Things are heating up in Korea again. While a crisis on the peninsula is nothing new two things are different this time.
1) The North has used the heaviest artillery that's been fired since the end of the Korean War
2) The South has fired back and has responded to the North's usual threats and bellicose language with their own aggressive words marking a difference between the current right wing government and the Sunshine Policy of Kim Dae Jung and his immediate successors.
What will it take for the hot war to resume? The South accused the North of killing 46 of its sailors earlier this year; it believes the North attempted to assasinate Chun Doo-hwan in 1983 (the attempt killed 17 South Koreans including cabinet members); it believes that the 1987 Korean Airlines bombing was orchestrated by the North; two North Korean sailors were killed in November 2009 near this infamous limit line... and still no war.
The most interesting aspect for me is China's response and possible changes to the China-DPRK alliance. I wonder if it will ultimately decide to publicly condemn the North under pressure.
It's a tough one for China, really. They can't really have a USA base on the Yalu river.
I dont have much background in this one.
I listened to a panel discussion [presumably CBC Radio The Current] where the consensus across political perspectives was that this and the torpedoing were not as bellicose as they would seem... that it is the North rattling the cage: the status quo is not acceptable and they want a permanent peace agreement with South Korea and the US.
Makes sense to me. And aslo explains why even a right wing SK govt would not respond in kind to the provocations: they have so much more to lose. [IE- North Korea knows that the US and SK have no appeitite for all out war. The North can live with escalated hostilities, in the South it would be economic collapse.]
What I have no idea of is what the North exects in a peace agreement. More than just mutually assured security arrangements. They must want whatever they think is required for economic improvement that would guarantee a stable state power with the end or war footing.
Presumably the US and South Korea want the eventual collapse of the regime... which even a delusional state power coterie in the North would understand is what the staus quo will eventually bring... without military hostilities. So they want to make the South uncomfortable with the staus quo.
Something like that?
Makes sense to me. And aslo explains why even a right wing SK govt would not respond in kind to the provocations: they have so much more to lose. [IE- North Korea knows that the US and SK have no appeitite for all out war. The North can live with escalated hostilities, in the South it would be economic collapse.]
Generally ok, but here you are feeding the highly arguable thesis that it was the DPRK that was provoking ROK, when it's quite clear that the military live fire exercise that ROK decided to do, despite warnings from DPRK constitutes provocation by any standard. Had South Korea really not wanted a show down of the kind we see now, they easily could have done their artillery practice somewhere else, as opposed in disputed territory right up against the NK border, after being warned repeatedly that DPRK would retaliate.
I dont think the DPRK is the only one that engages in provocations.
But this shelling, and the torpedoing are both on a ratcheting up scale. If it is racheting up, the North is still going to use opportunities where it can say to the world it is only responding. It is not going to engage in unprovoked incidents. When they rachet up the hostilities and dare their opponents to respond at the same level- that is rattling the cage.
The ship that was sunk was also in the same disputed zone. These activities in these areas by South Korea are a new thing. South Korea upped the ante, and North Korea called their bluff.
Do you disagree that very likely the Norths goal is to rattle the cage over the staus quo- a staus quo that favours its opponents and so that it will take risks to end?
I think that the US and South Korea are trying to put pressure on the new North Korean leader to see if they can finesse regime change, without actually committing to war.
A corollaray understanding that would make sense is that the current government in South Korea ratcheted up confrontation without thinking through how far it was willing to go and where this would lead. Thinking they could engage in gunboat diplomacy muscling. Without thinking what they would do if the North was willing to respond by pushing it to a new level.
The next level would be continuous exchanges across the border. Which would throw the South Korean economy into utter chaos. While the North has little to lose on that score.
That isn't going to happen.
In late May 2010, Bruce Cumings, Distinguished Service Professor in History at the University of Chicago and an expert on Korean affairs, commented that the sinking should be regarded as part of a two-sided tense situation in a "no-man's land" which has led to previous incidents.[13] He noted a confrontation in November 2009, in which several North Korean sailors died, and an additional incident in 1999, when 30 North Koreans were killed and 70 wounded when their ship sank. Considering these previous incidents, he said that the Cheonan sinking was "ripped out of context, the context of a continuing war that has never ended.
I agree about the sinkings. But I think the shelling of the SK island can only be read as a deliberate ratcheting up.
And in a way, it looks like a rationale finesse by the North. The media portrays the lack of SK military response as a mixture of confusion and poor preparation. That doesnt wash. They have every kind of scenario worked out for escalated but still limited responses across the border. They just werent going to go there, because it isnt worth it.
I agree on the last point, but the first, is really a bit hard to fathom.
Have you actually looked at where this Island is? It is way up on the coast of North Korea. It being part of South Korea makes about as much sense as Saltspring Island being a US possession. It is well within the 12 NM limit that most countries use to claim water and island possessions.
Claiming it is one thing, but putting a military base on it is an obvious affront. The fact that SK is now routinely patrolling around it with vessels and conducting live fire military exercises on it a clear provocation.
When two elephants are fighting the grass suffers.
It being part of South Korea makes about as much sense as Saltspring Island being a US possession.
Or Alaska! Can you imagine what a total, constant provocation it would be if Alaska were US territory?
That would definitely get my macho blood boiling! You?
The position of Maine must drive you nuts, then.
Not to mention St. Pierre and Miquelon. A mere 10 km from Newfoundland, they're clearly France's attempt to provoke us. If they were to fire guns out into the Atlantic Ocean, away from Canada, I trust we would respond with brutal, murderous force, to show that our penises are bigger than their penises.
The position of Maine must drive you nuts, then.
And the city of Detroit is sitting right on top of Windsor, fer chrissakes!!! I don't know how the Windsorites can sleep at night...
Moe Szyslak: "Now, now, lay off Detroit. Them people is living in 'Mad Max' times."
Not to mention St. Pierre and Miquelon. A mere 10 km from Newfoundland, they're clearly France's attempt to provoke us. If they were to fire guns out into the Atlantic Ocean, away from Canada, I trust we would respond with brutal, murderous force, to show that our penises are bigger than their penises.
No France would not likely engage in such overt provocation. That is the point. If France invited a third party foreign country to engage in life fire exercises in Canadian waters I would expect my government to tell them to back off and don't do it. Exactly what N. Korea did but unlike a country like France S. Korea with their bully big brother said, "up yours."
Apparently in a school yard Snert you believe that if the bully says this portion of the playground belongs to me and my buddies the other students should agree because to fight against them would be needless provocation. The weak should just accept the American bully rule of the world and stop trying to push back. All Hail Wall Street and their superior system of borrowing money at the point of a gun to buy weapons to shake down countries around the world for their resources.
Or Alaska! Can you imagine what a total, constant provocation it would be if Alaska were US territory?
Yabbut if we take back Alaska, Sarah Palin would be one of us.
Aaaand if we took Maine, we'd get the Bush family.
I just want to note the colonial mentality of arguing over Alaska, Maine, Saltspring, etc. as if they "belong" to Canada or the US. Also, as Kropotkin aludes to, the relationships between France and Canada and the Us and Canada are very different than those of NK and SK. France, Canada, and the US are all members of NATO for fucksakes. Snert again is using the worst fucking analogies possible.
You've got to admit, though, that I was spot on about the penises.
Or Alaska! Can you imagine what a total, constant provocation it would be if Alaska were US territory?
Yabbut if we take back Alaska, Sarah Palin would be one of us.
Aaaand if we took Maine, we'd get the Bush family.
Alaska was never ours; the yanks bought it from the Czar of Russia.
The position of Maine must drive you nuts, then.
And the city of Detroit is sitting right on top of Windsor, fer chrissakes!!! I don't know how the Windsorites can sleep at night...
We don't sleep at night and that is why you find a lot of nationalist here while your country smuggles guns into our country. Hell your cops think its ok for them to come over to the casino while carrying a concealed weapon off duty because they aren't criminal. Dont speak on stuff you don`t even know sven.
Has anyone seen this?
If Korean War II breaks out, Canada could send troops:
OTTAWA - If war breaks out on the Korean peninsula, Canada could become embroiled due to a half-century-old United Nations military alliance, federal documents reveal.
Canada's military obligations in the volatile region are outlined in a briefing note prepared for Defence Minister Peter MacKay shortly after North Korea detonated a nuclear device last year.
The note by the Defence Department's policy branch, which was obtained by The Canadian Press, says the UN alliance could be used to generate an international fighting force if war erupts.
North Korea ratcheted up its war rhetoric Friday following its deadly artillery barrage of a South Korean island Tuesday.
Because Canada was one of the combatants in the Korean War, it became part of an organization known as the United Nations Command - or UNC - following the 1953 armistice that ended three years of war between North and South Korea.
"Recent tensions have caused ADM (Pol) [not sure what that is, A Defence Memo policy branch(?)] to review Canada's military obligations on the Korean peninsula if armed hostilities were to erupt," the memo reads.
"The UNC structure would be used as a means of force-generating and receiving and tasking any contributions that UNC Sending States may choose to contribute in the event of a crisis."
... Canada remains a member of the UNC because it was one of the 15 "Sending States" that supplied troops to the Korean conflict, the memo says.
Keeping perspective on North Korea:
I agree about the sinkings. But I think the shelling of the SK island can only be read as a deliberate ratcheting up.
And in a way, it looks like a rationale finesse by the North. The media portrays the lack of SK military response as a mixture of confusion and poor preparation. That doesnt wash. They have every kind of scenario worked out for escalated but still limited responses across the border. They just werent going to go there, because it isnt worth it.
As we can see, all of this was preventable right from the start:
South Korea cancels planned artillery drills on island
Navy authorities on the shelled island, Yeongpyeong, warned residents by loudspeaker on Monday afternoon that they should move to bomb shelters by 9:30 a.m. Tuesday morning because live-fire drills would take place at 10 a.m.But Monday night, they that announced no firing would take place. An official at the Joint Chiefs of Staff declined to explain the shift, saying only that the exercise "will be conducted at an appropriate time."
China probably stepped up to the plate and threatened to do something somewhere, about something no one pays much attention to somewhere else... Pakistan, for example. The whole thing was a dirty deal right from the start, and South Korea was playing high stakes poker and the result is four dead people.
Yes, South Korea certainly should have obeyed the demands of North Korea to not fire out into open waters. And the fact that they didn't means the four dead are South Korea's fault, not North Korea's fault.
That's pretty much what you're saying, yes?
Yup.
Huh. Well, it's a repugnant opinion that gives a free pass to Dear Leader to kill a few people every time his pride is threatened, but at least you were honest.
No. Your opinions is the repugnant one, actually. Here is why: you attempt to paint me as supporter of the North Korean's government killing of people indiscriminately. But I said no such thing.
Bereft of arguments, you resort to an ad hominem insult. At the heart of this is the idea that the North Korean government action was a matter of pride only, and therefore arbitrary. But in the face of this you have offered absolutely no logical reason why the South Korean government needed to do a live fire artillery practice in a disputed area, against the express wishes and statements by the North Korean government.
Can you explain the necessity of South Korea's decision to do a live fire exercise in the disputed zone, other than assertion of national "pride"?
Now we see, that in the latest action, it really wasn't necessary at all. Indeed, they have cancelled that part of their new exercise with the US, and no harm seems to result. If it were necessary, they would have to do them regardless of North Korean opinion. But they don't. As we see. There was no purpose to the original exercise other than defying and insulting the DPRK.
No. Your opinions is the repugnant one, actually. Here is why: you attempt to paint me as supporter of the North Korean's government killing of people indiscriminately. But I said no such thing.
You seem to be saying that if South Korea shoots some water when North Korea orders them not to, then any resultant deaths are South Korea's fault (for shooting the water) and not North Korea's (for shooting humans).
That's actually why I asked you for clarification.
Can you explain the necessity of South Korea's decision to do a live fire exercise in the disputed zone, other than assertion of national "pride".
They don't need to explain the necessity when they're well within their rights. It's North Korea who might want to explain the necessity of killing four people because South Korea shot some ocean. That they aren't within their rights to do.
There was no purpose to the original exercise other than defying and insulting the DPRK.
Defied. Insulted.
Gosh, that's really terrible.
What's the world coming to when sovereign nations defy the orders of other nations??
That "right" is what is under dispute. And the dispute has very solid legal grounds in practice of international law assigning sea zones under the UN charter, the UN being the body of nations ordering North Korea to abide by territorial limits that none of its member nations would accept.
Therefore, it would prudent for ROK to recognize that the dispute is tangible, and act accordingly. Yet, instead, it decided to assert that right as a matter of national pride, and for no other logical reason. It was completely arbitrary brinksmanship, and the result of that was the promised military reaction from North Korea.
If South Korea really wanted to resolve this issue, it could simply appeal to the UN to put the disputed islands under the control of the UN as part of the DMZ, until the dipute was resolved, just as it is with all of the disputed areas comprising the two nations. But instead, it uses these islands as a means of harrassing North Korea, to the political end of inflaming South Korean national pride to create incidents that will inflame nationalist sentiment for domestic purposes only.
A few bodies is always good for inspiring patriotic values.
Yet, instead, it decided to assert that right as a matter of national pride, and for no other logical reason.
Yup, asserting their right. They don't need a "logical" reason. They don't need a reason at all.
But I trust you agree that NK had no similar right to kill four people, yes? And if so, doesn't it strike you as entirely backward that you would say that the four dead are South Korea's fault, for acting within their rights, and not North Korea's fault, for acting in a way they had no right to at all?
Theoretically Snert I can sit in my window and moon my neighbors, but if they happen to be fanatic Christians with a violent bent, I can expect to get my ass shot off. Now of course if I really feel the need to be bare assed in the window, and don't want to piss off my neighbors I could go to another window and hang my ass there. But you know that I am spoiling for some kind of fight if I insist on showing the neighbors my ass, when I know they don't like it, and I don't have to.
So, let me get this straight. You believe that the president of South Korea gives a shit about any of the people who were killed?
Theoretically Snert I can sit in my window and moon my neighbors, but if they happen to be fanatic Christians with a violent bent, I can expect to get my ass shot off.
And if they shot you over this I would argue that they are at fault, not you.
Now strictly speaking, you don't even have a particular right to expose yourself to neighbours. If you were, say, listening to Lady Gaga and they disapproved and shot you, worse still.
But you don't respond to someone's ass cheeks, or a raunch pop song, or someone shooting some uninhabited ocean, with murder. Where, in all of this rhetoric and ideology, did you lose sight of that?
Right well your arguments are glib and stupid. So, not only do I not think the president of South Korea gives a shit that anyone was killed. I highly doubt that you do either.
The fact is that asserting "right" without purpose is just the same as asserting "pride". So in the balance it was South Korea that started the national pride incident, and so therefore they are responsible for the outcome.
They knew full well the North Korea would shoot if they fired their guns, because North Korea told them it would do so. You make it sound like the South Korean government are some naive little boys who got lost in the woods and ran into some bad men.
The fact is that asserting "right" without purpose is just the same as asserting "pride".
You don't need to justify exercising your rights.
Exercising their "right" in this case is a direct violation of the DPRK's right. That is what a "dispute" is all about. You do understand this part, yes?
Bush said North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. The debate is over they are the evil ones. International politics is easy.
Who, besides North Korea and you, believe that North Korea's rights were violated by SK shooting some guns into the ocean?
As I understand it, the island that SK used, whether you like this or not, and whether it does or does not obey the 12 mile limit generally used for fishing rights and such, is considered by the international community to be part of SK, not NK. And it's one or the other.
If NK really believes the island to be theirs, they're certainly free to make their case internationally. Perhaps they can convince the world. But until they do, they have no right with regard to that island.
Who, besides North Korea and you, believe that North Korea's rights were violated by SK shooting some guns into the ocean?
Based on my reading of world opinion most people in the world agree with my view. Certainly the government of China does. Also, reading the Russian press indicates that they don't think South Korea is some boy scout.
I mean, really, most people in the world are not as sheep like as those who profess to defend freedom and rights, and independent thinking, yet always seem to agree with the line that their government and media outlets support. I mean seriously, is there nothing that our side ever does that you ever have a problem with?
In anycase, I guess the last 4 or 5 posts of evasion from you, show that in fact you have no plausible explanation for why South Korea needed to do this exercise except to provoke the reaction that North Korea promised.
In anycase, maybe you can not answer this question as well: Do you actually think that South Korea did not expect North Korea to react violently in response to the military exercise?
Russia and China? Ok, that's two.
What's the UN say? They're usually a good arbiter of these sorts of things.
show that in fact you have no plausible explanation for why South Korea needed to do this exercise
You're right, I don't. My point has been that they don't need one. That's what rights are.
Do you actually think that South Korea did not expect North Korea to react violently in response to the military exercise?
I haven't a clue. Is it your point that if someone threatens you with violence for exercising your rights, you need to back down, or else it's your fault, not theirs, if they harm you?
You keep coming back to the idea that as long as you warn someone that you're going to harm them if they don't obey your demands, you're in the clear. I don't get that.
Bush said North Korea is part of the Axis of Evil. The debate is over they are the evil ones. International politics is easy.
Who had ownership of this island prior to George Bush taking office?
Nevermind. According to Wikipedia:
Yeonpyeong lies near the Northern Limit Line and is only 12 km (7.5 mi) from the North Korean coastline. The 1953 Armistice Agreement which ended the Korean War specified that the five islands including Yeonpyeong would remain under South Korean control.[3] North Korea subsequently respected the UN-acknowledged western maritime border for many years until around the mid-1990sYeonpyeong lies near the Northern Limit Line and is only 12 km (7.5 mi) from the North Korean coastline. The 1953 Armistice Agreement which ended the Korean War specified that the five islands including Yeonpyeong would remain under South Korean control. North Korea subsequently respected the UN-acknowledged western maritime border for many years until around the mid-1990s
Looks like even NK agreed, until about 15 years ago.
But nevermind any signed agreements -- now they want a do-over!
Sorry... wasn't meaning to be disrespectful.
You do understand this part, yes?
No, not in the way that you put it. I understand a dispute to be a longstanding disagreement, but I don't believe it to necessarily be neutral (ie: both sides equally right).
You believe that the president of South Korea gives a shit about any of the people who were killed?
I haven't a clue. I also don't know whether Dear Leader really gives a shit about a little island. Neither is relevant to this.
Still not an answer to the question. I did you the courtesy of answering yours. You said that was "honest". I have asked you two question neither of which you answered. Here is another one, does not answering direct question make you honest?
Interseting, on the other hand you have complete knowledge of the motivations and purposes of everything that North Korea does, but for some reason you are completely clueless on the South.
It seems you think that having foreknowlege of potentially lethal consequences for innocent persons, and then engaging in those actions that will precipitate those consequences, is not relevant when it comes to pushing issues of South Korean national pride.
What's the UN say? They're usually a good arbiter of these sorts of things.
The UN was one of the belligerents in the war in the '50s and at the end they unilaterally proclaimed the maritime borders. I love your unbiased arbitrators. Why not just ask someone neutral like Canada or Israel? They too will agree that America is always right and its allies are always on the side of the Xian angels.
Snert your an apologist for mass murderers and the New World Order. Bullies seem to be your heroes.
It seems you think that having foreknowlege of potentially lethal consequences for innocent persons, and then engaging in those actions that will precipitate those consequences, is not relevant when it comes to pushing issues of South Korean national pride.
South Korea isn't responsible for North Korea's choices. If shooting a patch of ocean is such a big blow to North Korea's self esteem then I think the world community would respect their right to also shoot some water in harsh retaliation. The problem here is that North Korea killed people in retaliation for some water -- not even their water -- getting shot. And no, even when you know someone might act violently and irrationally, you're not responsible for their choices.
I agree. South Korea is not responsible for North Korea's choices, South Korea is responsible for its choices. What it chose to do was hold military exercises in a disputed zone against the express wishes of those who also claim the territory, and yet, you can come up with exactly ZERO reasons for this. On the one hand you have such commanding knowlege of North Korean intentions and motivations that you can conclude they are "irrational" but on the other you have absolutely no idea what is going on in the minds of South Koreans. In fact, you admit you don't have a clue, either as to why it was necessary to conduct this live firs exercise or as to what motivated them or what they thought the outcome would be.
Indeed, I put it to you the South Korea was very well aware that the result would most likely be loss of life. Here is a hint: they were told in advance.
