|
Renewed tensions between South Korea and DPRK; War... well, maybe not.
|
|
Topic Started: Feb 1 2009, 06:17 PM (254 Views)
|
|
Ulgania
|
Feb 1 2009, 06:17 PM
Post #1
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
- Posts:
- 4,041
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #450
- Joined:
- June 3, 2008
|
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090201/ap_on_re_as/as_koreas_tension
Spoiler: click to toggle SEOUL, South Korea – North Korea warned Sunday that South Korea's confrontational policies may trigger a war on the divided peninsula, a message coming two days after the communist country vowed to abandon all peace agreements with its southern neighbor.
Relations between the two Koreas have been strained since conservative President Lee Myung-bak took office nearly a year ago in Seoul, pledging to take a harder line on the North. Tension heightened Friday when the North said it was ditching a nonaggression pact and all other peace accords with South Korea.
The tension may lead to "an unavoidable military conflict and a war," North Korea's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried Sunday by the country's official Korean Central News Agency.
"The policy of confrontation" by the South Korean government is "the very source of military conflicts and war" between the Koreas, it said.
The North has accused Lee's government of preparing to stage a war, which South Korea denies. Earlier this month, the North's military declared it adopted an "all-out confrontational posture" to defeat any southern aggression.
In its Friday statement, the North said it would no longer respect a disputed sea border with the South on the west of the peninsula, raising the prospect for a new armed clash in the area — already the scene of bloody naval skirmishes in 1999 and 2002.
President Lee sought to downplay the statement and called it "not unusual." He indicated his government will wait until the North is ready for talks in good faith.
A South Korean Defense Ministry official said Sunday that the country's navy remains on alert along the western sea border. The official — speaking on condition of anonymity citing department policy — said the ministry has not detected any unusual movements of the North Korean military.
The two Koreas technically remain at war because their three-year conflict ended in 1953 with a truce, not a peace treaty. The peninsula remains divided by a heavily fortified border, with tens of thousands of troops stationed on both sides.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090201/wl_afp/nkoreaskorearelations_20090201155501
Spoiler: click to toggle SEOUL (AFP) – North Korean leader Kim Jong-Il has hailed his troops as "invincible" as state media on Sunday warned of a possible military conflict with South Korea amid heightened tensions between the neighbours.
Kim expressed confidence in his soldiers' ability to "shatter any surprise invasion of the enemy at a single blow" as he inspected an army unit, the North's official Korean Central News Agency (KCNA) said.
"The KPA (Korean People's Army)... has grown to be the invincible revolutionary ranks, all members of which devotedly defend the Party and the leader," it quoted Kim as saying, without giving a date for the visit.
The KCNA dispatch came days after North Korea scrapped all political and military agreements with the South, further raising tensions between the two sides, which technically remain at war as the 1950-1953 Korean War ended without a peace treaty.
"In Korea in the state of armistice confrontation means escalated tension and it may lead to an uncontrollable and unavoidable military conflict and a war," Rodong Sinmun, the North's ruling communist party paper, said Sunday.
Rodong then warned of the South's "destruction" if Seoul keeps ignoring warnings from the North.
Accusing the South of pushing relations to the brink of war, the North announced Friday that all political and military agreements would be nullified, including one covering their Yellow Sea border -- the scene of bloody naval clashes in 1999 and 2002.
Hours later, South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak vowed to stick to what Pyongyang has called a "confrontational" policy on North Korea.
Lee, who took office a year ago, rolled back the "sunshine" engagement policy of his liberal predecessors, linking Seoul's economic assistance to Pyongyang's nuclear disarmament efforts.
South Korea stepped up its border monitoring and vowed to respond firmly to any violation, but said no unusual activities had been detected.
"No unusual military movements have been spotted in North Korea yet," a South Korean defence ministry spokesman told AFP.
US State Department acting spokesman Robert Wood said the "distinctly not helpful" North Korean comments would not affect six-party talks aimed at scrapping Pyongyang's nuclear weapons programmes.
Pyongyang signed a deal with its five partners in 2007 calling for its nuclear weapons to be scrapped in return for aid, normalised relations with the United States and Japan and a formal peace pact on the Korean peninsula.
But the negotiations, which involve the two Koreas, the United States, China, Japan and Russia, are deadlocked as North Korea, which tested a nuclear device in 2006, has baulked at a written agreement detailing ways to verify nuclear disarmament.
My opinion on this? I'm calling shenanigans. They're always on a war-footing, and even if NK does invade no one is going to want to back up that regime. If China did decide to support the offensive, it would be a far more drastic change to the geopolitical landscape than otherwise. Bad idea on their part. The world needs a general change, but not this gratingly.
|
|
|
| |
|
New Harumf
|
Feb 1 2009, 10:27 PM
Post #2
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
- Posts:
- 9,638
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #177
- Joined:
- October 8, 2005
|
It would be real stupidity.
|
|
|
| |
|
Toussaint
|
Feb 7 2009, 02:55 AM
Post #3
|
Major
- Posts:
- 1,973
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #377
- Joined:
- October 3, 2007
|
Latest developments are worrying.
Looks like the North is being WAY aggressive here....
|
|
|
| |
|
Menhad
|
Feb 7 2009, 12:35 PM
Post #4
|
ET2(IDW)
- Posts:
- 2,681
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #143
- Joined:
- May 22, 2005
|
- Toussaint
- Feb 7 2009, 02:55 AM
Indeed.
North Korea fleet moves offshore of Seoul
Edited by Menhad, Feb 7 2009, 12:37 PM.
|
|
|
| |
|
Tristan da Cunha
|
Feb 7 2009, 05:35 PM
Post #5
|
Science and Industry
- Posts:
- 6,792
- Group:
- Veterans
- Member
- #86
- Joined:
- November 1, 2004
|
- Menhad
- Feb 7 2009, 12:35 PM
That's a very troubling development.
|
|
|
| |
|
East Anarx
|
Feb 7 2009, 05:42 PM
Post #6
|
Anarchitect
- Posts:
- 4,788
- Group:
- Multi
- Member
- #210
- Joined:
- January 16, 2006
|
Indeed. Unsettling.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ulgania
|
Jun 12 2009, 12:32 PM
Post #7
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
- Posts:
- 4,041
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #450
- Joined:
- June 3, 2008
|
So yeah, UN Sanctions and all five Security Councils with veto-power being on board for it.
What I'd like to know however, is that if the sanctions are going to have an effect on the population in poverty?
|
|
|
| |
|
Rhadamanthus
|
Jun 12 2009, 12:39 PM
Post #8
|
Legitimist
- Posts:
- 12,945
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- January 13, 2004
|
- Ulgania
- Jun 12 2009, 12:32 PM
So yeah, UN Sanctions and all five Security Councils with veto-power being on board for it.
What I'd like to know however, is that if the sanctions are going to have an effect on the population in poverty? I think that poor populations generally always bear the brunt of economic sanctions aimed to punish dictators. Sanctions are almost as blunt an instrument as aerial bombardment.
|
|
|
| |
|
Ulgania
|
Jun 12 2009, 01:29 PM
Post #9
|
A better Zarathustra has never rode a horse
- Posts:
- 4,041
- Group:
- Members
- Member
- #450
- Joined:
- June 3, 2008
|
I was thinking in reference to the circumstances that are already prevalent.
|
|
|
| |
|
New Harumf
|
Jun 12 2009, 02:05 PM
Post #10
|
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
- Posts:
- 9,638
- Group:
- Forum Mods
- Member
- #177
- Joined:
- October 8, 2005
|
- Romanus Diogenes
- Jun 12 2009, 12:39 PM
- Ulgania
- Jun 12 2009, 12:32 PM
So yeah, UN Sanctions and all five Security Councils with veto-power being on board for it.
What I'd like to know however, is that if the sanctions are going to have an effect on the population in poverty?
I think that poor populations generally always bear the brunt of economic sanctions aimed to punish dictators. Sanctions are almost as blunt an instrument as aerial bombardment. There is no difference between the two - they both punish the populous with the hopes of turning them against the dictator, but always have the exact opposite effect. We'd be better off shipping them microwaves, laptops and flush toilets, so they can get used to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get pissed off when the dictator takes it all away.
|
|
|
| |
|
Rhadamanthus
|
Jun 12 2009, 02:09 PM
Post #11
|
Legitimist
- Posts:
- 12,945
- Group:
- Admin
- Member
- #19
- Joined:
- January 13, 2004
|
- New Harumf
- Jun 12 2009, 02:05 PM
- Romanus Diogenes
- Jun 12 2009, 12:39 PM
- Ulgania
- Jun 12 2009, 12:32 PM
So yeah, UN Sanctions and all five Security Councils with veto-power being on board for it.
What I'd like to know however, is that if the sanctions are going to have an effect on the population in poverty?
I think that poor populations generally always bear the brunt of economic sanctions aimed to punish dictators. Sanctions are almost as blunt an instrument as aerial bombardment.
There is no difference between the two - they both punish the populous with the hopes of turning them against the dictator, but always have the exact opposite effect. We'd be better off shipping them microwaves, laptops and flush toilets, so they can get used to a more comfortable lifestyle, and then get pissed off when the dictator takes it all away. Yes, I agree fully with NH.
|
|
|
| |