|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
 Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 7:55 pm Post subject: IS THE PENTAGON FINALLY CALLING NORTH KOREA'S BLUFF? |
 |
|
Man, it's about time. It looks as though for the first time in a very long time the Pentagon is prepared to call North Korea's bluff.
This just in:
| Quote: |
Officials: US tracking suspicious ship from NKorea
By ANNE GEARAN and PAULINE JELINEK (AP)
WASHINGTON � The U.S. military is tracking a ship from North Korea that may be carrying illicit weapons, the first vessel monitored under tougher new United Nations rules meant to rein in and punish the communist government following a nuclear test, officials said Thursday.
Defense Secretary Robert Gates said he has ordered additional protections for Hawaii just in case North Korea launches a long-range missile over the Pacific Ocean.
The suspect ship could become a test case for interception of the North's ships at sea, something the North has said it would consider an act of war.
Officials said the U.S. is monitoring the voyage of the North Korean-flagged Kang Nam, which left port in North Korea on Wednesday. On Thursday, it was traveling in the Pacific Ocean off the coast of China, two officials said on condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence.
What the Kang Nam was carrying was not known, but the ship has been involved in weapons proliferation, one of the officials said.
The ship is among a group that is watched regularly but is the only one believed to have cargo that could potentially violate the U.N. resolution, the official said.
Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Adm. Mike Mullen did not specifically confirm that the U.S. was monitoring the ship when he was asked about it at a Pentagon news conference Thursday.
"We intend to vigorously enforce the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1874 to include options, to include, certainly, hail and query," Mullen said. "If a vessel like this is queried and doesn't allow a permissive search," he noted, it can be directed into port.
The Security Council resolution calls on all 192 U.N. member states to inspect vessels on the high seas "if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo" contains banned weapons or material to make them, and if approval is given by the country whose flag the ship sails under.
If the country refuses to give approval, it must direct the vessel "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities."
The resolution does not authorize the use of force. But if a country refuses to order a vessel to a port for inspection, it would be in violation of the resolution and the country licensing the vessel would face possible sanctions by the Security Council.
Gates, speaking at the same news conference, said the Pentagon is concerned about the possibility of a North Korean missile launch "in the direction of Hawaii."
Gates told reporters at the Pentagon he has sent the military's ground-based mobile missile system to Hawaii, and positioned a radar system nearby. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense system is designed to shoot down ballistic missiles in their last stage of flight.
"We are in a good position, should it become necessary, to protect Americans and American territory," Gates said.
A Japanese newspaper reported Thursday that North Korea might fire its most advanced ballistic missile toward Hawaii around the Fourth of July holiday.
A new missile launch � though not expected to reach U.S. territory � would be a brazen slap in the face of the international community, which punished North Korea with new U.N. sanctions for conducting a second nuclear test on May 25 in defiance of a U.N. ban.
North Korea spurned the U.N. Security Council resolution with threats of war and pledges to expand its nuclear bomb-making program.
The missile now being readied in the North is believed to be a Taepodong-2 with a range of up to 4,000 miles and would be launched from North Korea's Dongchang-ni site on the northwestern coast, the Yomiuri newspaper said. It cited an analysis by Japan's Defense Ministry and intelligence gathered by U.S. reconnaissance satellites. |
Do you think Kim Jong is Ill will balk or escalate?
And if he does retaliate, do you think it will come the moment a challenge is made at sea or when the U.S. Navy forces them to port?
If a missile is launched our way, should we try to shoot it down? (The Russians have already said they would, so why shouldn't Japan or the U.S.?)
One thing for sure: with a new, liberal administration in Washington, the Western Europeans, Russians, and Chinese won't be so quick to accuse the U.S. of cowboy brinkmanship.
And an aside: If a missile does actually reach Hawaii, I expect a boat load of big Samoans, Tongans, and Hawaiians to get very, very upset. And believe me, bruddah, that is not a good thing.
Last edited by ManintheMiddle on Fri Jun 19, 2009 12:59 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:20 pm Post subject: |
|
|
From what I understand, this particular ship is part of a group that NK has been using to transport weapons in the past. It has also: changed it's national registration, changed it's name and sailed under false papers and false lading documents.
Under international law that makes it a "stateless ship" and makes it perfectly legal for any government to board it and inspect it. Don't need a UN resolution or any international authority. The authority to sieze the ship already exists under international law.
I say board it. If it won't stop. Sink it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| "to an appropriate and convenient port for the required inspection by the local authorities." |
now there's the problem. Unless the Chinese or Russians are willing to open up their ports for the use of UN inspectors to penalise NK.
Nothing will come of it... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Captain Corea
Joined: 28 Feb 2005
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 8:48 pm Post subject: |
|
|
If a "missile" is headed towards a country's territory, I think they have every right to shoot it down.
If the DPRK launched towards the US, and the US saw that as a danger, I'm all for them retaliating.
I'd never want all of this to happen, but if it did, North korea would be in for a spanking. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Rteacher
Joined: 23 May 2005
Location: Western MA, USA
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 9:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Off the top of my head, I remember reading in the Yahoo News article about the Navy's tracking the ship that the applicable U.N. Resolution does not authorize the use of force - if the ship refuses to comply with the request to go to port it will just lead to more sanctions.
It is calling their bluff about going ballistic over the slightest provocation (or at least hoping that they're bluffing.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 18, 2009 11:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
This is no bluff calling. These sanctions may appear tough at first, but they arent. Not in the least bit. The only thing tough about these sanctions is the language used.
For instance the ship searching part-
North Korea isnt required by the resoultion to grant ships the authority to search them. Member nations are supposed to ask for permission to inspect the ship, and who wants to guess what the norks are gonna say. The member nation can then ask north korea to divert to a near by port for inspection.. and who wants to guess what the norks are going to say???
Dont be fooled by the tough language folks. These sanctions are the exact same sanctions as 2006, only repeated in harsher language and with alot less teeth, and the nortks know this. WHy do you think there being so defiant? Because the Norks know that big daddy China wont let any truly harsh and tough sanctions agasint them ever pass. North Korea, while China keeps this act up, is essentially untouchable and Kim Jong Il knows it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
NAVFC:
I hope you're wrong but I think you're probably right. And, yes, China backs them up in the Security Council.
But if the Chinese begin to believe that this thing is about to blow up in their face anyway they might act responsibly. They certainly won't do it unless they find it entirely (as opposed to mostly) in their own national self-interest.
Russia might be a wild card in all of this.
At the very least, Obama should quit the ruse known as the Six Party talks which serve only to elevate Chinese authority in the region if they serve any purpose at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
saw6436
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Daejeon, ROK
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
You are all missing the point. In this particular instance the recent UN resolution does not make one bit of difference. This particular ship is reported to be a "stateless ship" as such, any government CAN stop, detain, search the ship and seize whatever goods are on the ship. That is International Law, it has nothing to do with the recent UN sanctions.
It was the same Law that applied to the stopping of the NK ship a few years ago (It was carrying a load of Scuds to Yemen). At that time the ship was not flying a national flag and it was un-named.
I agree that the recent sanctions are particularly meaningless but they really should have no bearing in this case (if said ship is indeed "stateless" as reported) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
| saw6436 wrote: |
You are all missing the point. In this particular instance the recent UN resolution does not make one bit of difference. This particular ship is reported to be a "stateless ship" as such, any government CAN stop, detain, search the ship and seize whatever goods are on the ship. That is International Law, it has nothing to do with the recent UN sanctions.
It was the same Law that applied to the stopping of the NK ship a few years ago (It was carrying a load of Scuds to Yemen). At that time the ship was not flying a national flag and it was un-named.
I agree that the recent sanctions are particularly meaningless but they really should have no bearing in this case (if said ship is indeed "stateless" as reported) |
The Ship isnt stateless. the Kang Nam is flying a North Korea flag |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julius
Joined: 27 Jul 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 8:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
US navy prepares to intercept North Korean ship
Friday June 19
A USS destroyer, the John McCain (named after the father of the Republican senator, who was an admiral), was awaiting orders to intercept the ship off the Chinese coast.
If the North Koreans refuse to allow a US crew to search the ship, the US could order it into the nearest port. Failing that, the USS John McCain could closely follow the ship until it reaches a port. The US would then be entitled to demand, under the UN sanctions agreement, that that country inspect the ship.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/jun/19/north-korea-usa-navy-united-nations |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| However said nation isnt bound to inspect the ship. These sanctions arent mandatory. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ManintheMiddle
Joined: 20 Oct 2008
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
NAVFC reminded:
| Quote: |
| However said nation isnt bound to inspect the ship. These sanctions arent mandatory. |
Yes, that's precisely the case. Which makes me wonder whether the USN would resort to another course of action before the ship gets to port (especially considering it might very well dock in Iran or even Yemen).
saw: this is not a stateless ship from what I've heard. What's your source?
Whatever the outcome, I sure as hell hope it doesn't end up in a fiasco similar to the USS Pueblo incident, although that was an American ship that was boarded. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rollo
Joined: 10 May 2006
Location: China
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 20, 2009 5:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
It's a tough call! The six party talks have deteriorated to the point they are useless. The Chinese still support North Korea but are increasingly fed up with Kim bringing instability to the region. No one wants to see a war, the North Korean people have suffered enough but this lunacy must end. Unfortunately China is the key, they fear a collapse of the N.K and the flood of refugees into their country, but they increasingly see the Norks about to sabatoge a system that while imperfect kept the peace and brought prosperity to the region.
I think the U.S. should board the ship. Call the bluff force Kim's hand, if he gets too crazy this will push China further away. If he folds then it will be time to up the pressure. EVeryone keeps hoping the regime will collapse on it's own, but I think it is time for a resolute display by the U.S. force the Chinese to take a stand, I think they will move toward the U.S. and U.N position. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Yesterday
Joined: 15 Aug 2003
Location: Land of the Morning DongChim (Kancho)
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
NAVFC
Joined: 10 May 2006
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
