Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Yeonpyeong attack uniting South Korean public around harsher policy toward North
By Keith B. Richburg
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, November 29, 2010; 1:25 PM
SEOUL - With its brazen daytime artillery barrage of a civilian-inhabited island, North Korea's reclusive leaders might have achieved one thing that had so far eluded South Korea's president, Lee Myung-bak: uniting the South Korean public around a more aggressive policy toward the North.
Lee took office in 2008 vowing to end the decade-long "sunshine policy" of his two predecessors, which increased political and economic ties with North Korea as a way of reducing military tension on the Korean peninsula.
But Lee found the Korean public deeply divided, with little appetite among many for a return to a more confrontational approach.
After North Korea torpedoed and sank a South Korean naval warship, the Cheonan, in March, killing 46 sailors, South Korean opinion was sharply split, with a large number of young people not believing the official government-led report that found Pyongyang responsible for the attack.
The split largely reflected what analysts and average Koreans agreed was a generational divide. Older Koreans, especially those who fought in the Korean War or had a living memory of it, were vastly more inclined to view North Korea as a hostile enemy to be confronted. Young people, particularly those in their 20s who came of age during the sunshine policy, had no interest in a conflict and were just as inclined to disbelieve their own political leaders as to blame North Korea.
"My generation is only thinking about resolving the situation peacefully without war. My parents always factored in war as a possibility," said Choi So-young, a 22-year-old civil engineering student at Yonsei University in Seoul. "My view has changed about North Korea. This is the first time in my life I'm thinking about war."
Another student, Byun Jong-kuk, 25, who is studying political science at Yonsei, said, "Definitely there is a generation gap.
"The older generation was educated with the anti-Communist focus," Byun said. "But people in their 20s, we've gone to high school and university under the government's sunshine policy. I think the gap was very vivid during the Cheonan sinking. But the country is unified now."
In another part of the city, where a group of octogenarian Korean War veterans gathered Monday for their monthly buffet lunch followed by a chat in the next-door coffee shop, the talk was much the same - about the latest North Korean provocation, the government's response and South Korea's youth.
Lee Chong-sik, 81, a retired lieutenant colonel who still carries shrapnel in his back from the 1950s war, said the policy of outreach to the North "ruined" many of South Korea's youth.
"Young people have no knowledge of history," he said. "They are educated to think, 'We don't want war.' You can't expect them to fight for the country."
But, he added, "since the Yeonpyeong attack, young people realize we should not sit idly by."
Shim Ho-eun, 84, also a retired lieutenant colonel, agreed that the attack might have been "a wake-up call."
"We grew up in a hard time, in poverty," Shim said, slicing the air with his hand for emphasis. "The young generation grew up in a more prosperous time. I think maybe they are lacking in patriotism. Maybe this Yeonpyeong case is a chance for them to renew their patriotism."
The old vets were highly critical of the sunshine policy, launched by Kim Dae-jung in 1998 and continued by his successor, Roh Moo-hyun. The policy saw some dramatic successes, including the establishment of an industrial park six miles north of the demilitarized zone, and the first summit of the presidents of North and South Korea in 2000. Kim was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize that year.
The older Koreans also spoke in bitter terms about South Korea's education system, which they said failed to inculcate young students in the threat the country faced. Before the end of military rule in South Korea, extreme anti-communism was a staple of classrooms. But conservative critics complain that under South Korea's new democracy, anti-communism has been replaced by "leftist" teaching that plays down the threat from the North.
Lee Nae-Young, a political scientist at Korea University, said, "The recent Yeonpyeong attack clearly has narrowed the gap between the old and new generations' perceptions on North Korea and how South Korea should respond to North Korean provocations."
Although there would still be differences about exactly how the country should respond to future attacks, he said, "after the Yeonpyeong provocation, North Korea has become definitely more of an enemy state than a brother state. There has been a consensus that it is unrealistic to deal with North Korea through dialogues, and the Yeonpyeong attack has been a crucial moment to confirm that consensus."
President Lee was alluding to that emerging new consensus in his address to the nation Monday morning. Outlining a series of North Korean attacks stretching back two decades, he said South Korea's policy of restraint had only emboldened the Pyongyang regime to continue its provocative acts.
Saying he was "outraged by the ruthlessness of the North Korean regime," Lee added: "There was a split in public opinion over the torpedoing of the Cheonan. Unlike that time, our people have united as one this time."
Byun, the political science student, said it might have taken a dramatic incident like the attack on Yeonpyeong to shake young people out of their complacency. "The young generation doesn't know," he said. "When they were born, there was freedom and peace."
He added, switching to English from Korean, "The young generation doesn't know about freedom and how to achieve it. It's a big problem."
richburgk@washpost.com Special correspondent Yoonjung Seo contributed to this report.
November 29th, 2010, 20:22
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Japan rejects emergency N.Korea talks proposal: report
(AFP) – 51 minutes ago
TOKYO — The Japanese foreign minister on Monday rejected China's proposal of emergency six-party talks on North Korea aimed at defusing the crisis on the divided peninsula, the Wall Street Journal said.
Seiji Maehara told the newspaper there would be no point in restarting stalled discussions between the isolated North and five other nations including Japan unless they could make real progress.
"It's unacceptable for us to hold six-party talks only because North Korea has gone amok," the minister said.
"We must first see some kind of sincere effort from North Korea, on its uranium enrichment program and the latest incident."
Prime Minister Naoto Kan has yet to formally reject the proposal, having told reporters earlier Monday: "We want to respond to (the proposal) cautiously while consulting with the United States and South Korea."
The details of a meeting between Maehara, South Korea's Foreign Affairs and Trade Minister Kim Sung Hwan, and US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, were under discussion Tuesday, according to Japan's Kyodo news.
The meeting has been pencilled in for December 6 in Washington, the report said.
Tensions rose sky-high last week after the North shelled a South Korean border island, killing four people and wounding 18 in the first bombardment of a civilian area in the South since the Korean war.
China, Pyongyang's sole major ally, on Sunday proposed "emergency consultations" in Beijing early next month among chief envoys to the stalled six-nation talks on Pyongyang's nuclear disarmament.
Its top envoy on North Korea, Wu Dawei, stressed that the proposal did not constitute a formal resumption of the negotiations, but he said he hoped they would lead to such a resumption soon.
South Korea, the United States and Russia are also involved in the six-party talks but Washington has urged North Korea to stop what it describes as provocative behaviour before they can resume.
State Department spokesman Philip Crowley said Sunday that Washington would "continue to consult with others, including China, on a future course".
South Korea, which is pressing Beijing to be more even-handed in the standoff, has also reacted cautiously to the talks proposal, saying it wanted to see "tangible actions" from its neighbour on denuclearisation.
Shortly before the North's deadly attack on the South Korean island of Yeonpyeong on November 23, it sparked alarm by showing an American scientist a new uranium enrichment facility that he said could be used for nuclear weapons.
The US and South Korea on Monday staged the second day of their biggest-ever naval exercise in a show of strength against North Korea's regime, which has also tested nuclear bombs and is blamed for sinking a South Korean warship in March.
Far to the south of the disputed border between North and South, the US and South Korean fleets staged an intensive live-fire exercise involving multiple aircraft from the US carrier George Washington.
Eleven ships from the two navies plus aircraft and more than 7,000 personnel are taking part in the four-day drill.
North Korea said the exercise brings the peninsula to the brink of war, and the drill has also riled China, which sees the Yellow Sea as its backyard.
Stanford University professor Siegfried Hecker was taken to visit North Korea's new and previously unknown uranium enrichment plant this month and said it was equipped with at least 1,000 centrifuges.
Pyongyang's latest moves could be to generate much-needed electricity, he said in a report on the plant at the Yongbyon nuclear complex.
"Yet, the military potential of uranium enrichment technology is serious."
November 29th, 2010, 20:27
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Teetering Asian dominoes test Obama
By Victor Kotsev
"You have a row of dominoes set up, you knock over the first one, and what will happen to the last one is the certainty that it will go over very quickly. So you could have a beginning of a disintegration that would have the most profound influences."
- Dwight Eisenhower, former US president
TEL AVIV - The domino theory once governed American strategic thinking with respect to communism in Asia. It was one of the main justifications for the disastrous war in Vietnam, and was discredited greatly in the wake of it. However, looking at the situation in Asia today from the point of view of the United [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]States [COLOR=green ! important]government[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR], it seems that the specter of the falling dominoes is rapidly coming back to haunt President Barack Obama, if not in
its classical form, at least as a kind of a ripple effect in an already fragile region.
The crisis between North and South Korea is a good example of that. The tension that soared last week after North Korean shelled an island south of the Northern Limit Line (NLL), killing four, has not subsided yet, and the ripples are being felt throughout the Asian continent.
It is hard to understand the logic behind North Korea's shelling of Yeonpyeong Island or China's muted response simply by stating that the North is trying to extort financial aid from the international community or that the belligerence is a way for Kim Jong-eun to prove his credentials as Dear Leader Kim Jong-il's successor just as the bombing of the South Korean cabinet in Myanmar was for his father (though these explanations certainly help). [1] After all, a blatant attack on undisputed territory for these reasons would normally be too risky even for the quirky North Korean government. It is important also to look at Pyongyang's grievances in slightly more detail.
"The [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]North [COLOR=green ! important]Koreans[/COLOR][/COLOR][/COLOR]http://kona.kontera.com/javascript/l...rey_loader.gif
never recognized the NLL, and by the late 1950s they were already complaining about it," says Stratfor analyst Rodger Baker. "They were suggesting the creation of what they called the MDL - the military demarcation line. This would have been a line that matches more along the 12 nautical miles and runs fairly diagonally between North Korea and South Korea in the West Sea ... We're seeing now on the NLL that the North Koreans are having to step up even to a higher state of activity to be able to draw attention to the NLL ... The question is how far do the North Koreans have to go before the crisis either draws attention in the way they want or forces a response from the South Koreans and, ultimately, from the United States."
Yeonpyeong Island lies seven miles (11 kilometers) from North Korean shores (and much farther from South Korea), and thus is part of the territory claimed by the North. This contradicts the United Nations demarcation, and thus doesn't really work internationally as an excuse, but it certainly helps clarify the North's choice.
Moreover, as it turns out from the American diplomatic cables released by WikiLeaks on Sunday, Kim Jong-il had some real reasons to feel irked and threatened. "American and South Korean officials have discussed the prospects for a unified Korea, should the North's economic troubles and political transition lead the state to implode," writes The New York Times. "The South Koreans even considered commercial inducements to China, according to the American ambassador to Seoul."
A [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]military[/COLOR][/COLOR] confrontation being an unsavory option for the White House and Seoul (even without the use of nuclear weapons, the North is widely assumed capable of destroying the South Korean capital and crippling the economy, at the very least), if a rise of tension up to that line would benefit Pyongyang, it would make sense for the United [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]States[/COLOR][/COLOR] to downplay its response. A similar conclusion is reached by Michael Green writing for the Shadow blog of Foreign Policy: "The Obama administration's opening response has been smart. They have not fueled the sense of crisis in a way that would give Pyongyang more leverage, but they have shown resolve by deploying the USS George Washington to the coast of the peninsula."
According to this strategy, a victory for the Americans would mean that the North Koreans abstain from further attacks. However, defining such modest goals days after the North unveiled a new, reportedly state-of-the-art, uranium-enrichment plant, and eight months after another provocation by the North (according to most sources, including the United Nations) sank a military ship of the South and killed 46 sailors, would widely be perceived as a sign of weakness.
Domestically, with the Republicans strengthened by the November congressional elections, we must watch for an increase of attacks on [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Obama[/COLOR][/COLOR]'s record of supporting allies. Internationally, both allies and enemies will most likely exploit this and increase the pressure on the American administration.
While Japan has called for a tough response and several other American allies have condemned the North Korean attack strongly, much of the focus really is on the Iranian confrontation and on the uranium-enrichment facility that North Korea disclosed and which is reportedly similar to Iranian facilities. [2] "Officials in Washington know that a failure to respond in this case would have grave strategic and international implications," writes Israeli analyst Ron Ben-Yishai. "Iran is closely monitoring North Korea's conduct on the nuclear and sanctions front, and there are quite a few indications that Pyongyang serves as a model for emulation."
There are signs that Israel is preparing to use the distant crisis to demand that the Obama administration do more about Iran - or at least acquiesce to an Israeli military strike. "[It is] necessary today, more than in the past, to stop and to topple this crazy [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]regime[/COLOR][/COLOR], and to stop their proliferation and provocations," Avigdor Lieberman, Israel's right-wing foreign minister, said in reference to the incident. This comes on top of WikiLeaks revelations that Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak already put the matter to the Americans in grim terms. [3]
It is not difficult to imagine collusion between domestic opponents of Obama eager to paint him as weak and cowardly and Israeli leaders trying to twist his arm and force him to take a tougher line on Iran. The worst-case scenario for the American administration would be if the violence in the Korean Peninsula escalated and it could not find an appropriate way to save face and de-escalate the confrontation.
Should a credible argument be made that he has abandoned an ally in the form of South Korea, Obama would find it difficult to either avoid responding harshly to Iran or stop Israel from attacking. Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia would likely add their weight to that of the Jewish state, as they were revealed to have done by the WikiLeaks and other reports.
This still outlines only the start of the potential ripple effect. The situation of several other American allies is already so bad that they hardly even need a Korean paradigm to despair. Lebanon's Prime Minister Saad Hariri, for example, just went hat-in-hand to Tehran [4] and started a diatribe against Israel, [5] in an apparent sign that he is ready to toe the Iranian line if that is what it will take to ensure his survival.
In Iraq, the Western-backed Iyad Allawi was elbowed out of forming a government by his Iran-backed Shi'ite rivals despite winning the popular election earlier this year. In [COLOR=green ! important][COLOR=green ! important]Afghanistan[/COLOR][/COLOR], an already-alienated President Hamid Karzai [6] is looking on as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization effort to prop him up continues, [7] but as the counter-insurgence strategy employed by the American-led coalition continues to draw fire [8] and what happened to South Vietnam arguably looms over him in the slightly more distant future. In Yemen, too, the government is getting desperate against al-Qaeda militants and Iran-backed Houtini rebels, and, according to some reports, is considering playing both sides.
All this suggests that the current patient and diplomatic strategy Obama is pursuing does not bode well for American interests in Asia. War, moreover, is unlikely to be a good substitute for a better and clearer vision, and by itself is unlikely to bring anything positive to the region. What is needed from the White House is strong leadership, and if it does not materialize, the effects will likely be disastrous.
Joint STARS aircraft apparently will deploy to Korea following a specific request from the South Korean government.
Secretary of Defense Robert Gates approved the move late Sunday according to sources.
The premier airborne ground surveillance aircraft – based only at Robins Air Force Base – will join U.S. forces already in the region. Tensions heightened following North Korea’s artillery attack last week on Yeonpyeong Island. The attack reportedly killed four people, wounded 18 and resulted in return fire from the South.
The timing of the deployment, how many aircraft will be involved and from where have not been announced. Confirmation and additional details were not immediately available from the 116th Air Control Wing at Robins or an Air Force spokesman at the Pentagon.
The 17-aircraft Robins wing maintains a deployed presence in Southwest Asia in addition to aircraft at the home station.
U.S. and South Korean forces are currently carrying out a four-day joint military exercise, a move the Pentagon said had been planned well in advance. The U.S. presence includes an aircraft carrier and other naval vessels.
North Korea reportedly has moved surface-to-air missiles and other multiple-launch rocket systems closer to its Yellow Sea coastline while South Korea has reinforced its 4,000 troops on Yeonpyeong.
The Associated Press
YEONPYEONG ISLAND, South Korea (AP) -- The view from this South Korean island takes in the undulating hills of North Korea just seven miles away and the seafood-rich waters all around - a region of such economic and strategic importance to both countries that one expert calls it a recipe for war.
Violence often erupts in this slice of sea claimed by both countries. Boats routinely jostle for position during crab-catching season, and three deadly naval clashes since 1999 have taken a few dozen lives.
The South's president took responsibility Monday for failing to protect his citizens from a deadly North Korean artillery barrage on Yeonpyeong Island on Nov. 23. The origins of the attack can be traced to a sea border drawn at the close of the Korean War, nearly 60 years ago.
As the conflict ended in a truce, the U.S.-led U.N. Command divided the Yellow Sea without Pyongyang's consent, cutting North Korea off from rich fishing waters and boxing in a crucial deep-water port, a move that clearly favored the South.
North Korea has bitterly contested the line ever since, arguing that it should run farther south. But for Seoul, accepting such a line would endanger fishing around five South Korean islands and hamper access to its port at Incheon.
"It is the perfect recipe for 'accidental' warfare," Erich Weingartner, editor-in-chief of CanKor, a Canadian website focused on North Korean analysis, wrote recently.
"The navies of both sides protect their respective fishing vessels. Mischief and miscalculation does the rest," he added. "The outbreak of hostilities is less surprising to me than the fact that for 60 years these hostilities have been contained."
The Nov. 23 attack hit civilian areas in Yeonpyeong (pronounced yuhn-pyuhng), marking a new level of hostility along the contested line. Two civilians and two marines died, and many houses were gutted in the shelling.
Normally home to about 1,300 civilian residents, the island was declared a special security area Monday, which could pave the way for a forced evacuation of those who did not flee last week. Military trucks carrying what appeared to be multiple rocket launchers were seen heading to a marine base on the island.
Long-range artillery guns and a half-dozen K-9 howitzers were also on their way, the Yonhap news agency reported, citing unidentified military officials.
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak, in a nationally televised speech, vowed tough consequences for any future aggression, without offering specifics.
"I feel deeply responsible for failing to protect my people's lives and property," he said.
After his speech, Yeonpyeong officials announced new live-fire drills for Tuesday, warning residents to take shelter in underground bunkers. Another announcement later in the evening said there would be no exercise; marines on the island had failed to get final approval from higher authorities.
The attack came on the same day South Korea conducted artillery drills from the island. The North says it warned Seoul that morning not to fire into the disputed waters.
The North's anger has only increased as a nuclear-powered U.S. aircraft carrier and a South Korean destroyer take part in previously scheduled joint military exercises this week farther south in the Yellow Sea.
On Sunday, North Korea described the disputed waters as "the most acute and sensitive area where military conflict might break out anytime due to the illegal 'northern limit line' unilaterally drawn by the U.S. and the ceaseless provocation of the South Korean puppet group."
The U.N. Command demarcated the line after failed attempts to negotiate a sea border. Andrei Lankov, a North Korea expert at Kookmin University in Seoul, said the move clearly favored the South, exploiting the weakness of the North Korean navy.
Many experts believe North Korea would be given greater territorial waters than it currently has if the issue were settled by arbitration or some other impartial means, said Daniel Pinkston, a Seoul-based analyst for the International Crisis Group.
"International law is on their side in this case, but it does not justify the action they've taken in any way," he said. "In fact, it undermines their legitimate arguments for the establishment of an equitable maritime boundary."
The waters were the scene of deadly skirmishes in 1999, 2002 and 2009 and then, in March, the worst attack on Seoul's military since the Korean War.
A South Korean-led international investigation found that a North Korean torpedo sank the Cheonan, a 1,200-ton South Korean warship, killing 46 sailors. The North denied it.
Rodger Baker, an analyst for the U.S. security think tank STRATFOR, said the North is stepping up its efforts to draw the world's attention to its push for a change in the maritime border.
"They're now shelling South Korean islands," he said. "The question is how far do the North Koreans have to go before the crisis either draws attention in the way they want or forces a response from the South Koreans and, ultimately, from the United States?"
November 29th, 2010, 21:15
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Korea: Verbose Silence, Interpolation
Share posted at 2:15 pm on November 29, 2010 by J.E. Dyer printer-friendly
One of the most worrisome aspects of the Obama administration’s foreign policy is the effective inconsistency of its “information” posture. The crisis on the Korean peninsula is a case in point. Most Americans are probably under the impression that the USS George Washington carrier group is being sent as a show of force in response to North Korea’s provocative shelling incident on 23 November. But the naval exercise the carrier group is heading for has been scheduled for months.
Following the sinking of the frigate Cheonan in March, the US and South Korea agreed to an intensified slate of military exercises. The first of the newly planned drills took place in July. George Washington is now heading for another of those additional drills, scheduled to run from 28 November to 1 December. According to Stars and Stripes, the spokesman for the US Forces Korea (USFK) command, speaking on Wednesday, was careful to downplay the timing:
USFK said in a news release that the exercise was “defensive in nature and planned well before yesterday’s unprovoked military attack.”
“These (exercises) are not a direct reaction,” USFK spokesman David Oten said. “Basically, they’re unrelated.”
Speaking the same day, State Department spokesman P.J. Crowley split the difference between that bald statement from the military and the narrative the media are running with:
…we believe we have a strategy that involves continuing to cooperate with and protect our allies, whether it’s South Korea or Japan or others. We continue to look for ways of bolstering the capabilities so that we can address any provocations that North Korea may continue to do. That’s one of the reasons why we’ve had a series of military exercises with South Korea this year. It’s why the Pentagon announced – the President announced yesterday that the George Washington will be teaming up with South Korean military forces for an exercise coming up in the next few days.
This peculiar ambiguity is heightened by the fact that a maritime exercise is not the most pertinent kind to advertise as a show of force, given the immediate military problem. Missile-defense drills, artillery training, and strike training by the US and South Korean air forces would be more relevant. There has been no announcement of such drills. It appears that the Obama administration is simply content to have the previously scheduled George Washington deployment interpreted as a show of force, probably viewing it as calibrated to be non-provocative in light of its lesser relevance to the most recent flare-up.
A carrier group is a lot of firepower to sling around in this ambiguous manner. China continues to object to a carrier deployment in the Yellow Sea; on both of the previous occasions when the US had such deployments planned this year, we backed off and kept George Washington out of the area (see here and here). Perhaps Team Obama is now using the Yellow Sea threat as leverage with the Chinese to get them to rein in Kim Jong-Il. That isn’t as clever as it might look: we should never use our policy on maritime claims and freedom of the seas as a bargaining chip. If you’re willing to bargain it away, it isn’t principle – and everyone knows it.
Overly clever, seemingly calculated ambiguities like the ones in the present posture on Korea are a big part of the Obama administration’s image problem with its counterparts abroad. The unfortunate impression is of a toddler being devious: his every move obvious to the adult observer, but the toddler himself unaware of being under knowledgeable surveillance.
It’s worth paying attention to the methods and the development of events here, because this is how it happens. The responsible, order-keeping powers never announce a policy of behaving foolishly or inviting challenges and chaos. They manage to interpolate and calculate justifications for everything they do, without apparently breaking with the policies of the past. But through ambivalence, temporizing, grandstanding, and prioritizing their usually-unwarranted fears of “being provocative” over everything else, they undermine the stability of situations that have long required maintaining a steady strain on the lines.
In a metaphorical sense, Obama is giving the lines of Far Eastern security an unpredictable jerk now and then – and letting them go slack at other times. It’s the blank fact of the US troop presence, conferred on Obama by his predecessors, that is holding Kim Jong-Il in check at the moment. Consider this final proposition as well: if China has the power to rein in Kim, and if she actually wants to, wouldn’t she have done so already? Why would it take US bargaining (or pressure) to induce China to do something she wants to do anyway?
North Korean leader Kim Jong- il (left) walks in front of his youngest son Kim Jong- un (right) as they watch a parade to commemorate the 65th anniversary of the founding of the Workers' Party of Korea in Pyongyang October 10, 2010.
Photograph by: Kyodo, Reuters
Palace power-struggles between North Korea's new-generation political leadership and its military could spark off a full war on the Peninsula, South Korean and American authorities are warning.
Last week's attack on Yeonpyeong island was personally approved by North Korea's supreme leader, Kim Jong-il, and his son and heir-apparent, Kim Jong-un, to curry favour with military hawks, a senior South Korean defence official said.
"I fear we're going to see much more fighting in weeks to come," the official added.
Hardship has mounted in North Korea ever since sanctions were imposed over its pursuit of nuclear weapons.
Hundreds of its soldiers are reported to have fled across the border into China in recent months. In August, a North Korean pilot's attempt to escape to Russia ended when his jet crashed in China's Liaoning province.
But Kim Jong-il is determined not to rejoin talks aimed at curbing North Korea's nuclear program in return for aid, fearful of upsetting military leaders, U.S. government sources said.
He hopes precipitating a crisis will rally the generals behind his son.
Kim Jong-un was made a four-star general and named vice-chairman of the country's national defence commission in September, even though the Swiss-educated 27 year-old had no military experience.
"The generals saw Kim Jong-un as a puppy who wasn't even lavatory trained, not a credible leader. There was lots of fuming," said Kongdan Oh Hassig, a North Korea expert,
"Every time there's been a succession in North Korea, you've had trouble, because the leadership has needed to reassure the military."
By Holly Watt, The Daily Telegraph November 29, 2010 3:52 PM
North Korea has been secretly assisting Iran develop a weapons program under the auspices of the Chinese government, American officials believe.
The U.S. government has repeatedly asked the Chinese to stop shipments between the rogue states passing through Beijing airport, according to memos sent by both the U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, and her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.
Documents released by Wikileaks show that the Americans provided Chinese officials with details of the exact times and planes on which supplies were being sent from North Korea to Iran.
The website is understood to be preparing to release more detailed documents setting out the American government's view of North Korea - and the country's relationship with both China and Iran.
The Americans had particular concerns about jet engine parts being sent from North Korea to Iran on board the national airlines Air Koryo and Iran Air on at least 10 occasions.
Another memo written by the Secretary of State in 2008 lists the countries that North Korean planes must fly over to reach Iran, and officials in the embassies are told how to deal with these countries.
The U.S. believes Russia has moved short-range tactical nuclear warheads to facilities near North Atlantic Treaty Organization allies as recently as this spring, U.S. officials say, adding to questions in Congress about Russian compliance with long-standing pledges ahead of a possible vote on a new arms-control treaty.
U.S. officials say the movement of warheads to facilities bordering NATO allies appeared to run counter to pledges made by Moscow starting in 1991 to pull tactical nuclear weapons back from frontier posts and to reduce their numbers. The U.S. has long voiced concerns about Russia's lack of transparency when it comes to its arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons, believed to be many times the number possessed by the U.S.
Russia's movement of the ground-based tactical weapons appeared to coincide with the deployment of U.S. and NATO missile-defense installations in countries bordering Russia. Moscow has long considered the U.S. missile defense buildup in Europe a challenge to Russian power, underlining deep-seated mistrust between U.S. and Russian armed forces despite improved relations between political leaders.
The Kremlin had no immediate comment.
Republican critics in the Senate say it was a mistake for President Barack Obama to agree to the new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with Russia, or New Start, without dealing with outstanding questions about Moscow's tactical nuclear weapons. New Start would cap the Russian and U.S. deployed strategic nuclear arsenals at 1,550 per side. It doesn't address tactical weapons, which are smaller and for use on a battlefield.
Senior administration officials say New Start, like most arms treaties before it, deals only with strategic nuclear weapons, adding that only after it is ratified can Washington and Moscow begin to negotiate a legally binding, verifiable treaty to limit tactical warheads in Europe.
The positioning of Russian tactical nuclear weapons near Eastern European and the Baltic states has alarmed NATO member-states bordering Russia. They see these as potentially a bigger danger than long-range nuclear weapons. Tactical weapons are easier to conceal and may be more vulnerable to theft, say arms-control experts.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis said he raised concerns about the weapons this month with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and senior defense officials in Washington.
"Being a NATO member, of course, someone could say, 'Don't worry.' But when you're living in the neighborhood, you should always be more cautious," Mr. Azubalis said. He added that American officials "expressed worry but they also don't know too much" about where the weapons are and the conditions under which they are kept.
Classified U.S. intelligence about Russia's movement of tactical nuclear weapons to the facilities has been shared with congressional committees.
During a September hearing on the new arms-reduction treaty, Sen. Jim Risch, an Idaho Republican, spoke of "troubling" intelligence about Russia without saying what it was, adding it "directly affects" the arms-control debate. Senate Foreign Relations Committee Chairman John Kerry (D., Mass.) countered that it had "no impact" directly on Start, without elaborating.
Sen. Christopher Bond (R., Mo.), vice chairman of the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, refused to comment directly on the tactical nuclear warhead issue, but he said the Russians cannot be trusted to make good on their arms-control promises. "We know from published reports of the State Department that the Russians have cheated on all their other treaties, Start, chemical weapons, [biological weapons], Open Skies," he said.
U.S. officials say Mr. Obama's revised approach to missile defense, and warming personal ties with Russian President Dmitry Medvedev, have fostered cooperation in key areas, from isolating Iran to opening new routes to transport gear to Afghanistan.
But mistrust runs deep, U.S. diplomatic cables released by the organization WikiLeaks over the weekend showed. A February cable quoted Defense Secretary Robert Gates telling a French official that Russia was an "oligarchy run by the security services," despite Mr. Medvedev's "more pragmatic vision." A Gates spokesman declined to comment.
Two senior Obama administration officials didn't deny the tactical warhead issue has arisen in private discussions with lawmakers, but said the 1991 pledges, known as the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives, weren't legally binding on either side and were difficult to verify.
Administration officials say U.S. and Russian negotiators plan to turn their attention to tactical nuclear weapons, as well as larger strategic warheads that aren't actively deployed, as soon as New Start goes into force. "If we don't ratify Start, we're not going to be able to negotiate on tactical nuclear weapons," one said.
Poland's minister of foreign affairs, Radosław Sikorski, called Start a "necessary stepping-stone" on the way to a deal to reduce tactical arsenals.
Western officials say the Russian military views its aging arsenal of tactical nuclear weapons as a way to compensate for its diminished conventional capabilities, and as a hedge against the U.S.'s expanded missile defenses and China's growing might.
U.S. officials point to steps Russia has taken to meet its arms-control obligations over the last two decades, including reducing the number of nuclear-weapons storage sites, once many hundreds, to as few as 50. But officials are skeptical Russia has fulfilled all of its pledges to destroy and redeploy tactical nuclear weapons in line with the 1991 Presidential Nuclear Initiatives.
According to the U.S. assessment, Russia has expanded tactical nuclear deployments near NATO allies several times in recent years. An example is Kaliningrad, a Russian enclave between Poland and Lithuania. A State Department cable from April 2009 said Russia had warned it would take countermeasures, including putting "missiles" in Kaliningrad, in response to expanded U.S. missile defenses in Europe.
U.S. officials believe the most recent movements of Russian tactical nuclear weapons took place in late spring. In late May, a U.S. Patriot missile battery was deployed in northern Poland, close to Kaliningrad, sparking public protests from Moscow.
Some officials said the movements are a concern but sought to play down the threat. Russian nuclear warheads are stored separately from their launching systems, U.S. officials say.
In the fall of 1991, the U.S. had about 5,000 tactical nuclear weapons deployed overseas, most assigned to NATO, according to the Arms Control Association. The U.S. destroyed about 3,000 as a result of the Presidential Nuclear Initiatives. Today, the U.S. is believed to have some 1,100 tactical nuclear warheads, of which about 480 are nuclear gravity bombs stored in six European countries.
Estimates on the number of Soviet tactical nuclear weapons in fall 1991—just before the fall of the Soviet Union—ranged from 12,000 to nearly 21,700. At a May 2005 conference, Moscow said its arsenal "has been reduced by four times as compared to what the Soviet Union possessed in 1991," and was "concentrated at central storage facilities...."
Russia's ambassador to NATO, Dmitry Rogozin, this month reiterated the position that Russia won't withdraw all tactical nuclear weapons behind the Urals until the U.S. takes its battlefield weapons out of Europe.
November 30th, 2010, 16:48
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan Ruck
Jeez Rick! Talk about quick on the draw!
FNC just mentioned that and I was just about to post it. :D
Something I heard at the water cooler.... Nothing classified. Fox mentioned it too? lol
Good.
No RickyLeaks here.
November 30th, 2010, 16:52
Ryan Ruck
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Donaldson
No RickyLeaks here.
:spit:
November 30th, 2010, 17:20
vector7
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
The United States suspects Russia has transferred a number of nonstrategic nuclear warheads to areas bordering NATO nations, a move seemingly made as the alliance members accepted additional missile defenses within their territory, the Wall Street Journal reported today (see GSN, Nov. 29).
The alleged Russian redeployments, some of which may have taken place earlier this year, seemed to contradict a 1991 nonbinding agreement by Russia to withdraw its nonstrategic nuclear armaments from the border region and cut back their number, according to U.S. government sources. The U.S. finding on the weapons could intensify congressional scrutiny of Moscow's adherence to past nuclear commitments as the Senate mulls ratification of a new bilateral arms control treaty, the officials said (see GSN, Nov. 29).
NATO nations neighboring Russia have aired anxiety over the alleged tactical weapons transfer. Arms control specialists said such armaments could be more easily hidden or stolen than their longer-range strategic counterparts.
Lithuanian Foreign Minister Audronius Azubalis recounted discussing the matter with U.S. Secretary Hillary Clinton earlier this month.
"Being a NATO member, of course, someone could say, 'Don't worry.' But when you're living in the neighborhood, you should always be more cautious," Azubalis said. U.S. officials "expressed worry but they also don't know too much" about the placement of the weapons, he said.
Some congressional panels have received confidential details on the weapons transfers, the Journal reported. Two high-level Obama administration officials did not dispute the suggestion that such exchanges had taken place. Russian compliance with the 1991 deployment pledge was neither compulsory nor simple to monitor, they added.
The Soviet Union was believed to possess between 12,000 and 21,700 nonstrategic nuclear weapons in late 1991, shortly before its collapse. In 2005, Russia indicated its stockpile "has been reduced by four times as compared to what the Soviet Union possessed in 1991," and was "concentrated at central storage facilities."
Moscow this month reaffirmed its refusal to transfer all of its tactical nuclear weapons away from its western border unless the United States removes its nonstrategic weapons from Europe (see GSN, Nov. 24; Entous/Weisman, Wall Street Journal, Nov. 30).
Meanwhile, Russia today announced it would begin deploying RS-24 ICBMs in place of its older RS-12M Topol-M missiles, RIA Novosti reported (see GSN, July 1).
"The mobile missile system with the RS-24 ballistic missile is an improved version of the Topol-M, and during production experience with fifth generation mobile missile systems was taken into account," Russian Strategic Missile Forces Commander Lt. Gen. Sergei Karakayev said.
The new weapon has proven to be dependable, Karakayev said.
"Therefore it was decided to rearm the SMF with this type of missile system."
"At the same [time], the Topol-M mobile missile system will not be supplied to the Strategic Missile Forces in the future," he said.
The RS-24 ICBM is designed to travel up to 6,125 miles carrying a 550-kiloton warhead, according to RIA Novosti (RIA Novosti, Nov. 30).
"By the end of 2010, we plan to put on standby alert a missile regiment equipped with fifth-generation silo-based Topol-M missiles at the Tatishchevo formation. The work to reequip the [Strategic Missile Forces] with silo-based Topols will continue in 2011," ITAR-Tass quoted Karakayev as saying (ITAR-Tass, Nov. 30).
November 30th, 2010, 18:06
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
North Korea says it has thousands of nuclear centrifuges
By the CNN Wire Staff
November 30, 2010 4:44 a.m. EST
STORY HIGHLIGHTS
North Korea says it is producing nuclear energy for peaceful purposes
The nuclear claim comes a week after the North shelled a South Korean island
(CNN) -- North Korea claimed Tuesday that it is has "thousands of centrifuges" working to create nuclear energy for peaceful purposes.
The claim printed in North Korea's state-run KCNA news service comes just a week after North Korean shelled a South Korean Island killing four people.
"The construction of light water reactor is brisk in the DPRK and a modern factory for uranium enrichment equipped with thousands of centrifuges is operating to supply fuel to them. The development of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes to meet the need for electricity will be stepped up in the future," the news service report said.
The North Korean news service report seemed to confirm parts of a statement made last week by Siegfried Hecker, a Stanford University scientist.
In early Novermber, the U.S. scientist said he visited a North Korean nuclear facility at the invitation of the government, which included 2,000 centrifuges, that was producing low-enriched uranium.
Hecker said he was told that facility was configured to produce low-enriched uranium but Hecker wrote that it could "be readily converted to produce highly-enriched uranium (HEU) bomb fuel.
November 30th, 2010, 18:08
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
North Korea's 'industrial scale' uranium enrichment plant described by Stanford professors
By Lisa M. Krieger
Mercury News
Posted: 11/29/2010 11:43:10 PM PST
Updated: 11/29/2010 11:47:20 PM PST
http://extras.mnginteractive.com/liv...ker_VIEWER.jpg
In a first public analysis of their recent visit to North Korea, a pair of Stanford University professors on Monday described the rare inside peek at the nation's uranium enrichment plant -- and, startled by what they saw, urged changes to international diplomacy
.
"Our jaws just dropped," said nuclear scientist Siegfried S. Hecker, describing their visit to the nuclear center at Yongbyon during a four-day trip to North Korea in mid-November. "I expected a couple dozen garage-shop operations. I didn't believe there would be an industrial-scale facility, ready and available."
The revelation, formally disclosed in a Nov. 20 paper, has caused a political firestorm. But the team urged against military attack, tighter sanctions or simply waiting.
"The only hope appears to be engagement," said Hecker, co-director of Stanford's Center for International Security and Cooperation. "We need to deal with North Korea as it is, not the way we'd like it to be."
Hecker described walking up polished granite steps and looking into two windows. "It was a modern facility and with three rows of pairs of centrifuges -- altogether, 2,000 centrifuges" that could enable North Korea to enrich the uranium needed to expand its nuclear arsenal, currently estimated at eight to 12 weapons, he said. "It really was mind-boggling."
Hecker and Chinese politics expert John W. Lewis were invited by the North Korean government to the facility "because they trusted us to give an honest report of what we saw," said Hecker, who has visited annually since 1986.
North Korea contends that the fuel is intended to make electricity, but the White House says this information shows the country, in violation of United Nations mandates, aims to expand its weapons arsenal.
The timing of the visit -- just 11 days before a violent clash over disputed territory -- was coincidental and does not signify a more aggressive North Korea, the two experts said.
But the sophistication and scale of the facility shows that financial sanctions and nonproliferation measures have failed to halt the nuclear program in North Korea, a sovereign and modern state with its own interests, they added.
Rather than submitting to international demands for denuclearization, North Korea has forged ahead, building nuclear facilities out of materials bought from rogue Pakistani nuclear dealer A.Q. Khan, as well as businesses in China, Libya, Russia and Europe. A Japanese-made Hitachi bulldozer was clearing land, they noted.
The Stanford-only seminar on Monday, sponsored by the university's Center for International Security and Cooperation, was filled to capacity, with some students and faculty listening from the hall.
On the visit, Hecker and Lewis also confirmed satellite photographic evidence of another new advance by North Korea -- a light-water reactor built at the exact same place as a facility that had been dismantled earlier as part of an agreement to end its nuclear weapons program.
While international policymakers have hoped that North Korea would change or its regime would collapse, Lewis described what he called "the rise of the Americanists" -- a modern nation with contemporary tastes. Its textile mills have piped-in rock music and students practice colloquial English. There are abundant consumer luxuries, such as cell phones and flat-screen TVs.
"What is going on is mind-blowing," far from the popular image of North Koreans as a starving and bedraggled population. "The place is lit up," said Lewis.
"If you think sanctions are working, forget it," he said. "They are not. This is not a country cut off."
Why visit now? "It was going to be seen anyway," said Hecker. "The reactor is difficult to hide."
Near-universal skepticism greeted Pyongyang's announcement last year that it intended to build a light-water reactor and perfect the enrichment technology to fuel it.
In apparent frustration, a North Korean official chided the Stanford scientist: "No one believes us when we announced this -- including you, Dr. Hecker."
Hecker said they were not allowed to take photographs during the tour. And they could not verify that North Korea is already beginning to produce low-enriched uranium.
"If these are just external pieces of aluminum we saw and no guts, I'd be thrilled," he said.
Based on what they saw, the Stanford team said they are not yet worried about North Korea's capability to build sophisticated bombs. The nation is still limited by materials and key components, such as ring magnets.
But the enrichment facility means North Korea has the capacity to create more nuclear material, to build more bombs, if the time comes.
The Stanford team also worried about poor regulation of the nuclear reactor --- for instance, whether it is seismically safe.
Of great concern, they added, was the export risk. "Exportation of centrifuges is easy to hide. High-grade uranium is easy to hide," said Hecker.
Their advice to diplomats: "Stay the course on denuclearization -- but contain the threat."
Our message should be: "No more bombs, no better bombs and no exports "... But it will require addressing the fundamentals of North Korea's underlying insecurity."
November 30th, 2010, 18:11
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
Japan's response to North Korea takes on a sharper edge
Prime Minister Naoto Kan is finding his nation dependent on the US in responding to North Korea, even as public opposition to the US base on Okinawa remains high.
By Justin McCurry, Correpsondent / November 30, 2010
Atami, Japan
North Korea’s attack on Yeonpyeong earlier this month, in addition to revelations that it has made dramatic advances in uranium-enrichment technology, has sparked anger in Japan and fueled the debate over its security ties with the United States. Skip to next paragraphRelated Stories
The shelling of the South Korean island has dominated the news in Japan, even as Tokyo debates a key economic stimulus package and Prime Minister Naoto Kan battles attacks on his leadership and approval ratings of below 30 percent.
It has also exposed Japan’s dependence on the US in responding to North Korea’s unsophisticated, yet hitherto effective, negotiating tactics.
Hours after the guns fell silent, Japan issued the expected call for calm, while condemning the attack.
It was not, some observers agree, Prime Minister Kan’s finest hour as a statesman. His immediate response was confined to the setting up of an information-gathering task force, although he captured the public mood when he said: “Indiscriminate attacks on civilians is a barbaric act that should not be tolerated.
“We will cooperate with South Korea, as well as the United States, and the three of us together will decisively counter North Korea's reckless and outrageous acts.” Sharpened tone on North Korea
Japan’s response has since acquired a sharper edge, as the global diplomatic response to the crisis begins to take shape.
Tokyo joined the US in quickly rejecting Chinese calls for emergency six-party talks in early December. In Tokyo, as in Washington, there is an innate resistance to being seen as rewarding the regime for its transgressions.
In unusually unequivocal language for a senior Japanese politician, Foreign Minister Seiji Maehara said yesterday that talks would be “impossible” as long as the North refused to honor previous commitments to dismantle its nuclear weapons program.
While some hard-line politicians have raised the prospect of further bilateral sanctions against North Korea, Japan’s options are limited. In addition to supporting UN Security Council sanctions, Tokyo has already banned all trade and refuses to allow North Korean ships and planes to enter its territory following the North’s nuclear and missile tests.
Aside from sending technologically flawed rockets into the western Pacific and shunning Japanese demands to explain fully the abduction of Japanese nationals during the cold war, North Korea has again demonstrated its ability to create unease on the other side of the Sea of Japan. Naoto Kan shifts stance on US base
November 30th, 2010, 18:30
American Patriot
Re: North And South Korea On The Brink Of War, Russian Diplomat Warns
S. Korea to strengthen rules of engagement
Published: Nov. 30, 2010 at 7:40 AM
SEOUL, Nov. 30 (UPI) -- South Korea will toughen its rules of engagement so troops have more control on determining the intensity of a counterattack, the Defense Ministry said.
The revisions come amid mounting criticism the South Korean military responded too slowly to last week's North Korean air assault on Yeonpyeong Island, in which four people died, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported Tuesday.
Among other things the changes would give South Korean troops greater leeway to determine the intensity of a counter attack by considering the level of damage and the threats received, the Defense Ministry said in a report.
"We plan to make supplements to guarantee conditions for punishing the enemy," the ministry report said.
The military also would grant more leeway to field commanders in counterattacks and invest more power to the chairman of the joint chiefs of staff to help the military respond to an enemy attack in a timely manner, the ministry said.
"We plan to differentiate the levels of responses to attacks on the military and attacks on civilians," the ministry said.
The U.S.-led United Nations Command and the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces Command would be consulted during the revisions, the ministry said.
Mindful of the outcry over North Korea's assault, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak chided his Cabinet Tuesday for not properly assessing the situation when South Korea's national security is at stake, Yonhap said.
"We should recognize that (South Korea) is confronting the world's most belligerent group," Lee was quoted as saying Tuesday during a weekly Cabinet meeting.