And even the Chosun Ilbo thought so. Well, maybe not funny.
Anyway, from TIME:
Kim didn’t specifically say it was a North Korean torpedo. He didn’t need to; nor necessarily does the South Korean government want to. “South Korea is now like a CSI investigator who, upon seeing a dead body with a bullet hole in the forehead refuses to rule out a heart attack as the cause of death since the only suspect in the room with a pistol is a vicious gangland boss,” says Bruce Klingner, a senior research fellow at the Heritage Foundation and a former CIA analyst. “Better to engage in a lengthy investigation, both to gather irrefutable evidence and to delay the inevitable day of reckoning.”
It’s not a bad piece, to be sure, but I disagree with this:
The gangster analogy is apt. It precisely captures the dynamic that keeps the North’s relations with the outside world pretty much exactly where they’ve been for the past 20 years. As long as Kim & Co. don’t do anything truly crazy, like start bombing Seoul, there is virtually nothing that South Korea, the U.S. or anyone else can do to constrain their smaller acts of war. And make no mistake, shooting a torpedo that sinks a South Korean ship in South Korea’s own waters is an act of war, no less than a North Korean artillery attack on the South Korean parliament building in Seoul would be.
It’s just that smaller acts of war cannot be allowed to matter. Hillary Clinton infuriated many South Koreans when she said on April 22 that she hopes “there is no talk of war, there is no action or miscalculation that could provoke a response that might lead to conflict. That’s not in anyone’s interest.” The Secretary of State also added that “the way to resolve the outstanding differences [between the Koreas] was for the North to return to the six-party talk framework [which involves trying to bribe the North into giving up its nuclear weapons] as soon as possible.” Though the State Department says Clinton’s message was aimed at Pyongyang, that’s not the way a lot of people in the South took it. To them it sounded like 46 South Korean sailors lie at the bottom of the sea, but God forbid South Korea do anything that might “lead to conflict.”
It’s not that South Korea, the US or anyone else can’t do anything to constrain North Korea’s smaller acts of war. It’s that they don’t. Much is made of the threat of war, and with good reason. Seoul has much to lose if the balloon goes up. That said, so does North Korea. Pyongyang has the ability to hurt the South terribly, but the South — with the United States — has the ability to terminate the existence of the North Korean state if they choose, as they certainly would in the event of a war. Assuming North Korea — which I think is much more rational in its decision-making than people give it credit for — doesn’t want to start a war that it will lose in a very permanent sense, South Korea could take a page from the North Korean play book and launch some retaliatory “provocations” of its own. JoongAng Ilbo editorial writer Kim Jin was right — the military option has to be on the table.
The problem is that it would take a very, very big set of balls to test this theory, especially in the face of North Korea’s carefully crafted image of bat-shit insanity. Most responsible leaders don’t have that kind of set, a fact we all should probably be very thankful for. God knows, I doubt I’d have the stones to order the F-15s to start bombing North Korean naval bases. Unfortunately, this leads the North to believe — quite rightly — that its adversaries are so frightened of it that it can get away with provocations that would get other countries bombed. So they continue to do so, knowing full well that, at worst, their adversaries will get pissed (oh no!), and at best, it’ll win them concessions and/or create political headaches for whoever is leading South Korea.
{ 39 comments… read them below or add one }
Even joking about a military option is just so Pyongyang. No state would credibly give up its right to self-defense, so even mentioning it is just the act of a punk. If it weren’t North Korea, it would be the Taiwan problem in this region. Either way, it’s the dirty laundry from over 60 years, that the US has not cleaned in its period of hegemony. That it has taken the form it does is also testimony to the particular trainwreck that is Korea. Pyongyang plays the game it learned from the US: heavy on violence; long on hypocrisy. If the US is righteous, then this one will hurt, to correct. It’s early days, and Britain’s example shows the way it will probably be.
Huh?
The North would love a limited South military response. If fact, this is almost certainly what they are hoping for. Without proof positive that they fired the first shot, and even with it proven only externally, they can re-justify the military first policy, (ie. the country is under constant threat of foreign aggression), and quiet the unrest that has developed by the looming succession and their “currency reform”, which has bankrupted all the people who kept the enfeebled economy running. The only two responses that make sense, and will detract from this end, are to: A) cut all aid, which is sold as tribute from frightened nations internally, or B) use the act as a reasonable, (which it is), reason to end the armistice an finish the North. Of course, A is free and B has huge costs in the short term. Sadly, I’ve been told, they will only ask China to cut North Korean aid. It’s a very Pyrrhic and impotent response in my opinion.
Left flank, dude… You need to quit huffing bus exhaust!!!
China will always keep North Korea afloat and is breaking UN sanctions as we speak.
But there are a lot more ways South Korea can turn up the heat on the Kim Family Regime:
-Endless cross-border and coastal balloon launches with packets of food; DVDs; cellphones; newspapers; Korean language editions of books like The Cleanest Race, Aquariums of Pyongyang and Nothing to Envy; and factual material on South Korean prosperity and Kim Jong-il’s misdeeds. Inform the masses that Kim Il-sung was no better than his son. Spend the cash it would take to build a new Cheonan on these items.
-Crank up the talk radio and K-pop at Panmunjom and other posts.
-Pirate broadcasts that break into state TV programming (Falun Gong did it in China, to maddening effect.)
-Black ops that quietly assassinate the bagmen and other Office #39 operatives that do biz for the Kim family around the world. North Korea denies they exist, so will be loathe to complain about them.
-Well-placed protest placards at all North Korean matches in the upcoming World Cup that make it hard for North Korean TV to show them. Hell, do the cards mass-gymnastics style.
-Paid ads in the Pyongyang-friendly Hankyoreh that vilify North Korea based entirely on known facts.
-Public campaigns to haul Kim Jong-il to the Hague for any of dozens of atrocities that bear his fingerprints, from the Cheonan to Rangoon.
@slim
Even doing those actions that you stated takes some balls.
The politicians have too much to lose and are scared.
I’m sure they’ll have to do something though…prob more useless sanctions.
It still boggles my mind that South Korea seems so helpless while spending what….25 billion a year on military spending?
Isn’t that more than North Korea’s entire GDP?
I still think South Korea should strengthen it’s military and remove US military forces from the Korean peninsula. It’s not like the US would be that far away considering the forces it maintains in Japan, guam, etc.
Negotiate with North Korea from a position of strength without the US.
That’s just my own nutty ramblings though
Just seems like both North Korea and South Korea keep on using the US as an excuse for everything.
“Even joking about a military option is just so Pyongyang.”
–Left Flank
Your opinion is demonstrably wrong. Pyongyang doesn’t joke about a military option. They actually use it…mostly to kill unsuspecting Koreans. And incidentally, rational people think that that is a problem. Surprisingly, you do not.
The use of military option against the DPRK is no joke here in America. We take it very seriously. And we have considered the benefits of such an option to be outweighed by the costs. That is the only reason why we have not been able to “clean” your “dirty laundry.”
The only thing “so Pyongyang” in this thread is your flagrantly weak straw man argument to deflect blame from Pyonyang for these murders. If you are “righteous, then this one will hurt, to correct.”
If not, then you are just a “punk.”
I’m glad I’m not alone in finding @1 just totally loopy. Is there a babelfish program to translate muddy prose?
Slim, not everything wet and slippery in a cow pasture is “mud”…
“I’m glad I’m not alone in finding @1 just totally loopy. Is there a babelfish program to translate muddy prose?”
–slim
Babelfish! Hahahaha! You are not alone. I was going to tell the commenter that while I do acknowledge that he is using actual English words, I am not certain that he is using actual English definitions.
Setnaffa, you made me LOL twice! Thank you. Erased the pain of reading Left Flank’s deluded accusations.
Liked all your ideas except this one. Wouldn’t having its money supply disrupted this way tempt the North Koreans to carry out revenge assasinations on our people, either government officials or CIA operatives?
–Wouldn’t having its money supply disrupted this way tempt the North Koreans to carry out revenge assasinations on our people, either government officials or CIA operatives?
That’s why I said “quietly.” Basically “disappear” these guys in ways that could be defections or something else. “Burn Notice” type stuff.
“-Crank up the talk radio and K-pop at Panmunjom and other posts.”
Oh God no, do not give them a valid reason to bomb Seoul. It only take one Wonder girls album to reduce Seoul to ashes.
“It (sic) only take one Wonder girls album to reduce Seoul to ashes.”
On second thought, yes, that is a violation of the human rights of a long-suffering people.
So Robert does this mean you now think US troops should remain in country?
Hey hey there it was an honest question (replying to thumbs down).
Don’t take the votes personally, Robin. Might be the same twits that gave Left Flank a thumbs-up.
I’m all for going total Cold War on North Korea (Slim, I love your ideas, and wish to subscribe to your newsletter). Also, I don’t think it’s necessary to avoid conflict with the North just so KJI doesn’t get fodder for his propaganda: seems to me his propaganda machine will work fine regardless of what the US/ROK does, so there’s no real reason to tread softly. In fact, goading N. Korea into small escalations would hurt them more than the South, and as long as that full-war tipping point is avoided, all the better.
What I don’t like are the possibilities this opens up for China. Aiden Foster-Carter brought up this point, and I asked a very similar question on the other thread (sorry, but I got no answer over there): Will a hard-line stance against the North simply drive them into China’s open arms?
The wisdom of this thread:
1. “…cut all aid, which is sold as tribute from frightened nations internally…” (madar)
2. “China will…keep North Korea afloat…” (slim)
3. “It still boggles my mind that South Korea seems so helpless while spending what….25 billion a year on military spending?
(…)
I still think South Korea should strengthen it’s military and remove US military forces from the Korean peninsula. It’s not like the US would be that far away considering the forces it maintains in Japan, Guam, etc.
Negotiate with North Korea from a position of strength without the US.
(…)
Just seems like both North Korea and South Korea keep on using the US as an excuse for everything. (keius)
4. lollabrats: anyone who uses the bigoted “we” as anything other than a metonym or just out of sheer laziness is an asshat.
Here’s how I view the situation in the region, from someone in Busan whom I think has the best handle (please read his blog – and learn game theory):
1. http://asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/six-party-talks-as-a-game-theoretic-stag-hunt-1-n-korea-is-the-stag/
2. http://asiansecurityblog.wordpress.com/2010/04/29/the-six-party-talks-as-a-game-theoretic-stag-hunt-2-china-likes-the-rabbit-too-much/
Here’s my response: http://radcontra.wordpress.com/2010/04/26/elmer-fudd-and-the-north-korean-stag/
(I’ll have more to say about this prof next week. I’m excited to attend a conference in Busan where he’ll be speaking.,,,stay tuned. It’s refreshing to find a Poli Sci-trained prof in Busan with a paper trail whose willing to be a mentor.)
<blockquote cite="I’m not one to court Beijing. One theoretical player can’t have all that power in the face of a smaller, better coordinated coalition in the real world. A smaller band of hunters, united around the PSI and freezing the DPRK’s bank accounts is both more feasible and a firm platform for future cooperation."?
It's not just that I find many paleocrats don't think through the moral consequences of their own proposals. Most here are just expressing frustration with the interminable impasse and the loss of life and opportunities for improving the welfare of the peninsula's inhabitants. It's also that local expats are so intent on the problem at hand they also don;t consider the problems if their proposals were universalized and became part of a national foreign policy. American foreign policy, like its domestic policy, is balkanized into interest group fiefs, like the defense industries. One foreign policy mistake, like allowing the Russians in WW2 to occupy Manchuria, becomes the spore that festers into a DPRK. But, worse still, is the policy, that says its acceptable to intervene in a state when its policies don't satisfy some constellation of American interest groups with enough cash to swing the last election or capture a bureaucracy. Charitably, the DPRK isn't the RP, Central America, the Caribbean, or Congo. Washington didn't care enough to commit as egregious the number of acts in North Korea as it did when successive Democratic and Republican administrations really feared "existential" threats in its backyard or to thwart the Soviets. Now, the US has less power to throw around, and instead of alienating China, as Brzezinski argued, we need to groom China for regional hegemony by our "better" standards – not our "hypocritical" ones. The Korean peninsula is obviously of little value to the US, or successive administrations would have done as much damage as elsewhere. Freer trade, the rule of law, and republican government are American values the US should institutionalize, not venting our frustration with our captured military and industrial interests speaking loudest.
“4. lollabrats: anyone who uses the bigoted “we” as anything other than a metonym or just out of sheer laziness is an asshat.”
–Left Flank
“Freer trade, the rule of law, and republican government are American values the US should institutionalize, not venting OUR frustration with OUR captured military and industrial interests speaking loudest.”
–Left Flank
Apparently “we” is bigoted and lazy. And apparently, “our” is the magnanimous and thoughtful pronoun. Well, either that or you just called yourself an asshat, Left Flank.
#20:
It’s a lazy metonym. I wouldn’t dare speak for you. I thought my tempered use of “our” a rhetorical flourish for those lazy enough to think there is still a “We, the People” left in America. Your usage in #7 emphasizes and exposes the opposite: those narrow interests and their dupes who claim to represent the majority. It’s unfortunate English-speaking use pronouns without distinguishing between people and things in plural amounts. But, you just wallowed in it.
“It’s unfortunate English-speaking use pronouns without distinguishing between people and things in plural amounts.”
should be:
It’s unfortunate English-speaking megalomaniacs use pronouns without distinguishing between people and things in plural amounts.
@Left Flank.
Seriously fella, seek professional help before it’s too late.
“It’s a lazy metonym. I wouldn’t dare speak for you.”
–Left Flank
“…not venting OUR frustration with OUR captured military and industrial interests…”
–Left Flank
Well then, I’m happy to learn that you are not actually speaking on my behalf regarding YOUR frustration.
“I thought my tempered use of “our” a rhetorical flourish for those lazy enough to think there is still a “We, the People” left in America.”
–Left Flank
And I assume by this that this “We” clearly precludes myself and a large chunk of America. It’s a nice use of irony. But a little lazy, I would agree. Nevertheless, the irony of your irony is that you’re still committing the same fault you blame me for committing.
Listen, this line of attack is not going to profit you. We are only going to end up calling each other asshats until we get sick of it. You most certainly will continue to make yourself vulnerable to the charge of being an asshat by your own rationales if you insist on continuing.
But I do want to say that I appreciate your returning here to present a better account of your beliefs. This kind of behavior is much prefered to what you have been doing these last two days, which is posting cryptic declaratives (due to your deliberate poor use of English and your absence of reasoning), calling people “punks,” and then disappearing. That kind of behavior is more akin to the behavior of trolls.
Now allow me some time to at least read through your linked documents and I hope you will allow me an opportunity to talk to you about them afterward in a civil way. Would that be acceptable?
Please, stick around, but at least be civil with me and I will be civil with you.
If we have a few minutes to while away, we could click on Left Flank’s username to access his blog and then click on the “about” to know his whole life story, including the hospital where he was born and intimate details about loved ones which we won’t specify out of decency. Then we could decide if our new friend is someone with whom we wish to have an online exchange.
#24:
I assure you I don’t hit and run. I have a busy schedule like anyone, but sometimes I can take more time to follow-up. I take your advice about diction very seriously also. I admit my late-night comment at #1 was cryptic, as you put it. I just thought your comments the least helpful of those criticizing me. I would invite you to respond on my site, and to read Robert Kelly’s material, too. He needs the attention more than any of us.
#25:
You have a short memory.
The brain’s ability to suppress unpleasant memories is well-documented.
#28:
“Listen, this line of attack is not going to profit you. We are only going to end up calling each other asshats until we get sick of it. You most certainly will continue to make yourself vulnerable to the charge of being an asshat by your own rationales if you insist on continuing.
(…)
Please, stick around, but at least be civil with me and I will be civil with you.”
Perhaps we can follow this good advice, too. I recall your moniker from the better younger days of the K-Sphere when you first started posting.
Left Flank is fine —- and the grandfather of the K Blog community.
He just has a, ahem, unique way with words.
#39:
Right back at you!
And, sorry for being ME!
But, I do appreciate the traffic
!
I never use the word “asshat.” Even if you end up calling me one, I won’t respond with the same, uh, “charge.”
Slim,
I agree with many of the suggestions you made, especially the balloon drops. The reaction of the Kim regime 2 years ago to private-sponsored balloon releases (as well as the reaction of local left-wing wack-jobs) tells an important story about how effective they are. Also, lots of defectors and escapees talk about how they were driven to cross over after reading leaflets.
In mass quantities, they could be very effective — but a lot of care needs to be taken with their content.
For example, going after Kim Il-Sung would be a no-no. Even defectors who suffered in DPRK political camps still hold Kim Il-Sung in high regard, and many saeteomin won’t talk ill of him. Targeting him could well backfire – and there’s no real point doing so. Targeting Kim Jong-Il would be a more useful exercise, since he’s not held in nearly as high regard.
Personally, if I was in charge of the leaflets, I wouldn’t focus on the attacking the norther leadership — instead I would just showcase the relative strengths of the south (freedom of movement, discussion, living standards, food abundance, wealth et etc), and let the locals make the comparisons themselves.
Korean-Chinese make a great distinction between Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-il, so it does not surprise me to hear that North Koreans might, too. Even adult North Koreans who’ve never crossed into China or listened to a clandestine broadcast must have noticed the decline in living standards since the younger Kim assumed leadership. Blaming famines on droughts, floods, and evil Yankees won’t fill empty rice bowls or sooth growling stomachs.
But it does provide an external enemy (and of a different race!) to deflect attention from whats really wrong with the country – the fat man and his clique of exploiters.
“It only takes one Wonder girls album to reduce Seoul to ashes.”
UN:F [1.8.8_1072]
My students have come up with some new nicknames for certain K-Pop groups. The Wonder Girls are now known as Surgery Girls. Girls’ Generation is now known to us as the Silicone Generation.
If one Wonder Girls’ album is enough to reduce Seoul to ashes, what would regaling them with Super Junior’s “Sorry, Sorry” be? I rather think it would be a case for the War Crimes Tribunal in The Hague!
Haha. Reading that description of North Korea made me think of Tom Dwan on High Stakes Poker: always raising on a bluff; everyone’s sure he must be bluffing, but still no one wants to call or, God forbid, raise him, ’cause even if he is bluffing, there is no doubt he is so insanely ballsy that he just might up the stakes and raise AGAIN.
North Korean propaganda is highly effective but not unassailable. That’s why Slim’s list in #5 is viable. Kim Il-sung used external enemies, too, to deflect attention from the weaknesses of his regime, but during most of his rule, the grass on the other side of the Yalu and Tumen Rivers didn’t look greener.
The idea of having the gonads to respond directly, militarily, is interesting. I think both have an awful lot to lose. In the end, though, isn’t it the norks who have more to lose? The leadership? If there were a war, there would still be a S Korean Gov’t when it was over. The North would be decimated.
In that poker game, I say the play is to call their bluff. Sounds to me like Hillary Clinton and others at state *may* have pressured LMB to do nothing out of fear. I think it was a mistake if so.
The sad part is that while the Southies gripe, I think they’d have really freaked out a lot more if LMB actually DID anything about it.
You must log in to post a comment.