Via One Free Korea comes this Foreign Policy article where the author Micah Zenko doesn’t believe North Korea is a state sponsor of terrorism:
On Friday, Dec. 19, the FBI declared that it “has enough information to conclude that the North Korean government is responsible” for the purported hack of Sony Pictures Entertainment. Soon after, President Barack Obama warned, “We will respond proportionally, and we’ll respond in a place and time and manner that we choose.” Given the relatively meager leverage that the United States — at least unilaterally — has over North Korea, there are precious few practical response options that would deter future comparable malicious actions. According to a senior administration officials, one option under consideration is placing North Korea back on the State Sponsors of Terrorism list, from where it was removed in 2008. Those included on the list are, “Countries determined by the Secretary of State to have repeatedly provided support for acts of international terrorism.”
A small problem with such a designation is that North Korea simply is not a state-sponsor of terrorism. As the latest State Department Country Reports on Terrorism explicitly stated: “The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) is not known to have sponsored any terrorist acts since the bombing of a Korean Airlines flight in 1987.” The North Korean sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan in March 2010 was deemed a violation of the 1953 armistice agreement, but was also declared by a State Department spokesperson to have been “a provocative action but one taken by the military or the state against the military of another state. That, in our view, does not constitute an act of international terrorism.” Thus, by putting it back on the terrorism list, North Korea would be proportionally responded to by reclassifying its government for undertaking a behavior that the United States acknowledges it does not actually do. [Foreign Policy]
You can read the rest at the link, but it is amazing how much this guy leaves out to support his position. As One Free Korea writes there has been a number of kidnap and assassination attempts and arming of terrorist groups carried out by the Kim regime. Also using this guy’s logic in regards to the sinking of the Cheonan, was the marine barracks bombing in Lebanon not terrorism as well then? Or how about Khobar towers or the attack on the USS Cole? These were all attacks against non-hostile military targets just like what happened with the Cheonan. Zenko also leaves out the fact that North Korea shelled an island killing civilians. What does Zenko define that as? Most importantly North Korea has never come clean on the 1987 Korean Air bombing. When Libya came off of the terrorism list they had to make huge concessions in regards to their responsibility for downing Pan Am Flight 103. Why hasn’t North Korea been forced to make these same concessions to get off the list in the first place?
It appears that Kim Jong-un is having some eyebrow challenges:
From left to right: Kim Jong Un’s New Year’s Day speeches on Jan. 1, 2015, Jan. 1, 2014, and Jan. 1, 2013. (Photos by Reuters/Kyodo/KCNA)
Forget Sony Pictures: Now it’s Kim Jong Un’s eyebrows that have been hacked.
In a piece titled “Brow you see them,” the South China Morning Post noted North Korea’s Supreme Leader appeared at a New Year’s Day speech sans what scientists call supercilium.
“In what appeared to be a case of severe over-plucking, Kim’s brows appeared to be significantly shorter than on earlier occasions, sitting above his eyes like little dashes,” the paper wrote. [Washington Post via a reader tip]
It just seems to me there has to be more to this story for this North Korean soldier to kill four elderly Chinese citizens simply because he was hungry:
Photo taken on December 16, 2013 shows North Korean soldiers standing guard on the banks of the Yalu River which separates the North Korean town of Sinuiju from the Chinese border town of Dandong (AFP Photo/Mark Ralston)
A North Korean believed to be a runaway soldier killed four Chinese citizens during a robbery after he crossed the border into China in search of food, media reports said Monday.
The young North Korean soldier crossed the border in late December and stole money and food at a house before killing four residents in China’s northeastern city of Helong, South Korea’s Yonhap news agency and Dong-A Ilbo newspaper said.
Both cited sources in the border areas between China and the North.
The victims were either shot dead or beaten to death, Dong-A said, adding he was later shot and captured by Chinese authorities.
“Killing several Chinese nationals… is a major crime, so there are good possibilities that China, unlike other runaway North Korean soldiers captured before, will not hand him over to the North,” said an unnamed Seoul official quoted by Yonhap. [AFP via reader tip]
You can read more at the link, but according to the article residents in the area say that North Korean soldiers crossing the border in search of food is a common occurrence.
Shown is Kim Yo-jong, the younger sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong-un, accompanying the leader to an orphanage in Pyongyang on Jan. 1, 2015. She wears a finger ring amid speculation she recently married a son of Choe Ryong-hae, a senior secretary of the North’s ruling Workers’ Party seen as the North’s second-most powerful man. (Yonhap)
So does anyone think this latest sanctions announcement will do anything to change North Korean behavior?:
The United States is hitting North Korea with a new set of economic sanctions after determining the country was behind last month’s computer hack at Sony.
The White House said new rules would prevent leaders in North Korea’s government from accessing property and entering the United States. The isolated nuclear regime, which has denied involvement in the Sony hack, was already subject to a strict set of U.S. economic restrictions.
The Federal Bureau of Investigation has maintained that North Korea was behind the broad computer breach at Sony, despite evidence from some technology experts that points instead to former employees of the studio. [CNN]
You can read more at the link, but I doubt the leaders of North Korea do much sight seeing and the buying of vacation condos in the US, but I could be wrong.
Via the Marmot’s Hole comes this article posted on War is Boring by Kyle Mizokami who advocates for the removal of US troops from the Korean peninsula:
Imagine you possess the 15th-largest economy in the world. You have world-class cars and consumer goods, glittering streets and a lifestyle as good as any in the industrialized world.
Now, imagine you are being threatened by a hostile country one third as wealthy as Ethiopia.
Ethiopia.
In order to protect yourself from this economic juggernaut, you require the presence of nearly 30,000 American troops, the overpowering might of the U.S. nuclear arsenal and an American general to take charge in case this mighty opponent attacks
Laughable, right? Not at all. Welcome to South Korea.
It’s time for the United States to leave the Korean peninsula. South Korea can defend itself. [War is Boring]
You can read the rest at the link, but the removal of US troops from Korea is an issue that has been discussed repeatedly and will not happen as long as keeping USFK in place is in each country’s national interest. I have posted about this issue long ago and these points are still valid:
Korean economic impact
Impact on foreign investment
Korean defense spending
Loss of Korean political influence in Washington
Moderating American reactions to North Korea
Political apathy
Power of the status quo
As far as the US military goes the North Korean threat justifies maintaining certain budget levels in the Pacific and an additional four-star command. For the US government USFK provides political influence with South Korea which prevents China from dominating South Korea’s foreign policy which has been the case for most of Korea’s history.
Then there is the nuclear weapons question. If the US military withdraws it suddenly becomes in the national interest of the ROK to develop nuclear weapons to counter-North Korea. If the ROK develops nuclear weapons would Japan do so as well? To further compound this issue is that China would have to increase the amount of nuclear weapons they currently have to counter the US to also counter the ROK and possibly Japan. A withdrawal of USFK could lead to a large nuclear arms race in the region.
Finally and most importantly people need to remember there hasn’t been a war on the Korean peninsula in over 60 years and there is a reason for that, USFK. The US military is the strategic balancer in the region that is preventing one of the other three great powers from seeking hegemony over the region which has historically been the case. Keeping a few thousand US troops on the Korean peninsula to maintain this balance is worth the cost to keep stability in such an economically important area of the world. If someone wants to argue we have too many or not the right amount of troops in Korea I am open to that argument, but to completely remove USFK I do not see the benefit to the US or South Korea.
Anyone else have any other points they want to share on why the US military should or should not stay in South Korea?
