt or not, is the common and primary factor for deployment decisions, with Japan deploying from a point of historical passivity following WWII and South Korea deploying from a sense of obligation in face of Korean Peninsula security issues.

As seen in the news as reported from Iraq, however, distinct differences appear. The South Korean contingent has its own PR operation, including the above cited website. Japan on the other hand has reported little in terms of specific details about the interaction between Japanese SDF personnel and Iraqis, or about humanitarian and construction projects. Koizumi was known to pressure media from covering the contingent—a move some saw as a way to avoid image problems if a Japanese soldier was killed while in Iraq. However, it also fails to show the public any true good the contingent is doing as an ambassador of Japan in Iraq.

Ironically, the country where most anti-U.S. sentiment occurs, South Korea, is the most engaging in Iraq possessing one of the largest coalition contingents. At the same time, South Korea has compulsory military training for men, of which some are selected to train with U.S. forces. I’ve had the chance to meet some of these trainees and have rarely heard negative impressions in regards to the American forces. With this training in mind, and after some reported hesitance to be proactive in Iraq initially, I can imagine the South Korean forces over time would interact more with the local population and this can be seen in the above anniversary press release. The fact that there even is an "anniversary" celebration indicates the government’s effort to shine a positive light on its participation in Iraq and not bury it in the way of Japan.

With both Japan and South Korea extending the force deployments in Iraq into 2006, it will be interesting to see how their roles develop assuming Iraq develops into an increasingly stable democratic country. There will be plenty of opportunities for both countries to transfer the knowledge and technology they’ve acquired since their own experience with war, tragedy, and democracy. The Iraq experience will also be brought back with the soldiers and lessons learned will likely lead directly into related discussions of the role of the military in Japan and of the combined role of US/SK forces in ensuring Korean Peninsula stability.

Hopefully, Japan and South Korea might also use this as one area in which some common ground could be sought towards a broader NEA security agreement, including China, in the vein that Thomas Barnett often touches upon. By doing so, it would place tremendous pressure on North Korea to cave into demands for reform. Wishful thinking indeed; however, I believe it is worth pondering. An obvious sticking point would be Taiwan, but if North Korea were to succumb to the right combination of incentives and pressure, more resources and efforts could be focused on finding solutions to the Taiwan issue. In the end, it will require NEA nations to ask "What do we all seek in common?" rather than "What is it that so strongly divides us?"