Tough talk from two rather large players on the global scene, neither of which is the United States. Let neighboring countries have the opportunity to resolve these issues before you get too far involved. Good policy, from my perspective. http://www.cnn.com/2003/WORLD/europe/05/27/china.russia/index.html Putin, Hu issue N. Korea warning Tuesday, May 27, 2003 Posted: 11:20 AM EDT (1520 GMT) MOSCOW, Russia -- Russia and China Tuesday issued a statement calling "the use of force to resolve problems" on the Korean Peninsula "unacceptable." A declaration was issued after meetings between Russian and Chinese Presidents Vladimir Putin and Hu Jintao, Interfax news agency said. The declaration urges Pyongyang to maintain a nuclear-free status, while also calling for security guarantees for the Communist North. "The sides declare that the preservation of peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula meets the interests of security of the two countries, as well as the shared expectations of the international community. "Scenarios of forceful pressure or the use of force to resolve problems existing there are unacceptable." Both countries said they would work towards "peace, stability and development on the Korean Peninsula." "At the same time, North Korea's security must be guaranteed and conditions created to facilitate its socio-economic development," the statement said. "A key to the resolution of the problems on the Korean Peninsula is the political will of the parties involved and resolution of the crisis through political and diplomatic methods." Putin and Hu also called for a central United Nations role in rebuilding Iraq. "The legitimate rights, interests and concerns of neighboring nations and other interested parties must be taken into account during the postwar settlement and rebuilding of Iraq," the two leaders said in the declaration. They added that the international community must make joint efforts to "minimize the damage incurred to international relations by the war in Iraq." Putin and Hu made a customary reference to the "multipolar world" -- the term they use to describe their ambition to offset U.S. global power. "Russia and China stand for a multipolar, just and democratic world order on the basis of internationally recognized principles of international law," they said. CNN's Ryan Chilcote said the statement was significant because it had been made so publicly. "Normally these kind of statements would be made quietly. In the past both countries have chosen to deal with North Korea in a very quiet and diplomatic fashion," he said. "The fact that two regional allies are coming out and asking North Korea to remain a non-nuclear state is going to play negatively, at least in the West, to the North Korean hand." Hu chose Russia for his first trip abroad after replacing Jiang Zemin as president in March in a long-planned succession.
Not really. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...27may27,1,3188619.story?coll=la-home-leftrail Seoul's Vulnerability Is Key to War Scenarios A U.S. strike on the North may provoke a catastrophic retaliation against South's capital. By Barbara Demick, Times Staff Writer SEOUL -- When the U.S. military tries to explain the difficulty of using force to stop North Korea's development of nuclear weapons, the oddly poetic phrase it turns to is the "tyranny of proximity." The phrase, which has been in the lexicon of the U.S. forces in South Korea for years, stems from the imposing array of conventional artillery that the North Koreans have dug into the hills just north of the demilitarized zone, a mere 30 miles from this capital city of 12 million. The nightmare scenario is that if the United States opts for a more forceful approach to curb North Korea's nuclear ambitions, the communist regime would retaliate not only against the 38,000 American troops stationed in South Korea, but also against South Korea itself. North Korea last Tuesday bluntly reminded Seoul of its vulnerability when an envoy threatened the South with "unspeakable disaster" if it sides with Washington in the crisis. The comment — which ironically was made at the opening of talks about South Korean economic assistance to the impoverished North — underscores the degree to which Seoul is being held hostage. Although the North Koreans later apologized, it goes a long way toward explaining the predicament of South Korea's new president, Roh Moo Hyun, as he tries to walk a fine line between a menacing neighbor and his country's most important ally. At their recent summit in Washington, Roh and President Bush did much handshaking and smiling. But behind the outward bonhomie, they were able to agree on little more than the basic view that nuclear weapons are bad and that a diplomatic solution is preferable to war. The South Koreans have consistently urged the United States to show more patience toward North Korea and have made it clear that they would prefer that Bush officials not speak openly about the use of military strikes against the North. To some extent, the differences boil down to this: where one sits affects how one thinks. "Given the geography of the Korean peninsula, there is no alternative to resolving this issue but dialogue," said South Korean Foreign Minister Yoon Young Kwan at a recent meeting of foreign correspondents. For the moment, the Bush administration is pushing hard on the diplomatic track, and another round of talks with North Korea and others is expected to be announced shortly, according to diplomats. Options short of attack that are also under discussion include a naval blockade and economic sanctions. But the military option hovers over South Korea, quietly depressing stock markets and bond ratings. Even the slightest, off-the-cuff comment by Bush or Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld can rattle the financial markets. South Koreans are nervous as well about the Pentagon's determination to move the main U.S. garrison out of Seoul within the year and then start relocating 2nd Infantry troops from the Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ. The moves give the United States more flexibility to eventually take military action by getting its troops out of the same hostage position as millions of South Koreans. The Bush administration reportedly turned down a request by Roh's delegation to delay the move until the North Korean crisis is resolved. Seoul's location so close to the potential front line is a result of post-World War II partitioning, when U.S. officials picked the 38th parallel to divide the peninsula in half while barely keeping Seoul out of the communist-controlled sector. In the rapid postwar development of South Korea, nearly half the country's population ended up within a three-minute flight of the DMZ. Estimates of the damage that could be inflicted by a North Korean attack range from bad to apocalyptic. Lee Yang Ho, defense minister during a similar nuclear crisis in 1994, said one computer simulation conducted during his term projected 1 million dead, including thousands of Americans. "It is assumed that if the United States were to strike North Korea that the North Koreans would fight back," Lee said. "All industry would be destroyed, gas stations, power plants. This is such a densely populated area that even if North Korean artillery were not very accurate, anyplace you would hit there would be huge numbers of casualties." U.S. military experts who have contemplated strikes on North Korea agree. A senior U.S. intelligence officer speaking on condition of anonymity said that any war on the peninsula would be far deadlier than what took place in the desert terrain of Iraq. North Korea — one of the world's poorest nations, and one with only 22 million people — has the world's fifth-largest armed forces and third-largest army. Roughly 30% of the country's gross domestic product is devoted to the military, about 10 times the percentage of most countries. Its submarine force and 100,000-strong special operations forces are the world's largest. Moreover, most of the regime's weaponry is deployed within easy striking distance of Seoul, and the troops have continued to mass closer to the frontier even during the last few years of outwardly cozy relations with South Korea. If South Koreans have at times seemed almost blase about North Korea's development of nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles, one reason is that the North could inflict serious enough damage even with garden-variety weapons. The arsenal includes 13,000 artillery pieces, along with rockets, multiple-rocket launchers and more than 650 ballistic missiles. Warheads on the missiles can be armed with nerve gas and blistering and choking agents. The North Koreans continue to develop biological weapons such as anthrax, plague, cholera and even smallpox, according to U.S. intelligence. "It is not a modern military, but it is a very capable military," another U.S. intelligence officer said. "They have studied our military very carefully, and they have shaped their strengths accordingly." The officer added that the North Koreans would most likely strike first if they thought the U.S. was massing troops in the South, as it had in the Persian Gulf region just before the 1991 war against Iraq. "Unlike Saddam Hussein, who gave us six months to bring in half a million troops, [North Korean leader Kim Jong Il] can prevent us from bringing soldiers into the theater," the officer said. There is little doubt that American and South Korean forces would prevail in a direct clash with North Korea. U.S. military intelligence believes that an advance by the North would be stopped short of Seoul — but at great cost to human life. "I don't think North Korea would attack first, but if they were backed into a corner, they could do anything," said a former lieutenant in the North Korean army who defected to the South. Another problem to be considered before any U.S. airstrikes: It would be difficult to take out North Korean artillery, which is well protected in the mountains along the DMZ. In addition, North Korea's uranium enrichment program — another technology the regime has been pursuing to produce nuclear weapons, as U.S. intelligence discovered last year — would be even more difficult to find and destroy. "Uranium has the advantage that you can hide it underground and it is almost impossible to detect," said a U.S. military advisor who asked not to be identified. In June 1994, the U.S. considered a strike against the nuclear development facilities at Yongbyon, located alongside a mountain north of the capital, Pyongyang. According to subsequent accounts, President Clinton was about to order additional U.S. troops to South Korea and an evacuation of American civilians from Seoul. But former President Carter went to Pyongyang and managed to strike a deal. A commentary read Wednesday on state-run North Korean television credited the communist nation's formidable military for the decision not to go to war. "The U.S. imperialists did not dare ignite the fuse of war — because they feared our physical strength [and] military power. Had we not had such power at the time, we would have long fallen into the current Iraqi situation," the unnamed commentator declared. William J. Perry, defense secretary at the time, described at a recent Brookings Institution forum the dilemma in which the administration found itself trying to stop North Korea from developing nuclear weapons. "There are overwhelmingly strong reasons for not wanting a war with North Korea.... The million-man army they have lined up, the thousands of artillery pieces they have targeted at Seoul, all of those guarantee that even in the absence of nuclear weapons, a war would be a catastrophe," Perry said. "In spite of that, we risked a war in 1994 to stop that nuclear program and I think we would do it again."
That's all fine and dandy as far as the North Korea statement goes, but the answer on Iraq is still the finger. The UN will be able to contribute in a humanitarian fashion, member states can contribute financially to the reconstruction efforts if they want to, and I think we're about to even start letting UN inspectors come in to help on the WMD issue, but as far as controlling things there - the answer is still nyet. And that will not change.
"Russia and China stand for a multipolar, just and democratic world order on the basis of internationally recognized principles of international law," Honestly, does that spin not out a smile on your face? How Ironic they would say that with regards to their old socialist brothers.
The difference is that NK has WMD and threatens to use them against us all the time while Iraq was such a big threat that most of it's neighbors weren't too concerned and golly gee we still can't find those tons of WMD.
Funny how China wants to be a part of something that recognizes international law, meanwhile they don't recognize MOST of the international laws, especially those on human rights. But more importantly those on Copy right protection of video games. DD
Yeah, you want to allow China and Russia to dictate the national security of the United States from a country which not only continually threatens us with war but is poised to strike us at any moment and then don't want to allow Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, and Turkey to dictate the security of their own region. Nevermind that it was China in the first place that assured Clinton in the 90's that NK would abide by it's nuclear agreement with us, a policy that you Republicans have been so fond of bashing as appeasement even though it's now part of the Bush plan. And since we've been involved militarily on the peninsula for over 50 years and fought a bloody war there it makes your point about allowing the resolution of issues by area neighbors before we become too involved that much more hollow. Nice little box you cornered yourself into there.
I would have been just fine with Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Egypt and Jordan to dictate security...the problem is, they don't. And honestly, they might have been incapable of doing so against Iraq. I have cornered myself in no box. But you need a bath..you're dripping in partisan rhetoric!
Incapable of doing so against Iraq? Iraq couldn't even hit Kuwait without driving it's missiles right up to the border. Iraq wasn't a threat to anyone and that's why Saudi Arabia, Syria, Iran, Turkey, Egypt, and Jordan had no interest in attacking it. Just about every thread you start here is designed to serve partisan rhetoric, maybe you haven't noticed while you were busy looking for those WMD ships.
here we go again. yes...i posted an article...but you want to group me in with policymakers. i don't make policy, timing. my only point with THIS article is that it seems, unlike in Iraq, the neighboring countries are seeking to control this on their own. that's it. attack away! i can't wait to hear about the evil suburban white guy suppressing the boards with the help of halliburton.
You posted an article kind of like before the war you posted about 40 of them in support of "policy" that has turned out to be filled with lies. It seems to me that when the Arab league met they denounced any attack on Iraq. That's called seeking to control this on their own. Something that not surprisingly seemed to elude your attention. You can cry victim till the end of time but you're not going to change the subject. Iraq wasn't a threat to it's neighbors which is why we got little help from the majority of them while North Korea can bomb our troops at any time so your answer is to leave our national security in the hands of China.
That's funny, Have you ever been to china??? How do you know that china do not know human right?? only get this imformation from nasty web or from what so-called civilized country's newspaper! That's cute and childish!!! No inspection, No speaking!
Well, we do not recognize international laws, Mr Uncle SAM! BUT WE ARE CLEVER ENOUGH TO INVADE IRAQ WITHOUT U.N PERMISSION!!! BECAUSE WE RECOGNIZE INTERNATIONAL LAWS VERY MUCH, TOO FUNNY!!!!!
Didn't the Chinese government recently cover up the initial SARS outbreak, which led to it spreading far from the source, not to mention such ancient history as Tiananmen Square. It is rediculous to put forth communist China as a nation which respects human rights.
Tiananmen Square, Tiananmen Square, Tiananmen Square; when talked about china human right , you always reiterate Tiananmen Square. give me a fresh one please, it's out of date!~!! well about SARS , why mayor of BeiJing was dismissed????? Is it under your pressure? no, you do not have this access! It is because we respect human right! we cover it up because we do not want a panic throughout the whole country, china is the biggest country after all, and we need a stable circumstance to develop our economy!
It was good to see the article why we don't just attack N. Korea. An ex Peace Corp friend of mine who was stationed in Korea, who travelled extensively and spoke Korean told me of the military problem of Seoul quite a while ago. It is also very much an economic problem as the article eluded to. Our invasion of Iraq had the potential to screw with the oil markets at least short term. This could have caused major problems for the US economy and even Bush's reelection. However, the Saudis could and did pump enough to help stabilize the markets while we invaded. As we see now there was the near certain chance to profit from the oil and reconstruction paid for by Iraqi oil after the war. Some risk , but clear major upside to the policy makers and entrepeneurial types around Bush and his father's cricle. With Samsung, and other major Korea multinationals being tied into the major stock exchanges and major mutual funds, war would crater the international stock markets and lower the 401(k)'s of many Americans and even the portfolios of Bush's major contributors in at least a 911 fashion or perhaps much greater. From the point of view of the Bush insiders this would be a real sacrifice much greater than that of sending other people's children to war. The upside to these policy makers from an economic point of view is minimal as there is no oil to seize and basically N. Korea is an economic welfare case that would then demand a lot of humanitarian aid. The near certain major economic hit and the inability to recover potential losses by seizing major oil fields or to use N. Korea's resources to make big profits off of the reconstruction of N. Korea, make sure that a US attack will because there is actually imminent danger from N. Korea. When actually threatened, normal economic calculations don't matter. War against N. Korea will likely require Americans, including the Bush insiders to pay a major economic price. That is how it should be. War where you know you are going to make a lot of money is just too tempting.
