N. Korea attacks southern island of S. Korea

[Cain]

North Korea is claiming South Korea struck first.

Any such claim should be treated with suspicion, of course, but there was a training exercise taking place very close to the DMZ, and it's not like there aren't crazies in the South Korean military either, so it's not an entirely unlikely claim, just one which cannot at all be verified.

I agree with Beck, incidentally.  North Korea requires external agitation, to keep the regime in power.  At the same time, too much hostility would result in a terrible war, which North Korea would eventually lose.  Therefore, they are performing a tight-rope act here.  Ironically, the main problem may end up being public opinion in South Korea.  If it sours too much against North Korea, no matter how small the provocation, a government which refuses to engage North Korea militarily may fall...and then we enter the wonderful world of the Security Dilemma and tit-for-tat violence.

[Cain]

On the other hand, most South Koreans should probably be aware that their population is concentrated very close to the North Korean border, well within Scud range, and packed into tight, high rise apartment complexes housing thousands of citizens.

[The Johnny]

Wallerstein thought (4 months ago) everyone is playing a dangerous game of chicken:

Commentary No. 282, June 1, 2010

Iran and North Korea Again: The Perils of Brinkmanship"


The United States has been clamoring for almost two decades that it is determined to prevent Iran and North Korea from becoming nuclear powers. In-between more urgent issues, the U.S. government regularly reasserts the importance of this objective. Since both Iran and North Korea are clearly unwilling to cede to these periodically-reasserted U.S. demands, the United States constantly makes threats of further action of some sort.

After all this time, should we take this seriously? What has been going on is best summarized as brinkmanship, sometimes called a "game of chicken." Each time the game is replayed, it is always a question of who will blink first, and call off the implied ultimate escalation into warfare. Usually the United States plays this game with Iran and North Korea one at a time. Right now, it is playing it with both simultaneously. On the one hand, the simultaneity makes it more difficult to believe the seriousness of U.S. intent. On the other hand, it makes the game more perilous.

What are the current stories? In the case of Iran, the United States has been trying for some months now to obtain from the U.N. Security Council a new resolution imposing further sanctions on Iran for refusing the Security Council's resolution demanding that Iran suspend the enrichment of uranium. To get such a further resolution, the United States has been negotiating with Russia and China for their support. At the moment, these two countries seem to have agreed to support a resolution, but one weaker than the one the United States wants, and in return for diverse concessions on other issues.

The United States has assumed up to now that once it got the support of Russia and China, it would be able to get a unanimous resolution from the Security Council. Suddenly, two of the non-permanent members - Brazil and Turkey - entered the picture and engaged in very public diplomacy on this issue. Their leaders arranged with Iran to swap about half its low enriched uranium for nuclear fuel. Brazil, Turkey, and Iran argued that this deal goes a long way towards meeting U.S. demands. The United States does not agree at all and has said it will proceed with pushing for its resolution in the Security Council.

The United States does not know how to deal with the Brazilian/Turkish entry into the public game. They are both supposed to be friendly countries. They are both supposed to be junior nations who should leave such matters to the permanent members of the Security Council. It seems the United States may even have endorsed their initiative on the assumption it would fail and the U.S. argument would be fortified. This didn't happen. Brazil and Turkey succeeded. At least they think so. And they don't intend to be treated as junior nations who have to wait on their elders. They actually think that the United States should hail their agreement with Iran as a success and withdraw the resolution.

In the meantime, all eyes are on Korea. There, on March 26, a South Korean warship sank. At first, the South Koreans said they thought it was an accident. But then, two months later, which is a suspiciously long time, they announced they have proof that a North Korean submarine sank the ship with a torpedo. Some South Korean analysts suggest that the ship, which was engaged in a joint military exercise with the United States, was actually sunk in error by a U.S. submarine. This suggestion has been ignored by the world press, which rather is debating the motives of North Korea for doing this. Hillary Clinton says she can't understand why they would do such a thing.

Whatever the case, South Korea has broken its existing ties with North Korea, which has reciprocated. South Korea's present conservative government has now scuttled whatever remained of the previous president's "sunshine policy" toward North Korea. The United States wants a Security Council resolution. North Korea says that, if one is passed, they will withdraw from cooperation with international inspections of their nuclear facilities.

So, we're into high-level brinkmanship. And the world's markets reflect extreme nervousness. What will happen now? Obviously, everyone is playing to their home audience. The U.S. government wants to show the U.S. Congress that it is "doing something" serious. So does the South Korean government. So do the Iranian and North Korean governments. And so, no doubt, do the Brazilian and Turkish governments.

Who will blink first? I don't believe any of the front-line nations actually wants a war. There is too much to lose for each of them. The real decison however lies with none of these actors but with the Chinese government. China is calling the shots. What kind of a resolution will the Chinese support now in either of the two cases? China obviously wants very much for everyone to calm down, and to keep calm. The problem is that brinkmanship can be a dangerous game when the world - its geopolitics and its economy - is so chaotic and volatile. Accidents could happen. Some military officer somewhere, with his hand on the trigger, could make a mistake - either accidentally or deliberately.

We are living in interesting times.

by Immanuel Wallerstein


[Copyright by Immanuel Wallerstein, distributed by Agence Global. For rights and permissions, including translations and posting to non-commercial sites, and contact: rights@agenceglobal.com, 1.336.686.9002 or 1.336.286.6606. Permission is granted to download, forward electronically, or e-mail to others, provided the essay remains intact and the copyright note is displayed. To contact author, write: immanuel.wallerstein@yale.edu.

These commentaries, published twice monthly, are intended to be reflections on the contemporary world scene, as seen from the perspective not of the immediate headlines but of the long term.]

[Prince Glittersnatch III]

In what could be a crucial development, state-owned newspapers in China have blamed North Korea for this week's attack; one even editorialized that North Korea could be a country without a future.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/11/27/3078142.htm

I take this as a sign that China does not approve.

[Cain]

Not surprising.  China doesn't want North Korea to collapse, either through war or internal stupidity.  It's not exactly like they're ideological BFF, China has a plan for North Korea, which does not involve hundreds and thousands of its citizens fleeing across the border into China, or everything north of the DMZ being burnt to a crisp.

Therefore China is the closest thing North Korea has now to a sense of national best interest.