The sinking of South Korean Corvette Cheonan

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
The UN statement shows that both China and Russia were "unconvinced" by the official report surrounding these events and the relative ease with which they were able to water down the Resolution to Presidential Statement with no blame (not just a simple matter of casting a veto in the chamber, but to do with no political, diplomatic or PR comeback afterwards) indicates that both nations knew far more than they were stating in public.

It is a fair assumption that the threat of going public with their information will have played a large part in the securing of the final draft with such relative ease.
 

Spartan95

Junior Member
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.

The ruling party of a country sets the policies for the country. Thus, as a ruling party, the party's policy is also the country's policy.

In other words, when the DP was the ruling party and they implemented the "Sunshine Policy", it was also RoK's policy towards the DPRK. Unfortunately, they lost the elections to the GNP, and the "Sunshine Policy" was discontinued by the new ruling party (which is GNP).

However, whilst the current ruling GNP party have discontinued the "Sunshine Policy", they have not closed the Kaesong Industrial Park, which is the most important achievement from the "Sunshine Policy". Thus, it is not so clear-cut that the GNP discarded all of DP's policies. They obviously kept those that were successful/useful, even though in the case of Kaesong Industrial Park, it is a means for DPRK to gain access to foreign exchange.

--- EDIT ---

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.

And my point about this was in the last sentence of my last post:

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

Elaborating on this, while RoK and Japan have traditionally been staunch US allies, the rise in trade between China and these 2 countries have made the situation more complex. Economically, RoK and Japan need good ties with China to grow their economy. However, they also cannot alienate the US, which they depend on for defence (particularly RoK).

The recent signing of ECFA between Taiwan and China, while Taiwan is still pursuing arms purchases from the US, illustrates the complexities that RoK and Japan need to balance as well.

Thus, while it can be said that there are 2 paths (1 pro-China, 1 pro-US), in reality it is more likely to be a middle that seeks to balance both ends because IMO, RoK and Japan are not about to jeopardise their economic ties with China or their political ties with US.

The UN statement shows that both China and Russia were "unconvinced" by the official report surrounding these events and the relative ease with which they were able to water down the Resolution to Presidential Statement with no blame (not just a simple matter of casting a veto in the chamber, but to do with no political, diplomatic or PR comeback afterwards) indicates that both nations knew far more than they were stating in public.

It is a fair assumption that the threat of going public with their information will have played a large part in the securing of the final draft with such relative ease.

That is certainly a possibility.

However, it is also a possibility that some horse-trading was done behind the scenes to arrive at this declaration.
 
Last edited:

Red Moon

Junior Member
I'm sorry Spartan95, I'm not objecting to your word usage. What I objected to is your story line, that "x was tried, but failed, and so it was rejected". In fact, nobody changed their mind. Those who "concluded" that the sunshine policy failed, were against it all along, and those who supported it never changed their mind. Even the presidential election itself, according to NY Times reporting at the time, was fought over economic issues.

What I am trying to bring out is that in South Korea itself, the "interpretation" given to the Cheonan incident, the attitude towards the "sunshine" policy, and the attitude towards the military alliance between South Korea and the US all form part of the same struggle among the main political forces in the country.
 

Red Moon

Junior Member
Elaborating on this, while RoK and Japan have traditionally been staunch US allies, the rise in trade between China and these 2 countries have made the situation more complex. Economically, RoK and Japan need good ties with China to grow their economy. However, they also cannot alienate the US, which they depend on for defence (particularly RoK).

The recent signing of ECFA between Taiwan and China, while Taiwan is still pursuing arms purchases from the US, illustrates the complexities that RoK and Japan need to balance as well.

Thus, while it can be said that there are 2 paths (1 pro-China, 1 pro-US), in reality it is more likely to be a middle that seeks to balance both ends because IMO, RoK and Japan are not about to jeopardise their economic ties with China or their political ties with US.
This I can essentially agree with: essentially, the solution in most cases will be some sort of evolving "middle path", and naturally, I have overstated the case as pro-China or pro-US to make my point. I am simply insisting that the Korean situation cannot be analyzed without reference to the internal politics of the country.

South Korea is not China or Singapore. It is not even a "mature", tweedledee/tweedledum democracy as the US or many of the European countries are. Like Taiwan, they have fist fights in their parliament. Like Taiwan, previous office holders are persecuted routinely. In other words, the politics are quite real, and they reflect the strategic crossroads the country finds itself in (again, like Taiwan).

In a way, however, SK has it more difficult than either Japan or Taiwan, as the terms of the relationship with the US are more onerous, and seriously impact on its relationship with the other Korea. You state that SK depends on the US for its defense... Well, that's as the GNP would have it. I think militarily, SK could handle not only NK, but maybe France and England too. It is not South Korea's defense, but rather the strategy chosen by the GNP, the strategy of bringing about regime collapse in the north, which depends on the US.

The "sunshine" people, the Democratic Party, and also the PRC, do not want regime collapse. While the DP does not want to break with the US, they want greater distance with the US in order to improve ties with the North. And it seems to me this greater distance will be necessary for them because the American agenda regarding NK has too much to do with American designs and interests vis-a-vis China.
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
A jingoistic piece posted on Yahoo news regarding the deployment of cruise-missile capable nuclear subs in the Yellow Sea. Looks like things are getting hot:

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


U.S. Tomahawk Missiles Deployed Near China

By MARK THOMPSON / WASHINGTON Mark Thompson / Washington – Fri Jul 9, 12:20 pm ET

If China's satellites and spies were working properly, there would have been a flood of unsettling intelligence flowing into the Beijing headquarters of the Chinese navy last week. A new class of U.S. superweapon had suddenly surfaced nearby. It was an Ohio-class submarine, which for decades carried only nuclear missiles targeted against the Soviet Union, and then Russia. But this one was different: for nearly three years, the U.S. Navy has been dispatching modified "boomers" to who knows where (they do travel underwater, after all). Four of the 18 ballistic-missile subs no longer carry nuclear-tipped Trident missiles. Instead, they hold up to 154 Tomahawk cruise missiles each, capable of hitting anything within 1,000 miles with non-nuclear warheads.

Their capability makes watching these particular submarines especially interesting. The 14 Trident-carrying subs are useful in the unlikely event of a nuclear Armageddon, and Russia remains their prime target. But the Tomahawk-outfitted quartet carries a weapon that the U.S. military has used repeatedly against targets in Afghanistan, Bosnia, Iraq and Sudan. (See pictures of the U.S. military in the Pacific.)

That's why alarm bells would have sounded in Beijing on June 28 when the Tomahawk-laden 560-ft. U.S.S. Ohio popped up in the Philippines' Subic Bay. More alarms were likely sounded when the U.S.S. Michigan arrived in Pusan, South Korea, on the same day. And the Klaxons would have maxed out as the U.S.S. Florida surfaced, also on the same day, at the joint U.S.-British naval base on Diego Garcia, a flyspeck of an island in the Indian Ocean. In all, the Chinese military awoke to find as many as 462 new Tomahawks deployed by the U.S. in its neighborhood. "There's been a decision to bolster our forces in the Pacific," says Bonnie Glaser, a China expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "There is no doubt that China will stand up and take notice."

U.S. officials deny that any message is being directed at Beijing, saying the Tomahawk triple play was a coincidence. But they did make sure that news of the deployments appeared in the Hong Kong–based South China Morning Post - on July 4, no less. The Chinese took notice quietly. "At present, common aspirations of countries in the Asian and Pacific regions are seeking for peace, stability and regional security," Wang Baodong, spokesman for the Chinese embassy in Washington, said on Wednesday. "We hope the relevant U.S. military activities will serve for the regional peace, stability and security, and not the contrary." (See pictures of the most expensive military planes.)

Last month, the Navy announced that all four of the Tomahawk-carrying subs were operationally deployed away from their home ports for the first time. Each vessel packs "the firepower of multiple surface ships," says Captain Tracy Howard of Submarine Squadron 16 in Kings Bay, Ga., and can "respond to diverse threats on short notice."

The move forms part of a policy by the U.S. government to shift firepower from the Atlantic to the Pacific theater, which Washington sees as the military focus of the 21st century. Reduced tensions since the end of the Cold War have seen the U.S. scale back its deployment of nuclear weapons, allowing the Navy to reduce its Trident fleet from 18 to 14. (Why 14 subs, as well as bombers and land-based missiles carrying nuclear weapons, are still required to deal with the Russian threat is a topic for another day.) (See "Obama Shelves U.S. Missile Shield: The Winners and Losers.")

Sure, the Navy could have retired the four additional subs and saved the Pentagon some money, but that's not how bureaucracies operate. Instead, it spent about $4 billion replacing the Tridents with Tomahawks and making room for 60 special-ops troops to live aboard each sub and operate stealthily around the globe. "We're there for weeks, we have the situational awareness of being there, of being part of the environment," Navy Rear Admiral Mark Kenny explained after the first Tomahawk-carrying former Trident sub set sail in 2008. "We can detect, classify and locate targets and, if need be, hit them from the same platform."(Comment on this story.)

The submarines aren't the only new potential issue of concern for the Chinese. Two major military exercises involving the U.S. and its allies in the region are now under way. More than three dozen naval ships and subs began participating in the "Rim of the Pacific" war games off Hawaii on Wednesday. Some 20,000 personnel from 14 nations are involved in the biennial exercise, which includes missile drills and the sinking of three abandoned vessels playing the role of enemy ships. Nations joining the U.S. in what is billed as the world's largest-ever naval war game are Australia, Canada, Chile, Colombia, France, Indonesia, Japan, South Korea, Malaysia, the Netherlands, Peru, Singapore and Thailand. Closer to China, CARAT 2010 - for Cooperation Afloat Readiness and Training - just got under way off Singapore. The operation involves 17,000 personnel and 73 ships from the U.S., Singapore, Bangladesh, Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand. (See "Hu's Visit: Finding a Way Forward on U.S.-China Relations.")

China is absent from both exercises, and that's no oversight. Many nations in the eastern Pacific, including Australia, Japan, Indonesia, South Korea and Vietnam, have been encouraging the U.S. to push back against what they see as China's increasingly aggressive actions in the South China Sea. And the U.S. military remains concerned over China's growing missile force - now more than 1,000 - near the Taiwan Strait. The Tomahawks' arrival "is part of a larger effort to bolster our capabilities in the region," Glaser says. "It sends a signal that nobody should rule out our determination to be the balancer in the region that many countries there want us to be." No doubt Beijing got the signal.
 

Roger604

Senior Member
Congratulations to SampanViking, he came up with the theory about the Cheonan sinking that is becoming mainstream. Fidel Castro said that the Cheonan was sunk by a US mine! This was then used as a cover for aggression against NK.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But how can a training exercise go so horribly wrong? Is the US and its allies really that incompetent?
 

Scratch

Captain
:confused: What are you trying to say here :confused:

Are you trying to use a random article in wich a deluded, sick, old man randomly rumbles as proof of a make up story around the Cheonan? Why would Castro know the facts? Because a modern, supersilent Cuban nuclear submarine actually was there listening to it all?
 

SampanViking

The Capitalist
Staff member
Super Moderator
VIP Professional
Registered Member
Congratulations to SampanViking, he came up with the theory about the Cheonan sinking that is becoming mainstream. Fidel Castro said that the Cheonan was sunk by a US mine! This was then used as a cover for aggression against NK.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


But how can a training exercise go so horribly wrong? Is the US and its allies really that incompetent?

Thank you Roger, but I really cannot claim any especial kudos over the numerous other people, including other members of this forum who expressed both scepticism from the start and how provided links to useful information as the affair proceeded.

I don't think this one has yet been posted here and is definitely worth reading

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


Scratch says
Are you trying to use a random article in wich a deluded, sick, old man randomly rumbles as proof of a make up story around the Cheonan?

I sincerely hope you are referring to Castro there ;)

I would however be not so fast with dismissing his comments. He is indeed old and sick. He is also a veteran leader with many friends, developed over many years, in both Russia and China. Castro is an Icon and people the world over listen to him, so if Intelligence sources inside China or (most likely) Russia wanted to let out what they know of the incident via the backdoor, then he would make an excellent stalking horse.
 

Scratch

Captain
I sincerely hope you are referring to Castro there ;)

By all means, I did. :)

I would however be not so fast with dismissing his comments. He is indeed old and sick. He is also a veteran leader with many friends, developed over many years, in both Russia and China. Castro is an Icon and people the world over listen to him, so if Intelligence sources inside China or (most likely) Russia wanted to let out what they know of the incident via the backdoor, then he would make an excellent stalking horse.

Definitely a point there. Then again I'd personally think there are more credible ways to release that info. But I guess that also depends on the intended audiance.

Anyway, things beyond the incident might go ahead somewhat.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


North Korea shrugs off ship and calls for nuclear talks

By Jack Kim - SEOUL | Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:02am EDT

(Reuters) - North Korea said on Saturday it was willing to return to nuclear disarmament talks and signaled satisfaction that a U.N. Security Council statement did not directly blame it for the sinking of a South Korean warship.

China, the North's sole key ally, urged regional powers to put the navy ship sinking behind them and return to the negotiating table to end a cycle of confrontation that has raised security tensions to new heights since late March. [...]

Six-way nuclear talks involving North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China have been in limbo since 2007 and a 2005 disarmament deal appeared to lose relevance when Pyongyang tested a long-range missile and a nuclear device.[...]
 

siegecrossbow

General
Staff member
Super Moderator
By all means, I did. :)



Definitely a point there. Then again I'd personally think there are more credible ways to release that info. But I guess that also depends on the intended audiance.

Anyway, things beyond the incident might go ahead somewhat.

Please, Log in or Register to view URLs content!


North Korea shrugs off ship and calls for nuclear talks

By Jack Kim - SEOUL | Sat Jul 10, 2010 6:02am EDT

(Reuters) - North Korea said on Saturday it was willing to return to nuclear disarmament talks and signaled satisfaction that a U.N. Security Council statement did not directly blame it for the sinking of a South Korean warship.

China, the North's sole key ally, urged regional powers to put the navy ship sinking behind them and return to the negotiating table to end a cycle of confrontation that has raised security tensions to new heights since late March. [...]

Six-way nuclear talks involving North and South Korea, the United States, Japan, Russia and China have been in limbo since 2007 and a 2005 disarmament deal appeared to lose relevance when Pyongyang tested a long-range missile and a nuclear device.[...]

Looks like something good might come out of this disaster of an incidence after all. Does this mean that the U.S. and South Korea, too, will drop the case?
 
Top