Does Korea not want to receive props?

The Marmot and Oranckay have talked about President Bush not mentioning Korea in his nomination speech when he listed off some of the 30+ nations which are helping in Iraq.

Maybe someone already mentioned this in one of their extensive comments sections but perhaps Korea does not want to be praised for its part in rebuilding Iraq. That would be in keeping with two things:

First, Korea is taking a very low profile in its deployment to Iraq. We just aren't hearing much about it. I think the thought here on the part of the Korean government is that they might be able to avoid terrorist attacks if they are not too conspicuous.

Second, while Presidents Roh and Bush have worked surprisingly well together at times, Bush is the devil to many on the Korean left. Roh's government might not want to receive praise from Bush at such a high-profile event.

Both America and Iraq have previously expressed thanks to Korea for its participation and I'm sure will thank it again in the future. However, if Bush's omission was an oversight, then it was indeed inexcusable.

UPDATE: If the Korean government really wants to be low key, the Korean press certainly doesn't. The Chosun seems especially unhappy. Also check out this Chosun cartoon:

There is an English caption but I think the drawing speaks for itself. BTW, can you play 'spot the Japanese' in that drawing?

While the Korean government doesn't seem to be too worked up about the omission, I think a quick call from the White House to the Blue House might be in order, at least for appearance sake.

A final point, I think Bush might have missed out on scoring some good rhetorical points. What if he would have said something like this:

'I would like to take this opportunity to thank our allies who are standing side-by-side with us in helping Iraq; Albania, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Honduras, Hungary, Italy, Japan, Kazakhstan, South Korea, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Thailand, United Kingdom, and Ukraine.'

I think the crowd would have instinctively build up its applause as Bush went through the list. It would have also been a most eloquent rebuttal to the charges of unilateralism that are often laid against the administration.

Comments

[oranckay.net/blog]

RE: "Second, while Presidents Roh and Bush have worked surprisingly well together at times, Bush is the devil to many on the Korean left. Roh's government might not want to receive praise from Bush at such a high-profile event."

While that might make sense on paper, it does not take into account the nature of anti-Americanism or the political climate in Korea.

Those who are anti-American no matter what won't oppose Roh any more than they already do. They're certainly not going to be any more displeased with him if Bush expresses his thanks on national television. Remember how Rice came to Seoul and said the US appreciates what Korea is doing (as kindly mentioned in your fine blog).

There is a certain strain, and IMHO a larger "school of feeling" that feels anger towards the US. It can be seen at the candelight protests for the two middle school girls... anger, but not necessarily calling for the US to withdraw or annulment of the alliance.

People in the "raging angry at America but don't necessarily want 'em to leave" category have an expression that's been around for decades, that Korea is in "a one-sided love towards America." I'm serious. Try a Google search of 미국에 대한 짝사랑 and you can see how it's almost an expression in the Korean language.

In other words, many will be angry with the US for lack of mention, others will be further angry with Roh for going through all that trouble for the alliance (as opposed to Iraq). Some Koreans will say "See! Roh's such a fool! He does so much for the sake of the alliance and for what?"

To quote Gator in a comment @ Marmot some time ago.

Yes, we need oil, we need US market, and indeed we need the deployment of US troops in Korean. Above all, we also know what the penalty would be if we would refuse to send our troops to Iraq.
But the US demand of sending our troops is not “polite asking.” As you know, the arrogant Bush as a way to manage domestic criticism on the Iraq issue tries to threaten other countries whose economy is much dependent on the US market to dispatch combat units in Iraq.
However, I don’t think Bush will appreciate it even if we send our troops to Iraq. Historically, bad guys always stab their friends in the back after all. In Bush’s eyes, US-Korea relationship is even not alliance but subordinate one. In his eyes, we are not a friend but a servant.
I don’t think we have much to lose even though we do not send our troops.

[Gerry Bevers]

Leaving Korea off the list was obviously deliberate, and there are, at least, two possible reasons.

One reason could be that President Roh asked the President Bush not to list Korea, for fear that it might attract the attention of terrorists in Iraq. The other reason, however, is far more likely; which is, Korea and President Roh did not fit into the lists outlined by the President.

Notice how President Bush prefaces the two lists:

And I deeply appreciate the courage and wise counsel of leaders like ....

Did President Roh show courage or give wise counsel? No. In fact, when President Roh announced the dispact of Korean troops to Iraq, he said that he was against the war but was sending troops for "realistic reasons," which essentially meant he expected favors from the US or feared the US would retaliate in some way. That does not sound courageous, and it certainly does not sound like he would be able to give President Bush any wise counsel since he did not agree with the war in the first place.

Again, my opponent takes a different approach. In the midst of war, he has called America's allies, quote, a "coalition of the coerced and the bribed." That would be nations like ....

Korea would also not fit into the above list since President Bush was using it to counter the claims of bribery and coercion. President Roh and 80 percent of Koreans were against the war in Iraq. President Roh said he was against the war, but essentially said that he felt he had no choice (coercion?) but to send troops. He felt that by sending troops he would win favors (bribes?) from the US, probably such things as support for his engagement policy with North Korea or delays in US troop realigment?

Now, Korea would have most definitely been on the list if President Bush had prefaced it as follows:

And I would to thank those allies who were against the war in Iraq but who sent 3,600 pretty much useless troops, anyway, after a year of dilly-dallying, to an area of Iraq where they are not really needed. It this regard, I would especially like to thank ....

[Rob]

Spot the Japanese? No, I can't find a Japanese soldier right off....help me out here. I can't tell any of them apart, really.

[Scott-in-Japan]

I think the Japanese soldier is in the middle: short, wearing glasses, with buck teeth.

[The Yangban]

Scott wins the Prize.

Gerry,
You missed a couple of clues, aside from the Japanese guy's buck teeth.

You know that the pissed off guy sitting down is the Korean. You should also have noticed that all the other guys except one have really, really big noses.