Korean War Games Continue Despite Rising Tensions : NPR

Korean War Games Continue Despite Rising Tensions : NPR

The United States and South Korea prepared for war games Sunday as South Koreans demanded vengeance over a deadly North Korean artillery bombardment that has raised fears of more clashes between the bitter rivals.

The North, meanwhile, worked to justify one of the worst attacks on South Korean territory since the 1950-53 Korean War. Four South Koreans, including two civilians, died after the North rained artillery on the small Yellow Sea island of Yeonpyeong, which is home to both fishing communities and military bases.

North Korea said civilians were used as a "human shield" around artillery positions and lashed out at what it called a "propaganda campaign" against Pyongyang.

It claimed the United States orchestrated last Tuesday's clash so that it could stage joint naval exercises in the Yellow Sea with the South that include a U.S. nuclear powered supercarrier — enraging the North and making neighboring China uneasy.

China sent a senior official, State Councilor Dai Bingguo, to Seoul on Saturday for talks with Foreign Minister Kim Sung-hwan, South Korea's Yonhap news agency reported. Dai, accompanied by chief Chinese nuclear negotiator Wu Dawei, discussed Tuesday's attack and international talks on ending North Korea's nuclear programs, it said.

The North Korean attack on an area with a civilian population marked a new level of hostility along the rivals' disputed sea border. Only eight months ago, according to the findings of a South Korean-led international investigation, a North Korean torpedo sank a South Korean warship in waters farther west, killing 46 sailors.

The aggression could be linked to the North's attempt to strengthen its government as it pursues a delicate transfer of power from leader Kim Jong Il to a young, unproven son. It also may reflect Pyongyang's frustration that it has been unable to force a resumption of stalled international talks on receiving aid in return for nuclear disarmament.

The attack laid bare weaknesses 60 years after the Korean War in South Korea's defenses against the North, which does not recognize the border drawn by the U.N. at the close of the conflict and which considers waters around Yeonpyeong as its territory.

More...

Related articles

• US, South Korea War Games To Go On After Deadly North Korea Shelling (huffingtonpost.com)
• North Korea in human shield claims (mirror.co.uk)

News from The China Post Korean crisis serves as warning of our own risk

News from The China Post

Korean crisis serves as warning of our own risk

Saturday, November 27, 2010

The China Post news staff

As the American nuclear-powered aircraft carrier USS George Washington headed for Korean waters yesterday, a day after North Korea fired artillery shells at a South Korean island, killing two South Korean marines and two civilians, and wounding 15 others, the tensions on the Korean Peninsula have become the focus of the world governments and the media.

Although Pyongyang claimed that the two Koreas are at the "brink of war," the general opinion is that the shelling was not a precursor to war but an act of provocation either to boost the status of North Korean's heir apparent, the 25-year-old Kim Jong-un, or to force the U.S. back to the negotiating table.

South Korean President Lee Myung-bak was credited by both international press and domestic opinion for the calm and restraint he showed in the handling of the crisis. Although known as a hardliner on the North Korea issue, Lee's first directive after the shelling was to stop the situation from escalating.

"The question for South Korea is how much more serious can these attacks get before the risk of doing nothing and showing there's no cost is worse than the risk of prompting an overreaction by North Korea," an analyst from the Beijing-based risk consultancy Control Risks was quoted by the Wall Street Journal as saying. "My own view is we're still not at that level."

Overreaction by South and North Korea could result in catastrophe. With Seoul only 33 miles from the demarcation line and with North Korean missiles' capable of reaching any point in the South, an all-out war, or even escalated clashes, could cause devastation in one of Asia's key economies.

Taiwan also has a stake in the situation. While cross-strait relations have improved in the past two years after President Ma Ying-jeou took office, mainland China and Taiwan are still far from agreeing to denounce the use of force to settle the "One China" issue. In many simulated military scenarios, strategists regard the Korean conflict and the involvement of U.S. forces in East Asia as a possible trigger of cross-strait military escalation.

The government took the laudable steps of emphasizing its continual alert on the situation while posing a calm stance by not raising advisory levels for trips to South Korea. However, while there are reasons to hope for the best, Taiwan should also be ready if things take an unexpected turn.

As tension at the Korean Peninsula builds, Taiwan should prepare its plans to show the people and investors that the government is ready and that cross-strait relations remain stable in order to protect the nation and its still recovering economy.

First of all, Taiwan should show that while remaining vigilant of the Korean situation, there will be no sudden unexpected escalation of military action on Taiwan's part. Restraint and dialogue are key at a time when the region is virtually held hostage by what Matthew Lee (李世明), director-general of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs' Department of East Asian and Pacific Affairs, characterized as the "manic depressive" North Korea.

On the other hand, Taiwan should also actively establish the channel of dialogue with mainland China. The government could begin by continuing cross-strait interactions on all levels. At the same time it should also be explicit in its status as part of the global community by joining the international call for China to condemn North Korea's actions.

The key to such plans lies not only in handling the current situation but also in establishing a paradigm of cross-strait communication to cope with future extraordinary situations. Cross-strait ties are all the more important at difficult, or strange, times.

Last but not least, the government and the opposition should come to an understanding, even if it is unwritten, that the nation should have a united voice on the Korean conflict, that domestic political grandstanding in Taiwan would not be another unexpected factor in an already tricky situation.

Related articles

• Local Koreans hear of calm back home (boston.com)
• US 'bringing Korean peninsula to brink of war' (telegraph.co.uk)
• Russian, Chinese foreign ministers discuss Korean conflict - RIA Novosti (news.google.com)
• U.S. Carrier in Korean Seas as War Talk Hits Market (businessweek.com)

The Korean Herald

[Park Sang-seek] China and N. Korea vs. U.S. and Israel (Ignorance In The Academic Circles Of A Close Ally)

When U.S. government leaders attacked China for the latter’s duplicity in connection with the Cheonan incident, the Chinese leadership counterattacked the United States for its hypocrisy by citing the U.S.’s “willful blindness” in dealing with Israel’s commando raid on a Gaza flotilla in the Mediterranean Sea.

To many outside observers, including specialists and ordinary people all over the world, it is a conundrum that the United States acts like a protector over Israel while China does the same in its relations with North Korea. One thing is clear: Both the U.S.-Israel relationship and the China-North Korea relationship are similar in many respects, but it is difficult to characterize them. It is important to find out why the United States and China side with Israel and North Korea, respectively, when the latter two get mired in serious disputes and conflicts with their respective historical enemies: Palestine (and the Arab states) and South Korea. Otherwise, it will be difficult to find a peaceful solution to either the Arab-Israeli conflict or the Korean conflict.

The U.S.-Israel relationship is similar to the China-North Korea relationship; The Arab-Israeli relationship affects the U.S.-Israel relationship while the South-North Korea relationship does have the same impact on the China-North Korea relationship. In concrete terms, the United States tries to mediate the Arab-Israel conflict taking a “neutral” position but it sides with Israel when it believes that Israel’s vital interests are undermined. The same can be said about China’s behavior in relation to the South -North Korea conflict.

There is also a striking similarity between the reasons for their oscillating behavior.

Historically, the United States supported Zionism and the establishment of the State of Israel in 1948. However, there has been a division within the foreign policy establishment and among the people: The advocates for a neutral position and the pro-Israeli position. The former group maintains that for strategic and economic reasons (specifically, Middle East oil), the United States should not antagonize the Arab world and destabilize the Middle East by supporting Israel.

However, throughout the post-World War II period, the U.S. policy has been basically pro-Israel with some minor fluctuations such as Eisenhower’s neutral position in the 1956 Suez Canal crisis and Carter’s firm demand for the Israeli withdrawal from the occupied territories. The United States has treated Israel as a de facto ally and included it in their non-NATO allies in 1989. Public opinion has been also fluctuating around the mid-point. However, the incumbent government has rarely been dominated by the neutral or pro-Arab elements.

Many observers, American and foreign, believe that Jewish influence in the American government is very strong. Because of this pro-Israeli policy, the Arab people have become strongly anti-American. In this situation, the United States is caught in a dilemma: Its strategy to counter the anti-American forces through the U.S.-Israeli alliance strengthens these forces. They resort to any means to defeat the U.S.-Israeli alliance, including terrorism and weapons of mass destruction.

China suffers from a similar dilemma. It established diplomatic relations with North Korea immediately after it seized power in 1949, fought with North Korea during the Korean War and concluded a military alliance in 1961. Throughout the post-World War II period, they have always emphasized a lip-tooth relationship, even after China established diplomatic relations with South Korea in 1992.

Since the cold war was over, China has been ostensibly pursuing an equidistance policy toward the two Koreas, but it has never abandoned the alliance relationship with North Korea. The pro-North Korea group in the Chinese leadership is still strong, although it is not so influential as the Jewish lobby in the United States. Just as in the case of the U.S.-Israel relationship, so China pursues a strategy to counter great power influence in the Korean peninsula through the Chinese-North Korean alliance.

But it is caught in a dilemma: It antagonizes the United States and Japan as well as South Korea. It tries to calm this rising antagonism by maintaining that China’s protective policy toward North Korea is to preserve the status quo and ultimately to prevent another Korean war. Just as the United States tries to assuage the Arab world that it makes every effort to preserve peace and security in the Middle East and prevent the nuclearization of the Middle East for this purpose, so does China tries to persuade the United States and South Korea to restrain themselves from seeking a military solution.

But this is argument is self-contradictory as the U.S. argument. Just as the United States cannot convince the Arab world of the denuclearization of the Middle East without denuclearization of Israel, so cannot China persuade the other parties concerned of its double standard policy toward the Korean peninsula.

By Park Sang-seek

Park Sang-seek is a professor at the Graduate Institute of Peace Studies, Kyung Hee University. ― Ed.

______________________________________

The ignorance that Park Sang-seek expresses in this article is astounding. He obviously knows nothing about the reasons Israel moved into the Gaza Strip. Israel was being shelled with rockets on a daily basis. How would he feel if Seoul was shelled by North Korean rockets on a daily basis? Israel's reaction to those attacks was was overly harsh. But its invasion was clearly justified. Civilians in Gaza were indiscriminately killed. This was wrong and the U.S. government criticised Israel's actions.

I read many newspapers from around the world daily and I have found only one place where I have read such a ridiculous comparison. Israel has committed many wrongs but Israel has also been the recipient of many vicious and cruel attacks. No one has clean hands in this part of the world. The Palestinian occupation must end. But it must be recognized that Israel's neighbors have collaborated in maintaing the current occupation for their own, domestic, political reasons. Only Jordan and Egypt, among Israel's neighbors, have even recognized its right to exist. Park does not even mention this reality. Who has denied the right of the DPRK to exist? This is a pathetically poor piece of journalism. Read the OP-Ed piece written by Thomas L. Friedman for an intelligent reading of the dilemma America faces in its relationship with Israel. It appears that anti-semitism is alive and well among some academics in the ROK. His "Jewish lobby" comment is a obvious example of his apparent bigotry. His analysis is on the level of an undergraduate student at a low rated American university. I hope that he is not a significant influence on foreign affairs in Korea. The problem is that views like these are part of the conventional wisdom in academic circles of countries who are our allies, let alone our enemies. Israel must do a better job at presenting itself to the world.

Even worse the ideas that Park Sang Seek is expressing are not is own. He is just paraphrasing views found in an article in "The Independent Newspaper written by Adrian Hamilton: "Israel had few enough friends to start with"   This article would be considered largely plagiarized if he was a student in one of my university classes.

John H. Armwood

Related articles by Zemanta

• A Credible Investigation (nytimes.com)
• China rewrites history of Korean War (telegraph.co.uk)
• Adrian Hamilton: Israel had few enough friends to start with (independent.co.uk)

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor - Dangerous Waters in Korea - NYTimes.com

I.H.T. Op-Ed Contributor - Dangerous Waters in Korea - NYTimes.com

By CHRISTINE AHN

For those who survived the Korean War, the sight of the nuclear-powered aircraft carrier George Washington leading a fleet of U.S. and South Korean ships along the eastern coast of the Korean Peninsula on the 57th anniversary of the temporary armistice is alarming indeed. In a move intended to punish North Korea for its alleged sinking of a South Korean warship, the Cheonan, the United States and South Korea are flexing their military might by mobilizing American and South Korean ships, over 200 aircraft, including the F-22 Raptor fighters, and 8,000 troops.

If anything, the military provocation by all sides demonstrates the frailty of the Korean armistice agreement, which was signed by North Korea, China and the United States on July 27, 1953. It shows how much the absence of a peace treaty could trigger another war, not just between the two Koreas, but between the United States and China.

To be clear, contrary to the rhetoric of promises of engagement emanating from the White House, President Barack Obama is continuing his predecessor’s hard-line policies of sanctions and military posturing. These have been counterproductive and have done nothing to reduce the risk of nuclear proliferation. Worse, they are actually increasing the chances of military conflict in northeast Asia.

Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton announced last week during a visit to the demilitarized zone that the United States plans to impose greater sanctions on North Korea. Although Secretary Clinton asserts that “[t]hese measures are not directed at the people of North Korea,” it is in fact the North Korean people who will suffer from U.S. sanctions.

The freezing of North Korean assets, in particular, restricts the country’s ability to purchase the materials it needs to meet the basic food, healthcare, sanitation and educational needs of its people. Moreover, sanctions have not succeeded in pressuring North Korea to disarm. To the contrary, North Korea considers economic sanctions to be an act of war, and has responded by accelerating its nuclear weapons program.

History has taught us that military posturing, such as the current military exercises, do not change North Korea’s policies. Instead, Pyongyang views the maneuvers as a test of its will, and has warned that it will counter them with “a physical response” of its own. Worse, Beijing now views the U.S.-South Korea military exercises as too close to its own shores and as a threat to China’s security and that of the region.

More...

____________________________________________

This op-ed reflects the most common South Korean view of American policy towards North Korea that I encountered during my more than two years living in that country. South Koreans seem to have an infinite capacity to forgive North Korean provocations and seem very protective of North Korea, as if that country is a wayward brother or sister. It is a position difficult for non Koreans to understand given the reality of the North Korean regime and its history of brutal internal repression and provocations towards the south but it is essential that American policy makers understand this viewpoint. The strong stance against North Korean taken by current South Korean conservative President Lee Myung-bak is not the majority view in the country. U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton discovered this fact during her early 2009 speech, at Seoul's Ewha Womans University, where her comments on North Korea were coldly received.

John H. Armwood

Related articles by Zemanta

• Joint South Korea-U.S. drills enter fourth day (cnn.com)
• U.S. Shows Power to N. Korea with Carrier Drills (time.com)
• U.S. shows its power to N. Korea with drills (msnbc.msn.com)

Remembering the Forgotten War: U.S. presence draws mix of opinions - YNN, Your News Now

Image via Wikipedia

Remembering the Forgotten War: U.S. presence draws mix of opinions - YNN, Your News Now

SOUTH KOREA -- In the Myeong Dong section of Seoul, there are so many protests the police just wait for the demonstrators, especially on a day when American military presence was front and center. Recent tensions between North Korea and South Korea are accentuating the issue. The deaths of two women killed by a U.S. military vehicle in 2002 also made things rough for a while.

"Those are short term backlashes. People get emotional when an incident occurs but for the most part we are very well-received here," said Lieutenant Colonel Jeffrey Buczkowski of the United States Army.

"Honestly I feel they understand there is a military presence here. There's a lot of actually Americans that are here teaching. Very small world. I bumped into a couple of Americans on the train. I was like 'Oh, hi. How are you,'" said U.S. Army Specialist Johnathon Elkaim.

More than two million people a day pass through Myeong Dong, one of the most expensive shopping districts in the whole world. But it's also a popular place for protests, which is why NY1 had no problem finding people with an opinion on whether U.S. troops should even be there.

"I think it is a very positive thing because stationary troops in South Korea bring peace to Asia," said one South Korean.

"Two Korean girls were killed by American soldiers and because of those events people really go against the U.S. troops in Korea. But personally I think they are needed in Korea," said another.

"I think it is necessary at this time. I don't necessarily agree with it but I think we have no other choice because our country is still divided," said a third.

More...

Related articles by Zemanta

• Op-Ed Contributors: The Forgotten War, Remembered (nytimes.com)
• Op-Ed Contributors: The Forgotten War, Remembered (nytimes.com)
• GALLERY: Powell lauds 'forgotten victory' at Korea memorial dedication (gazetteonline.com)
• The Battle for the Peninsula (online.wsj.com)
• Korea, The Forgotten War We're Still Fighting 60 Years Later (rightpundits.com)
• U.S., S. Korean troops drop anti-sub bombs in drills (ctv.ca)
• Remembering the Korean War, 60 years ago (boston.com)
• The Forgotten War, Remembered (nytimes.com)

Books of The Times - Bruce Cumings’s ‘Korean War,’ Corrective on Conflict - NYTimes.com

Image via Wikipedia

Books of The Times - Bruce Cumings’s ‘Korean War,’ Corrective on Conflict - NYTimes.com

North Korea, like Cuba, is a country suspended in time, one that exists off modernity’s grid. It’s a place where the cold war never ended, where the heirloom paranoia is taken down and polished daily.

Korea’s cold war chill is heating up. Four months ago a South Korean warship was sunk, and a South Korean-led international investigative team concluded that North Korea was responsible. Next week the United States and South Korea will begin large-scale naval exercises off the coasts of the Korean Peninsula and Japan in a show of force.

The world will be watching, and here’s a book that American policymakers may hope it won’t be reading: Bruce Cumings’s “Korean War,” a powerful revisionist history of America’s intervention in Korea. Beneath its bland title, Mr. Cumings’s book is a squirm-inducing assault on America’s moral behavior during the Korean War, a conflict that he says is misremembered when it is remembered at all. It’s a book that puts the reflexive anti-Americanism of North Korea’s leaders into sympathetic historical context.

Mr. Cumings is chairman of the history department at the University of Chicago and the author of “The Origins of the Korean War,” a respected two-volume survey. He mows down a host of myths about the war in his short new book, which is a distillation of his own scholarship and that of many other historians. But he begins by mowing down David Halberstam.

Mr. Cumings, who admires Mr. Halberstam’s writing about Vietnam, plucks the wings from “The Coldest Winter,” Mr. Halberstam’s 2007 book about the Korean War. The book, he argues, makes all the classic mistakes popular American historians tend to make about this little understood war.

Mr. Halberstam’s book is among those that “evince almost no knowledge of Korea or its history” and “barely get past two or three Korean names,” Mr. Cumings writes. “Halberstam mentions the U.S. Military Government from 1945 to 1948, which deeply shaped postwar Korean history — in one sentence,” he adds. “There is absolutely nothing on the atrocious massacres of this war, or the American incendiary bombing campaigns.” Ouch. More...

________________________________________________________

Americans as a whole have no understanding of the complexities of the Korean Civil War nor the fact that America committed many atrocities there. As a result of this lack of knowledge most Americans have no idea of the degree of resentment felt by the general South Koreans populace toward the United States. The U.S. is often seen as an imperial power. Totalitarian China is consistently viewed with far less disdain than the United States and contemporary world events are often viewed through this perspective of Korean history. This can be extremely disconcerting and surprising for Americans living in South Korea who have been taught to focus on the fact that America freed South Korea from both Japanese imperialism and the onslaught of North Korean and Chinese troops during the Korean War losing over 37,000 troops just during the latter war. Learning history is an indispensable tool necessary for understanding contemporary attitudes. We all have so much more to learn about our history.

John H. Armwood

Related articles by Zemanta

• Korean war: 'There's still the evidence to show it was American imperialism' (guardian.co.uk)
• China rewrites history of Korean War (telegraph.co.uk)
• Obama Signs Rangel Korean War Resolution (harlemworldblog.wordpress.com)
• Korea, the war without end, casts a long shadow as 60-year mark nears (foxnews.com)