On 26 March, 2010, the South Korean corvette Cheonan was torpedoed and sunk, with a loss of 46 crewmembers. Any time a ship goes down, a sailor can feel it - the inevitability of loss. But that isn't what this story is about.
A North Korean-manufactured torpedo has been implicated in the sinking of the Cheonan with what appears to be incontrovertible evidence. Strong diplomatic and economic measures, as well as military exercises at the very least, are looming ahead. Tensions on the Korean peninsula are rising. The role of China has yet to be defined. The motives of North Korean leaders are murkier than ever. They have denied everything.
The incident is reminiscent of the James Bond film Tomorrow Never Dies, where an evil media mogul sinks a British warship and arranges blame onto China - provoking measures leading towards war. It's only slightly easier to believe that the torpedo came from a Elliot Carver's stealth submarine than that it came from Mars. A North Korean torpedo was found amidst the wreckage. And it is very likely that classified intelligence data makes an even stronger case for a North Korean submarine.
And so: either the submarine commander is rogue, a faction within the North Korean military command ordered the attack, or the orders came from the Pyongyang regime. If Pyongyang ordered the attack, what is to gain by a complete denial in the face of clear evidence to the contrary? A rogue sub commander would be an easy face-saving out for the regime - with requisite (show) trial, an official apology, talk of reparations, a renewed ceasefire agreement. But so far, no word from Pyongyang on such a break in the chain of command. And so - the orders may have come from higher.
Why would an economy on the verge of utter collapse risk war? How have high elements within the North Korean command, perhaps Kim Jong-il himself, come to the conclusion that the survival of their regime depends on the victimization of its populace? That a propaganda victory, with North Korea appearing the victim of unprovoked and unjustified retaliation, is worth risking a wider war on the Korean peninsula?
If the US and/or South Korea retaliate with limited strikes, and North Korean responds with a "limited" artillery bombardment of Seoul, the number of casualties, economic damage, and sheer terror will be shocking. Retaliation will target the North Korean regime directly. Starving refugees will begin streaming towards China. And deep in the bunkers north of the DMZ, their seals broken, chemical weapons will be readied for deployment; nuclear weapons will be put on standby; divisions driven to cross the border.
Go to Defcon 3. Will the UN-US-ROK goal be that of the Iraq war: "unconditional surrender", "regime change", "decapitation"? At what point will cooler heads prevail? At what point will one side unilaterally declare a ceasefire?
All eyes turn to China. China is the only power that can feasibly prevent escalating tensions and eventually, the risk of devastating open warfare in Korea. The PRC is not stupid; they will - they must - pressure North Korea to stand down. Only China can re-imagine North Korea, and rebuild it in its own image. It is time. Of course, the regime in China will demand a price, possibly in trade negotiations, possibly in geostrategics (vis-a-vis Taiwan or regions of interest in Central Asia), possibly in asking for silence on certain matters of internal unrest. Maybe this was the plan all along.
But who are we (ie, the US) to protest too loudly? Our relationship is symbiotic. China just helped to re-finance our entire banking system via purchasing US Government debt. The iPads are designed in Silicon Valley; they are made in Guangdong; they are bought in Los Angeles. Hopefully, an open door will be enough to avert conventional-chemical-nuclear disaster.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
