The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

O

Orthan

Senior Member
The UNSC has reached a deal regarding the cheonan sinking.
Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!



Its quite weak. The US/SK have CLEARLY backed down. Its not even a resolution but a presidential declaration. It does condemn the sinking, but doesnt name nobody responsible. In my book, thats the same thing as nothing. I cant understand how this declaration can be "a very clear and appropriate response", EVEN if NK wasnt responsible. What is clear is that the UNSC has failed, again.

IMO, this is the end of this crisis. The US/SK want to move on.
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Orthan said:
What is clear is that the UNSC has failed, again.
Click to expand...

Hardly a surprising outcome.

The report from Defencetalk is interesting:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


UN to condemn sinking of SKorean warship
News — By Agence France-Presse on July 9, 2010 at 4:30 am

UNITED NATIONS: The UN Security Council was set to condemn the sinking of a South Korean warship but stop short of strongly censuring North Korea as demanded by Seoul and Washington, a draft statement said.

The text, expected to be adopted by all 15 members of the Security Council on Friday, "condemns the attack which led to the sinking of the Cheonan" in the Yellow Sea near the two Koreas' disputed border.

It also "underscores the importance of preventing such further attacks or hostilities against the ROK (South Korea)," while praising Seoul for the "restraint" it has shown in the months following the attack.

But the text does not directly blame North Korea (DPRK) for the March 26 attack in which 46 sailors died, despite the findings of a multinational inquiry which blamed the sinking of the ship on a North Korean torpedo.

Instead, it states that in view of the findings of the investigation "which concluded that the DPRK was responsible for sinking the Cheonan, the Security Council expresses its deep concern."

"The Security Council deplores the loss of life and injuries and expresses its deep sympathy and condolences to the victims and their families and to the people and government of the Republic of Korea, and calls for appropriate and peaceful measures to be taken against those responsible for the incident aimed at the peaceful settlement of the issue," the draft text goes on to say.

The statement, already approved by the five permanent members of the Security Council -- the United States, China, Britain, France and Russia -- must be now adopted unanimously by the 15-member council.

The US ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, said the statement, if approved, "would send a unified message that the Security Council condemns the attack of March 26 that led to the sinking of the Cheonan."

She added, that it "shows the Council's unity in confronting threats to peace and security. It underscores the importance of preventing further attacks and emphasizes the critical need to maintain peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula and in the larger region."

However, the text would seem to fall far short of what has been demanded in recent weeks by Seoul and by US President Barack Obama.

At the end of last month, using the global stage of a G20 summit in Toronto, Obama said the Security Council must ensure there is "a crystal clear acknowledgement that North Korea engaged in belligerent behavior that is unacceptable to the international community."

Veto-wielding China was always unlikely to come on board any strong censure of North Korea as Beijing is a close ally of Pyongyang, providing the impoverished nation with an economic lifeline.

Pyongyang has repeatedly denied having a hand in the sinking of the Cheonan corvette close to the disputed maritime border.

The two countries have had perpetually tense relations over the course of the nearly half-century since the Korean War ended in stalemate and armistice in 1953. Technically, they remain at war.

Seoul has been seeking a formal UN Security Council censure of the North, but Pyongyang has threatened a military response to any UN action.
Click to expand...

I suppose the "very clear and appropriate response" bit wasn't watered down in the process.

I guess China blocked UNSC from naming DPRK as the one responsible for the sinking.

Nonetheless, this is an avenue for RoK to legitimately "defuse" the situation without going further. They can rightly claim the failure of UN to condemn DPRK over the attack (not that this was beyond unexpected).
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Spartan95 said:
Nonetheless, this is an avenue for RoK to legitimately "defuse" the situation without going further. They can rightly claim the failure of UN to condemn DPRK over the attack (not that this was beyond unexpected).
Click to expand...

I don't think "defusing" was what the ROK government had or has in mind at all! Tensions between the DPRK and South Korea have been rising ever since the Grand National Party came to power. Raising the temperature has been this governments policy from the beginning. It is the ROK opposition which accuses this government of risking war.
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
I don't think "defusing" was what the ROK government had or has in mind at all! Tensions between the DPRK and South Korea have been rising ever since the Grand National Party came to power. Raising the temperature has been this governments policy from the beginning.
Click to expand...

While it is true that tensions between RoK and DPRK have increased after the Grand National Party came to power, it is because the "Sunshine Policy" by previous RoK governments have been dropped.

However, that is not to say that the current RoK government wants a shooting war with DPRK. If that was the case, they wouldn't have bothered to go to UN about the Cheonan case. RoK could have retaliated militarily much earlier against what they believe to be DPRK's sinking of the Cheonan, but they didn't.

Thus, while the current RoK administration takes a tougher line with the DPRK, and blames the DPRK for the sinking of the Cheonan, they needed a way out without:
1. starting a shooting war; and
2. being seen as powerless to retaliate.

And this is where the UN comes in.

Since the UNSC is highly unlikely to authorise the use of force against DPRK (China will veto any such resolution), the RoK administration can claim that RoK's options were limited by the UN. Thus, beyond already imposed sanctions and the UN condemnation (where DPRK is not mentioned), there will be no further actions or censure of DPRK.

Hence, the situation has effectively been defused.

Red Moon said:
It is the ROK opposition which accuses this government of risking war.
Click to expand...

That's just politics. The opposition was the party that implemented the "Sunshine Policy" towards DPRK for so many years with very little to show for it. In fact, some analysts consider the "Sunshine Policy" to be a failure as it actually encouraged DPRK to be more belligerent since RoK will often give in to DPRK's demands under the "Sunshine Policy".
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Raising the temperature DOES NOT IMPLY A SHOOTING WAR. I think everybody knows how the odds are stacked in terms of relative military power. Everything the DPRK has, whether it is the ability to shell Seoul, or their nukes, cannot win a war. Rather, they can only serve as deterrent.

The GNP government knows this, and therefore feels it's policy of increasing tensions will not lead to war. To back up this policy, it also stresses the alliance with the US. Thus, everybody knows that even if somehow the ROK government were to be wiped out... the DPRK would still loose such a war.

@spartan95, as to the ROK opposition, the only thing that seems clear in what you are saying, is that you support the GNP's position and not the DP's. The argument you are giving is very much the same as that used by the American right against "appeasing" Iran... or any of their perceived enemies. Whether we are talking of some specific measure taken under the rubric of "sunshine policy", or any form of compromise, the argument is always the same: it's "like Hitler", the more you compromise, the more "belligerent" they get.

The argument, in the case of the DPRK, misses a very important fact: the "belligerence" AGAINST the DPRK never stopped. While the DP was talking "sunshine", the power that controls the ROK's armed forces, the US, was pursuing, essentially, the GNP's policy. Obviously, this will not lead to any "softening" of North Korea.

The two parties hold very different policies with respect to the US as well. While the DP wanted to end the arrangement whereby the US commands the ROK military forces in the event of war, as has been noted in this thread, the GNP has just EXTENDED this agreement. So the sinking of the Cheonan, regardless of how it happened, certainly had it's "uses" for the GNP government and American policy. It should be noted that if the sinking had been reported as an "accident" of any type, it could not have been used in the same way.
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
Raising the temperature DOES NOT IMPLY A SHOOTING WAR. I think everybody knows how the odds are stacked in terms of relative military power. Everything the DPRK has, whether it is the ability to shell Seoul, or their nukes, cannot win a war. Rather, they can only serve as deterrent.
Click to expand...

Raising the temperature towards what end? If the trend of raising temperatures continue, it will eventually lead to a shooting war, unless the tension is defused somewhere along the way.

And that was my point about RoK bringing the incident to UN. In this case, UN serves as a means to defuse the temperature, because a shot has already been fired (as far as RoK is concerned anyway), and RoK is trying to find a way out without firing back (literally).

Red Moon said:
The argument, in the case of the DPRK, misses a very important fact: the "belligerence" AGAINST the DPRK never stopped. While the DP was talking "sunshine", the power that controls the ROK's armed forces, the US, was pursuing, essentially, the GNP's policy. Obviously, this will not lead to any "softening" of North Korea.
Click to expand...

The DPRK's belligerance against RoK never stopped either.

There were several assasination attempts by DPRK agents against RoK presidents (especially when they were travelling overseas). Infiltration and sabotage, plane bombing, naval skirmishes, kidnaps, border shootings (even of tourists), etc.

Should the targeted country live with such aggression and take it as a fact of life? Or should they act to prevent further aggression?
 
AssassinsMace

AssassinsMace

Lieutenant General
I'm sure the North Koreans aren't the only ones plotting assassinations. It's just either side spins it to look like they're the innocent victims.

Just like recently I read about the CIA produced documentary about a failed mission in China to stir a coup and also an article on their attempt to create an insurrection in Tibet in the 1950s/60s. Both cases ended in great disaster for the CIA yet we haven't heard about them until now. Like assassination was out of the question for them? No, it's just their attempts at whatever failed and in the two cases mentioned before ended in great disaster. Tis why the Tibetans today have no armed organization. Why? Not because of their peaceful nature. It's because China basically captured or killed all their military and CIA trained people.
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Raising the temperature towards what end? If the trend of raising temperatures continue, it will eventually lead to a shooting war, unless the tension is defused somewhere along the way.
Click to expand...
The aim of American policy, and that of the GNP, in the long run, is regime collapse. This is the aim of similar policies applied by the US in quite a few cases: Iran, Sudan, Cuba, for example. Yes, THERE IS A POINT in raising the temperature, and as I pointed out before, the DPRK can do little about it, other than "strengthen its deterrent". However, if this had been attributed to some sort of accident, or even left as a mystery, there would be nothing to "defuse", and nothing for ROK to answer.

Anyway, the UNSC is not the only "answer" by the ROK/US. There are also announced drills, and there is the single most important thing pointed to by SampanViking in post 385:
The United States and South Korea have agreed to delay until December 2015 the transfer of wartime operational control of troops on the Korean peninsula to South Korea, the two nations’ presidents announced following a June 26 meeting in Toronto.
Click to expand...
In case you missed my point earlier, I think that's the main thing that made the NK torpedo explanation desireable to the ROK government.

Now, on the "sunshine policy", you seem to miss my point. You are, I think, referring to a decades long string of events here, to show that this policy is wrong, when the sunshine policy was in place for a few years only.
There were several assasination attempts by DPRK agents against RoK presidents (especially when they were travelling overseas). Infiltration and sabotage, plane bombing, naval skirmishes, kidnaps, border shootings (even of tourists), etc.
Click to expand...
But if indeed, both sides did not end their belligerence, how can this be used to prove that the GNP is right and the DP is wrong?

It is more interesting to look at the big picture, which the same post by SampanViking brings out. South Korea and Japan are both going through rather 'heavy' internal political contention, and of course, Taiwan too. The reason is basically the same one in all three cases: the rise of China is posing serious questions of adjusting for the three states. In all three cases, the issue is how to balance the US and China. Note also that significantly, another "use" of the Cheonan incident was the resolution of the Japan basing problem in favor of the US.

For the GNP, the answer is to tighten the alliance with the US. The GNP's policy in this crisis, as well as before and after, serves this purpose. For the DP the answer is gradually to shift towards China while pushing the US off a bit, so that you end up with some sort of equidistant relationship. The "sunshine" policy, as well as the wish to end the special military relationship with the US, both serve this end.
 
Spartan95

Spartan95

Junior Member
Red Moon said:
The aim of American policy, and that of the GNP, in the long run, is regime collapse. This is the aim of similar policies applied by the US in quite a few cases: Iran, Sudan, Cuba, for example. Yes, THERE IS A POINT in raising the temperature, and as I pointed out before, the DPRK can do little about it, other than "strengthen its deterrent". However, if this had been attributed to some sort of accident, or even left as a mystery, there would be nothing to "defuse", and nothing for ROK to answer.
Click to expand...

Regime collapse can come about through several means, such as economic ruin (e.g., USSR), social upheaval, a shooting war (e.g., South Vietnam), etc. Raising the temperature may set the conditions for these to come by, but to maintain the temperature sufficiently high for a prolonged period of time without setting of a shooting war isn't easy.

With regards to the Cheonan incident, note that in the first couple of days, the RoK reported it as an accident, with the possibility of an internal explosion.

The fact that their investigation turned out otherwise requires a balancing act between
(1) raising the temperature for an act of aggression,
(2) with the risk of setting off a shooting war.

Red Moon said:
Anyway, the UNSC is not the only "answer" by the ROK/US. There are also announced drills, and there is the single most important thing pointed to by SampanViking in post 385: In case you missed my point earlier, I think that's the main thing that made the NK torpedo explanation desireable to the ROK government.
Click to expand...

UNSC isn't the only means to defuse the tension. But it is the most "reliable" means that RoK can justifiably got through.

Another means is the 6-party talk, but than DPRK refuses to join anymore.

Admittedly, the combined drills is a potent show of force. But it doesn't really "hurt" DPRK. Whatever sanctions are available probably "hurts" DPRK more.

Red Moon said:
Now, on the "sunshine policy", you seem to miss my point. You are, I think, referring to a decades long string of events here, to show that this policy is wrong, when the sunshine policy was in place for a few years only.
But if indeed, both sides did not end their belligerence, how can this be used to prove that the GNP is right and the DP is wrong?
Click to expand...

IMO, the "Sunshine Policy" was an attempt by the RoK administration to try something different in order to improve the situation on the Korean peninsula following decades of belligerence. However, it is quite clear that after a few years of goodwill under the "Sunshine Policy" that it wasn't working because DPRK was taking it for granted.

There is nothing worng with trying out something different in order to improve the situation. However, when it is clear that it isn't working, than sticking to the policy stubbornly doesn't help. And that's what I have problem with.

Red Moon said:
It is more interesting to look at the big picture, which the same post by SampanViking brings out. South Korea and Japan are both going through rather 'heavy' internal political contention, and of course, Taiwan too. The reason is basically the same one in all three cases: the rise of China is posing serious questions of adjusting for the three states. In all three cases, the issue is how to balance the US and China. Note also that significantly, another "use" of the Cheonan incident was the resolution of the Japan basing problem in favor of the US.

For the GNP, the answer is to tighten the alliance with the US. The GNP's policy in this crisis, as well as before and after, serves this purpose.
Click to expand...

That's what the conspiracy theories say (use of Chenonan incident to resolve internal issues in favour of US). However, this pre-supposes that there are no other alternatives to achieve the same ends. Furthermore, the Japanese PM that U-turned on the Okinawa basing has since resigned. If it was indeed a conspiracy theory, than it has clearly failed for Hatoyama.

Also, the pro-US stance is without taking into account the increasing economic importance of China to RoK and Japan.
 
R

Red Moon

Junior Member
Talk of conspiracy is a straw man. The point is that the incident creates a great OPPORTUNITY for those who control the script. And it is known that the SK government was very intent on controlling the script. This is shown by their selection of the "investigation team, and by their expulsion and persecution of the guy who disagreed. Once you control THIS, you control the outcome, regardless of the facts of the case, which I don't presume to know. The SK govt, COULD have called it an accident, even if they found otherwise, or they can call it an NK attack, even if they found it was an accident.

But I think you are still missing my points about SK politics. You are essentially saying that the sunshine policy is something the "ROK regime" tried, but when it failed they gave it up. I'm not interested so much in your reasoning as to why. The point is that the "ROK regime" DID NOT try anything, and it DID NOT give anything up! Instead, it was a particular party, the Democratic Party, that "tried" something new.

The Grand National Party (and the US) was against this policy ALL ALONG, during the years the DP was in power. It is against it now, and will be against it forever, because this LOWERS the temperature, or the pressure on NK. It was against the specific policies implemented by the Democratic Party during their last term in office, and will be against any NEW policy which also tends to distance SK from the US and/or thaw things out with the DPRK. The GNP is in business precisely for that.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party HAS NOT ABANDONED its policy or its overall strategy either. It does not accept your conclusions and will likely try some of the same measure plus new ones in the future. I do have to insist, however, that nothing will ever work for the DP unless it simultaneously seeks some distancing from the US, particularly in the military sphere.

The last two paragraphs in my previous post were intended to explain THIS state of affairs, and not particularly the Cheonan incident. My point is that two paths are open for SK, as well as for Japan and even Taiwan, and fundamentally, the big issue is THIS, and not the sinking of a warship.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top