| Submit your comments on this article |
| China-Japan-Koreas |
| S Korea Refuses to Join Stop & Search of N Korean ships for WMD |
| 2006-11-13 |
| THE South Korean Government has defied American pressure and refused to join a stop-and-search campaign against North Korean weapons of mass destruction proliferation. It is the second rebuff from Roh Moo-hyun's administration to US efforts to organise purposeful sanctions in retaliation for Pyongyang's October 9 nuclear bomb test and again exposes disagreement among the frontline states about how to deal with the rogue regime. A meeting of senior government officials convened at the weekend by Prime Minister Han Myung-sook decided the Seoul administration would not participate in the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative. The US and allies such as Australia and Japan regard the PSI as a primary tool of international sanctions against North Korean nuclear and missile proliferation authorised by UN Security Council Resolution 1718. However, South Korea and China question the legality of PSI activities and the North Koreans have warned they will treat an attempt to interdict one of its vessels as an act of war. Resolution 1718 calls for "inspection of cargo to and from" North Korea but does not specify how, or under what authority, that should be done. South Korea is officially an observer-member of the PSI, launched in 2003, but conspicuously does not participate in its activities for fear of antagonising the North Korean regime. The Roh administration's refusal to make a meaningful contribution to the PSI -- following its rejection of US demands to withdraw from two "inter-Korean" development projects, Kaesong industrial park and the Mt Kumgang resort -- will deepen alienation between the White House and the Blue House. The South Koreans believe the Bush administration pays insufficient regard to the economic and humanitarian costs -- and the risk of military attack on Seoul -- if the Kim regime starts to collapse under external pressure. America will be further antagonised by comments attributed to South Korean officials expressing hope that the removal of hardline US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld and the hammering the Republicans took in last week's congressional elections will oblige the White House to take a more accommodating stance on North Korea. US officials are also unhappy about Blue House security adviser Song Min-soon becoming Foreign Minister this week to replace Ban Ki-moon, who finished work on Friday before assuming his new post as UN Secretary-General. Mr Song, who was a participant in the weekend's decision-making, is one of the drivers of engagement and an outspoken critic of US foreign policy. |
| Posted by:trailing wife |
| #16 To his credit, Rumsfeld has worked to reduce current and planned troops in SK. That process needs to accelerate to ASAP. We have more strategic flexibility vis a vis NK once we cease to be a target for Kimmie's artillery. SK is for all intents and purposes on their side. Even China is more help on this issue. |
| Posted by: JAB 2006-11-13 14:34 |
| #15 Let the South Korean politicians find out that words have meanings and that in the new world order, Uncle Sugar is tired of being played for a sucker. Wasn't the 2nd ID going to deploy to Alaska anyway? While the airbases are convenient, I think the US could do without them. On a personal note, I could probably make the sacrifice and do without kimchi and soju. Bring the boys and girls home. We have plenty of other places where they are needed and wanted. |
| Posted by: RWV 2006-11-13 12:25 |
| #14 Actually send the gear to Guam (ro-ro ships like we have at Diego Garcia), and the units to Wash state (port facilities) and Hawaii. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-13 11:53 |
| #13 Seriously, folks. In this case it is time to redeploy to Okinawa. |
| Posted by: Excalibur 2006-11-13 09:37 |
| #12 ZF - "they'll be a lot friendlier to us if they have to beg for our help instead of being able to take it for granted." Kind of applies to welfare too. US, but even worse, France & rest of EU. SPoD - why not re-deploy to, say, Tehran? Or Damascus? I think SK is more afraid of 'winning' against NK than losing to them. In a conflict, SK would, I think' win, though at a painful cost, but then the disaster that is NK would be THEIR responsibility (think West Germany absorbing East Germany, but with East Germany at least ten times worse of a basket case.) So avoid conflict and aim to maintain status quo. |
| Posted by: Glenmore 2006-11-13 08:53 |
| #11 This would be a strong start for any serious candidate for prez in '08. Pull troops out of the ingrateful SKor, and patrol our southern border with them. No additional expense, and doing something useful for us for a change. |
| Posted by: wxjames 2006-11-13 08:14 |
| #10 Here would be a good place for the DemocRats to call for |
| Posted by: Jackal 2006-11-13 06:44 |
| #9 Nice clear and concise wrap on alliances, ZF - Thx! Best summary of the process and evolution I've seen. |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-13 04:52 |
| #8 This is the problem with entangling alliances that the early US administrations were talking about. Basically, your allies start figuring that you can't possibly be doing this out of the goodness of your heart. From there, they move on to the feeling that you must be getting something over them - there's got to be some angle involved, i.e. you must be exploiting them in some unfair manner. Then they swing to the conclusion that you can't do without defending them. Upon which they decide they can start demanding all kinds of concessions from you for the privilege of defending them. Mind you, the early Americans administrations were talking about entangling, but temporary alliances for the purpose of dealing with specific issues - the coalitions of the willing to which Rumsfeld referred. We have cast-in-stone alliances that have run over 50 years. I'm not at all surprised that these people are starting to see us as their enemies rather than their friends. I suspect they'll be a lot friendlier to us if they have to beg for our help instead of being able to take it for granted. |
| Posted by: Zhang Fei 2006-11-13 04:25 |
| #7 Start removing troops and equipment by June 2007 and have us out by January 2008. Move it all to Guam or back to the US. There is no room in Japan from what I understand from people who have been there, it's a simple matter of logistics. I am tired of paying to defend people with not will to defend themselves. We do it for Europe and we get no respect or help from them, the south Korean's seem to have the same disease. Screw them. |
| Posted by: Sock Puppet of Doom 2006-11-13 03:47 |
| #6 Amen, AP. The interesting thing is that it appears many presume SKor will be the dominant "partner" in this inevitable fiasco - and I do believe that it is inevitable that they'll "merge", one way or t'other. And if they're not? Won't that be a whole new thang? |
| Posted by: .com 2006-11-13 03:12 |
| #5 Allies run both ways. It's a two way street. The SKORS cannot have it both ways, especially using the US for its umbrella while spitting in our face. I would start a phased withdrawl on a timetable with a fairly short horizon. Then all of SKOR can think a while about the consequences of an ally that will only provide air and sea power. They are worried about taking over a busted NORK? They better start thinking about the destruction of the SKOR economy when investors and vendors start to worry about the reliability of getting products from SKOR. The world needs a dose of reality on what it means to cave in to evil. Actions => consequences. The Paleos my never get it, but I have a gut feeling that SKOR may, just may, get it when they look into the abyss. |
| Posted by: Alaska Paul 2006-11-13 02:22 |
| #4 SKor doesnt want to help? Fine. F**k 'em. Let them deal with the north ALONE if thats how they want it. Pull ALL our guys back to Japan, then to the US - add them to the Iraq rotations. We need them there more than we need them in a hostile Korea that is rich but cheap-saktes on defense at our expense. And tell the SKors that if NKor starts anything with us, we're going to pop Pyongyang hard and bomb them silly to destroy their nuke program. Tell them we dont give a rats ass about Seoul - thats their problem dealing with Kim's artillery and troops that will level Seoul, since they dont want to help us with ours, we will not help them with their problem. We suggest they invade and push that artillery out of range, but they can stand there and get pounded for all we care. They had thier chance and thier coice and they decided NKor relations were more important than us, so live with the consequences. Bit of realism might wake them up. And if not, carry through with it. We can buy our cheap microwaves from China, and Kia and Hyundia suck as cars anyway. |
| Posted by: OldSpook 2006-11-13 01:39 |
| #3 FREEREPUBLIC.com/OTHER > "EMPTY" NorKor ship stopped near Mumbai. Varied theories on the Net about why the ship was [mysteriously]empty. |
| Posted by: JosephMendiola 2006-11-13 01:32 |
| #2 Fine, let's pull out all of our troops and promise South Korea that all we'll ever do is come back in and bomb the shit out of any further conflicts. No more boots on the ground, ever. See how they like that. |
| Posted by: Zenster 2006-11-13 01:11 |
| #1 More evidence that the SKors don't want anything to happen that would cause the collapse of the NKors. They have their lives and they just don't want to be bothered. |
| Posted by: Steve White 2006-11-13 01:02 |