Other recent articles under: North Korea as of Nov 24, 2010
Topic: North Korea
North Korea Attacks: World War Three ?
Exclusive to Nolan Chart; interviews regarding recent events in Korea by James Luko
(centrist)
Wednesday, November 24, 2010
Exclusive for Nolan Chart readers, the author interviews two experts regarding the recent events in the Korean peninsula.
David J. Wallis (U.S. Air Force ret.), 20 years military analyst and Air Force Intelligence Officer focused and conducted operations targeted at North Korea and China.
Luke Lee, served several years with the South Korean marines and was based next to Yeonpyeong Island.
Background: Yeonpyeong Island lies only 7.5 miles off of the North Korean coast, while its much further away from South Korea. Both sides claim the island and there is no relevant international law to settle the dispute. Different nations claim the right to different distances that can be attributed to national territory at sea.
Another violent incident took place in 1999 known as the First Battle of Yeonpyeong Island when North Korea wanted to change the demarcation line in the Sea.
There is also some disagreement about who really started the latest flare up. South Korea has been conducted military exercises in the disputed zone and engaging in artillery fire "towards" North Korea- but claiming their shells fell "inside" international waters. This in itself could be viewed as quite "provoking." The North responded except with a significant escalation by shelling Yeonpyeong Island.
(questions posed by author)
The Interview:
1. What is, or are, the motivations for North Korea's "so-called" first strike against Yeonpyeong using artillery ?
Wallis, former Air Force Intelligence operative and analyst believes its not only a direct response to the South Korean military exercises but an escalation for multiple reasons. The Senior Kim needs support of the North Korean military establishment to successfully promote his Son to being the new leader. This escalation may have been a direct result of that. Luke Lee believes its also a warning to the the South Koreans and Americans about what might happen if talks and discussions are not resumed. Wallis also believes that the reaction may be due to the fact that the South Koreans, in years past, have greatly scaled back the size of the exercises. This year, it was greatly expanded and the North may be responding to that. Wallis also believes that South Korea and America have been letting the North get away with murder when one takes into account the past year events- including the sinking of the South Korean naval vessel. Wallis is not happy about the lack of response to what he calls, North Korea, being a "paper tiger."
2. What benefits could North Korea obtain from such an attack ?
Luke Lee responds that in fact, past North Korean temper tantrums have brought attention to North Korea and is how they conduct policy.
3. North Korea has been warning the South against holding military exercises, especially in disputed areas. The South ignored those warnings- was that wise ?
Luke Lee responded by saying that the South didn't think the North would react this strongly, so they (South Korea) miscalculated. Wallis responded by saying that it is "wise" to ignore such warnings, lest North Korea thinks that such warnings can control South Korean behavior. "It's bluster and bluff" says Wallis. The North will only go so far but avoid war since they don't want war.
4. Why doesn't or can it- China further restrain North Korea ?
Wallis says that China's "leash" on North Korea is limited, that pushing North Korea too hard might also provoke undesirable actions by the North. Wallis claims that the North Koreans are prepared to hide underground during any counter-attack and have a plan to win in the first five days of fighting. North Korea knows- says Wallis, that if it doesn't win a war with the South in the first five days, the sheer military weight of the U.S. Would ensure its loss.
6. Will this recent incident lead to a full scale war ?
Luke Lee says "definitely not." Wallis also believes that the North calibrated its attack and target to ensure that this would not lead to all out war.
7. How long with the South Korean stock market and currency suffer due to the incident ?
"It will last one day only, the effects are already over basically" says Lee.
8. There are many islands in this area- why did North Korea attack this island in particular ?
Both Wallis and Lee agree that Yeonpyeong is a minor island and therefore would not ignite a war with South Korea. Had the North shell the larger islands near Yeonpyeong it may escalate into war- says Lee. Lee says, "North Korea knew that shelling Yeonpyeong was a safe bet to shell and restrained the shelling only to that island in order to prevent this from developing into a full scale war." Wallis added that, Yeonpyeong is so close to North Korea, logistically it was easy.
Another confidential source to the author, in South Korea, reports that Yeonpyeong has tunnels underneath- connecting many of the islands. Also, the source reports that this island may have been targeted because of some sophisticated missiles stored on the island. This source confirms that there are over 1,500 military personnel and that the island serves as a "time bridge" to hold back a North Korean attack until such time as sufficient reinforcements are brought to bear.
9. Is North Korea "unstable" or just using high risk, calculated brinkmanship to achieve their goals ?
Wallis states that this is their (North's) method and not instability on their part. Lee agrees in saying that the North knows exactly what their doing.
10. Is this incident connected to the change in leadership in North Korea ?
Both Wallis and Lee agree that leader-to-be, "Kim Jong Un" is displaying his new military role and confirming his synchronicity with the military. In addition, it shows that West that he (Kim Jong Un) is not a weakling nor is there any power vacuum.
The author would also note that the North Koreans privately insist that as long as the U.S. Refuses to pledge that it would "never" use nuclear weapons against it, they have no choice but to have a defense against that, which would be having its own nuclear weapons.
Obama is asking China to "help" but neglects to respond to China's demands that the U.S. Stop supporting and arming Taiwan as well as interference with Tibet. North Korea is a tool of leverage for China and therefore it will not so readily blunt that tool.
All in all, the "escalation" of events are most likely a combination of factors:
A. Direct response of South Korean exercises near disputed territory
B. Force the West to six-power talks
C. Demonstration of Kim Jong Un, the elder Kim's successor, of being in control, solidarity with the military and negating any ideas of a power gap existing. Business as usual.
It would seem that Obama's policy of "no engagement" with North Korea under the demand that all nuclear activities stop is not working. Who but your enemy do you engage with ? Some U.S. Analysts say that North Korean diplomatic activity is just a "ruse" to buy time so that they can further develop their missile and nuclear bomb capabilities.
This author believes that the no engagement policy is NOT stopping North Korea's progress. No matter sanctions and restrictions, information and material continues to flow through China, so in this case Western pressure is very limited.
This author believes that a "dual-track" approach must be implemented. Continued restrictions, sanctions, etc. but develop engagement and negotiations. Continue with strict deadlines of punishment and reward as well as squeezing China in the areas of Taiwan and Tibet if the Chinese continue to refuse to cooperate.
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 8
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of James Luko only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
James Luko is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
