Posted on 05/22/2010 5:06:23 PM PDT by Jet Jaguar
SEOUL, South Korea — As South Korea made its case last week that North Korea was behind the sinking of a South Korean patrol ship, it left at least one question unanswered: Why?
What motive did the North have for the brazen torpedo attack March 26 in the Yellow Sea near the maritime border between the two Koreas, and what does it have to gain besides another round of world condemnation and sanctions?
While South Korean officials deliberate on how to respond to the attack, experts interviewed by Stars and Stripes offered a range of possible North Korean motives — from simple payback to another in a long string of incidents the impoverished and reclusive communist nation has used to gain international attention and concessions.
The sinking of the Cheonan, which killed 46 of 104 sailors aboard, was the latest of several North Korean provocations near the disputed maritime border, including an exchange of artillery fire between the two Koreas in January.
A more serious exchange of fire between North and South Korean patrol boats occurred in November.
No South Koreans were injured, but according to media reports, a North Korean officer and three sailors are believed to have died and a North Korean vessel was badly damaged.
“They really took a beating,” said Daniel Pinkston, a North Korea expert with the International Crisis Group. “From North Korea’s perspective, they probably look at the situation now as being even. They settled the score.”
A multinational, South Korean-led team of investigators, citing “overwhelming” evidence, concluded Thursday that a North Korean midget submarine torpedoed the ship. North Korea has steadfastly denied involvement, and has threatened that any retaliation from the South, including pushing for United Nations sanctions, will be viewed as an act of war.
Bruce Bechtol, an international relations professor at the Marine Corps Command and Staff College in Quantico, Va., and author of “Red Rogue: The Persistent Challenge of North Korea,” said the attack on the Cheonan was North Korea’s latest attempt to put changing the western maritime boundary on the negotiating table.
The Northern Limit Line, a jagged border that separates fishing waters between the two countries, was established by the United Nations after the 1950-53 Korean War but has never been recognized by North Korea.
The communist nation claims the boundary is much farther south, and views any movement north of its recognized line as a threat to its sovereignty, Bechtol said.
Former South Korean President Roh Moo-hyun, who advocated a liberal “sunshine policy” of cooperation with the North, promised to redraw the line. But his successor, conservative Lee Myung-bak, has refused to do it, Bechtol said.
“The North Koreans were very close to getting what they wanted through Roh, and that just didn’t happen,” he said. “Now they’re trying to get what they want.”
Bruce Klinger, an expert on northeast Asia with the conservative Heritage Foundation think tank in Washington, said the attack also fits North Korea’s pattern of raising international tensions to get concessions from its opponents.
“North Korea feels that it has additional leverage when it’s being paid attention to as well as when tensions are higher,” he said. “It also tends to lash out either when it feels weak or it perceives the outside world perceives it as weak. A Korean adage is the ‘barking of a wounded dog.’ ”
North Korea may have also felt it could get away with such an attack because neither the U.S. nor South Korea has ever retaliated militarily to the North’s provocations since the war because of a fear of an all-out war, Klinger said.
There were no military responses when North Korean agents attempted to assassinate former South Korean President Chun Doo-Hwan in Myanmar in 1983, or when a bomb that agents placed on a Korea Air jet in 1987 exploded killing 135 people on a flight from the Middle East, according to Klinger.
Other motives for the Cheonan attack could be that North Korea was trying to divert attention from its nuclear weapons program, or ailing North Korean leader Kim Jong Il was trying to demonstrate he is still in control of his regime, said Nicholas Szechenyi, an expert on northeast Asia at the bipartisan Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.
Scott Snyder, director of the Center for U.S.-Korea Policy at the Asia Foundation in Washington summed up the attack as a cry for attention and respect, as well as an act of revenge.
“I believe the North Koreans took actions really strictly in an inter-Korean context,” he said. “I think they were trying to send a message to the South Korean administration: Don’t take us for granted, and don’t think you can ignore us.”
Waiting for obama to surrender!!!
With no rational thought involved it would be hard to say.
there was no incentive to NOT do it. that’s how thugocracies operate. it’s complicate by the fact that this particular nutcase has nuclear weapons; many conventional remedies simply aren’t available.
and this is exactly why iran can NOT, under any circumstances, be allowed to acquire a nuke.
NK has always loved to be provocative. It draws attention and allows them to kvetch about being picked on. No?
They were testing the waters, so to speak, to see how little resolve and spine the two countries would have toward avenging and attack.
Considering how long it took for the ROK to come out and say it was actually an attack by the Norks, I'd say the Norks were right. The Nork's enemies did nothing. Now the way is paved for something worse.
We had already warned the south Korean group of traitors not to make reckless remarks concerning the sinking of warship “Cheonan” of the puppet navy.
What matters is that traitor Lee Myung Bak is taking the lead in such anti-DPRK smear campaign, even daring slander the headquarters of our revolution.
Kim Thae Yong and other gangsters of the south Korean puppet military accustomed to flattery and blind obedience echo Lee Myung Bak’s outbursts. This smear campaign is fanned up by Ryu Myung Hwan and other ultra-rightist conservatives.
Our army and people will promptly react to any “punishment” and “retaliation” and to any “sanctions” infringing upon our state interests with various forms of tough measures including an all-out war. The all-out war to be undertaken by us will be a sacred war involving the whole nation, all the people and the whole state for completely eliminating the strongholds of the group of traitors.
We will brand any small incident that occurs in the territorial waters, air and land where our sovereignty is exercised including the West Sea of Korea as a provocation of confrontation maniacs and react to it with unlimited retaliatory blow, merciless strong physical blow.
We sternly warn the U.S. and Japanese authorities and riff-raffs, their poor lackeys, to act with discretion.
NK wants the US to come and take back the Pueblo?
Because they can.
What, their motives have changed?
bullies push ... specifically
a) to get a reaction:
b) to see if you will push back
c) to see if you will just back down
d) to force you to react to them while they plan their next action
not that it isnt about revenge or getting “even”, but for bullies, it is about being stronger than you and making you subjugant to their power (whatever level they can exert)
E) All of the above.
Just ONE of Richardsons real Bozo moves.
I have to assume that NK is the chicoms attack dog. I doubt they so much as growl without the chicoms giving the OK. The chia pet was recently in China - coincidence? I think not.
Remember when our dear Vice President said that there would be incidents where various bad guys in the world would create provocations just to test Obama? Well, they did and he did nothing. Now they are doing it because they know he will still do nothing (except have Hillary Clinton make nasty remarks). This will continue until 1) Obama is no longer president or 2) he actually does something nasty back. I don't think you should hold your breath waiting for 2.
Yes, the United States will surrender to North Korea because they sunk a South Korean ship.
Brilliant succinct analysis!
I would only add that they push to make a statement to all onlookers...kind of like dogs in a pack ( or gangs), and the other dogs in the pack line up when challenges like this occurr. ( a primitive analogy and not getting this idea across quite clearly as I would like.)
the bully gets their “place” in the lineup..
How ironic now Bob Dylan’s song “neighborhood bully” in the nod to Israel’s always having to take care of the bullies, yet being called a bully.
Where are you Joe Dimaggio? Bye Bye American Pie......
( sorry, i am just particularly morose this eve).
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.