Reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula?

Reconciliation on the Korean Peninsula?
China Times editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
December 22, 2010

The South Korean military recently announced a postponement of its Yeonpyeong Island live fire exercises. North Korea then announced that in order to defend its territorial waters from attack, its shelling was more intense and covered greater territory than in the past.

All of a sudden, the atmosphere had changed. Moscow and Beijing met with ambassadors from Seoul and Washington. They called for an emergency session of the Security Council. They urged all parties to exercise restraint, and to dispatch special envoys to intervene in peninsula affairs. Although the Security Council convened a two-day weekend meeting, it failed to reach a consensus.

At noon on the 20th, South Korea began 90 minutes of shelling. Nearly 2000 rounds were fired. North Korea's response was a surprise, The Supreme Commander of the North Korean People's Army issued a statement: "We consider it unnecessary to retaliate against such despicable military provocations." In other words, it was not merely postponing retaliation, it was refusing to respond at all.

The crisis has passed. The world has breathed a sigh of relief. The incident shows Washington and Seoul's tough stance. North Korea's response will have a long term impact on the future on the peninsula.

First of all, South Korea was the party that deliberately conducted military exercises. To characterize Seoul's action as a provocation would be an overstatement. But South Korea was unquestionably the one that acted first.

Routine artillery exercises have been held on Yeonpyeong Island for decades. But this was a sensitive time. South Korea insisted on holding them anyway, motivated by domestic politics.

South Korea suffered greater losses than North Korea during the Cheonan ship sinking incident and shelling incident. This provoked public anger and forced the government to replace its MInister of Defense. If the government failed to take a harder line, or to retaliate, the public would have lost all confidence. South Korea's ruling party noted pragmatically that "If we knuckle under, North Korea will hold Korea in contempt, and will force us to make further concessions." That is why President Lee Myung-bak said "In response to North Korean provocations, it is essential to make them pay a price. Only if we have the courage to hold our ground and refuse to make concessions, can we enjoy a lasting peace."

In response to the exercise, North Korea mobilized more warships, early warning aircraft, and surface to surface missiles. South Korea ordered F-15K fighters, equipped with JDAMs with a 278 km range, on standby alert. If North Korea shelled in retaliation, South Korea would not have hesitated. It would have immediately blown up the other side's artillery positions.

Furthermore, this time Washington was informed about the situation and supported Seoul's response. Washington must firmly support Seoul. Obama must not provoke another war of course. But if allows Pyongyang to succeed once again, the US will lose all credibility in the Asia-Pacific region. Never mind South Korea. Even Japan and Southeast Asia will no longer be able to trust US security assurances.

Two weeks ago, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen suddenly flew to the front-lines to conduct an inspection. Soon afterwards, Vice Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff General James Cartwright said that if North Korea engages in an aggressive response to an exercise conducted by South Korea, it could trigger a "chain reaction." The implication was the US military would not sit idly by. The US deployed over 20 officers on Yeonpyeong Island during the recent exercises. They provided communications, intelligence analysis, and medical facilities, But the real significance of their presence was political. They were there to act as "trip wires." If these soldiers became casualties, the US would be handed a pretext for intervention. The soldiers also served as human shields to contain North Korea.

Seoul and Washington have finally gotten what they wanted. Will this open a door to future peace on the Korean Peninsula? That will depend upon North Korea's response.

North Korea's reaction was a surprise. The world must now re-evaluate the rationality of the Kim dynasty, father and son. Of course, some think Pyongyang merely responded to intense pressure from the Washington/Seoul alliance, and finally saw the light. If a similar incident occurs in the future, some say, one must respond in an equally hard line manner. Tolerance and concessions have already been shown to be the wrong way.

But from another perspective, one might simply conclude that Pyongyang's military tactics have reached a point of diminishing returns. While the two sides harangued each other, former US Secretary of Energy and current New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson was invited to North Korea. He was accompanied by reporters from the New York Times and CNN. Pyongyang was sending a message. It wanted direct talks with Washington.

According to reports, Richardson met with senior officials under Kim Jong-il. Last year, International Atomic Energy Agency personnel were expelled from the country. North Korea has agreed to allow them back in. It has also agreed to sell 12,000 fuel rods, reassuring the West that they will not be transferred to Iran. It has even agreed to set up a military hot line with the tripartite mission. Such concessions are substantial. They show that North Korea is undergoing transition. It is paving the way for future contacts and reconciliation.

North Korea was wrong to engage in provocation. But whether a such a strong response was necessary is debatable. Moscow and Beijing proposed an emergency sesson of the UN Security Council, not without reason. If North Korea retaliated violently, and war suddenly erupted, the entire world could be caught in the crossfire. Washington and Seoul engaged in a high stakes gamble. In order to have a war, both sides must be determined to fight. Fortunately, both North and South Korea knew they were ill-prepared to fight a war. North Korea is small. It has long relied on bluster to get what it wants. But do the US and South Korea, who are more powerful, really want to play the same game? This is a question worth considering.

朝鮮半島和解出現契機
2010-12-22 中國時報

南韓軍方日前宣布要在延坪島實施射擊演習，北韓隨即宣稱：為了保衛領海將進行自衛性攻擊，火力強度與範圍都要比前次炮擊更為嚴重。

一時之間，山雨欲來；俄羅斯與中國除了約見韓國與美國大使外，還要求緊急召開安理會特別會議，呼籲各方節制，要聯合國派遣特使介入半島事務。但安理會周末開了兩天會，無法達成共識。

廿日中午，南韓開始了九十分鐘的砲擊，發射近兩千發炮彈。但北韓的反應卻出人意料，北韓人民軍最高司令發布聲明，「不認為有必要對每次可鄙軍事挑釁都採取報復行動」。換句話說，不是延遲報復，而是根本不採取相對回應了。

危機時刻已過，全世界都鬆了一口氣。但我們認為，這次事件中展現出美韓的強硬態度、北韓的決策，對於日後半島局勢都有長遠的影響。

首先，這是南韓刻意而為的演習。說挑釁也許太過，但南韓主動卻是無庸置疑。當然延坪島上幾十年來都做例行火炮演習，但是在這個敏感時刻，南韓堅持要做，卻與國內政治情勢有關。

南韓在天安號沉沒事件和炮擊事件中都吃了虧，民憤高漲，逼得國防部長被撤換，如不進一步採取強烈回應或報復，政府會完全失信於民。南韓執政黨很實際的指出：「如果我們屈服，北韓會藐視韓國，會要求我們做出更大的讓步。」所以總統李明博才表示：「對於北韓的挑釁，一定要讓他們付出相應的代價。只有我們拿出堅決不讓步的勇氣，才能永享和平。」

對於北韓針對這次演習的威脅，除了動員多艘艦艇、海上預警機、地對地導彈，南韓還戰備待命了F-15K戰機，掛載射程長達二七八公里的聯合制導攻擊武器（JDAM），如果北韓反炮擊，就毫不遲疑的，立即精確炸掉對方的炮陣地。

其次，這是美國知情並且支持下的行為。美國必須要堅決支持南韓，歐巴馬現在當然不能引發另一場戰爭，但是如果任憑北韓再一次得逞，美國在亞太地區將毫無信用可言；南韓自不用說，日本與東南亞各國也不會依賴美國的安全保障。

美國參謀首長聯席會議主席穆倫，兩周前突然飛到前線視察，稍後並由副主席卡特萊特表示，如果北韓就南韓演習採取攻擊性的應對措施，有可能引發「連鎖反應」，這就表示美軍不會坐視；美軍這次在演習的延坪島上也部署了廿多名人員，提供通訊、情報分析與醫療等設施的操作，但他們的政治意義在於「拉拌線」（trip wire），意即如果這些士兵傷亡，美軍即可正式介入，也以這些士兵做為牽制北韓行為的人肉盾牌。

南韓與美國終於得到他們要的，但是能不能替後來朝鮮半島的和平開一扇門，還要看北韓的反應與考量。

北韓的反應，出人意料，令世界要重新估算金氏父子的理性。當然有人會認為，這是美韓聯盟強力施壓的結果，平壤是不見棺材不掉淚，未來如有類似情況發生，只能以更強硬的方式回應，姑息退讓的方式已證明是錯的。

但是從另一個層面看，我們可以窺知平壤方面的軍事手段已經走到了極限。在雙方叫陣的同時，美國前能源部長、現任新墨西哥州州長李察遜應邀在北韓訪問，同行的還有紐約時報與ＣＮＮ的記者，這是北韓送出的訊息，他們希望與美國直接對話。

根據報導，李察遜見到了金正日以下的高官，北韓同意讓去年被趕出境的國際原子能總署人員，重返檢查；也同意出售一萬兩千根燃料棒，讓西方放心不會轉讓給伊朗，甚至還同意設置熱線電話與三方軍事視察團，協議成果不可謂不大，也因此顯示出北韓正在轉向，替後來的接觸和解開啟了契機。

我們認為，北韓挑釁在先，固然有錯，但要不要這麼強烈回應，卻有待商榷。俄羅斯與中國緊急在聯合國安理會提案，不是沒有道理；如果北韓強力報復，戰爭瞬間爆發，全世界都會被捲入，美國與南韓的行為，是在豪賭。戰爭要打得起來，必須雙方都有不惜一戰的決心，幸好北韓、南韓雙方都理解沒有戰爭的條件。北韓國小，過去向來採行唬人的邊緣策略，以獲取外交利益，但美韓勢大，是否也要玩相同把戲，值得深思。