North Korea Kills Phone Line, 1953 Armistice; Kim Jong Un's Funds Found In China 330
eldavojohn writes "Last week, North Korea promised a "preemptive nuclear strike" prior to a UN vote on new sanctions. Despite the threat, the sanctions were unanimously approved. North Korea has responded by killing a Red Cross hotline with Seoul and claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally (North Korea attempted the same thing in 2003 and 2009). While everyone thought that Kim Jong Un would ride out the sanctions on slush funds, the United States claims to have found his funds in Shanghai and other parts of China totaling hundreds of millions of dollars. Beijing has reportedly refused to confiscate these funds despite voting for the very UN resolutions sanctioning North Korea that read: 'More specifically, States are directed to prevent the provision of financial services or the transfer of any financial or other assets or resources, including 'bulk cash,' which might be used to evade the sanctions.'"
Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is. (Score:4, Insightful)
That way they can point to a country and say to its people: "See, you CAN do worse. Now get back to work."
for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Story's closed, no more comments needed.
Re:Oh? (Score:3, Insightful)
The sequel is even worse.
I'm shocked, shocked ... (Score:2, Insightful)
Every Year (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.
China supports them.... (Score:4, Insightful)
If they wont at least freeze the funds, then they are supporting North Korea and all they stand for. China would benefit from a war between Korea and the USA. they can sell to both sides.
If you dont agree, then what is your reason as to why they wont freeze the funds?
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's breaking a cease-fire. What they were trying to do was cancel it in a more politically-friendly way. You've played Civilization, right?
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise they send you a strongly worded letter. Ask Mr Brix about that.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
Ah diplomats (Score:5, Insightful)
claims that it has canceled the 1953 Armistice although the UN notes this cannot be done unilaterally
Only in the imagination of diplomats is unilateral cancellation of an armistice impossible. The rest of us know what the North Koreans know; that they can start shooting anytime they want.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is - governments outside of North Korea feel it would be a bad move to cut them totally off and let their population starve to death. So they keep going back to the bargaining table, basically offering to trade food for nukes. We give them the food, then NK realizes that their nuclear program is their *only* bargaining chip... so they find something trivial to get mad about regarding the food shipments and pull out of the agreement (after a fair amount of the food has been delivered, of course).
Lather, rinse, repeat.
Re:Ah diplomats (Score:4, Insightful)
This also made me laugh. Any international agreement relies on all parties adhering to it to function. If one party in a two party agreement decides to ignore it entirely, then the legal fabrications of a powerless third party are kind of meaningless. As you say, North Korea can start shooting anytime they want, and waving around the armistice saying "You can't do this, this armistice is still in force!" is worse than useless.
Ultimately, any sanctions the UN might try to impose are limited to individual nations' willingness to adhere to them, and since China is the source of the majority of all North Korean imports, it largely comes down to if China is willing to adhere to them. If China cuts off North Korea, they'd collapse pretty quickly, but China doesn't want millions of refugees flooding their borders any more than anybody else would want that...
Re:This cannot be done unilaterally? (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm pretty that a cease-fire CAN be broken unilaterally. All you have to do is start attacking the other side again.
No one said otherwise. It's easy to contradict something that wasn't actually said. (And on Slashdot, apparently it's "insightful".)
What cannot be done unilaterally is cancelling the armistice agreement. North Korea is legally bound by it, no matter what they say, and subject to still more sanctions if they violate it.
Yes, they can break the cease-fire, as they have several times before; but that's violating their agreement, not cancelling it.
A lesson for Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
The lack of concrete action against NK might be a lesson for Iran.
If you don't want to be fucked with, actually having nukes is the best bet.
Re:Bark bark bark! Grrrrrrrrrr..! (Score:4, Insightful)
U.S. or any number of other countries could smash them flat in no time at all
That's just not true. They have a huge military and a fanatic populace. There would be no massive surrender of troops like in Iraq. Every exercise I've seen for NK involved magicking away several corps and divisions from naval gunfire or some crap to make the scenario plausible. (I am an intelligence analyst)
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/dprk/kpa-orbat.htm
Re:Oh? (Score:5, Insightful)
This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.
I somehow doubt that someone of his age and inexperience is really in charge. I suspect Kim Jong Un is really a figurehead while North Korea is being run by the top brass of their army.
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
You are right and it should also be pointed out that one reason that China supports them is that they do not want hundreds of thousands of NK refugees coming over their border.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:A lesson for Iran? (Score:5, Insightful)
Crude, innacurate, short range nukes are not the reason NK hasn't been attacked. This is all just talk: the barking of a dog that doesn't bite. The rest of the world is aware of this. There is no reason for anyone to attack them. Aside from that there is the problem that any war with NK is likely to result in, at the very least, a Seoul that consists mostly of rubble and, again, that isn't in anyone's best interest.
Re:Well, of course China wants to keep NK as it is (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like taking a bandage off.
Nah, it's more like taking a diaper off.
Re:Oh? (Score:4, Insightful)
This kind of reminds me of Michael Keaton's character in "Multiplicity" wherein he says "You know how when you make a copy of a copy, it's not as sharp as... well... the original." Each iteration of the "<insert adjective> Leader" gets a little less stable than its predecessor. Given this one's extreme youth and actions thus far, I wonder if we will ever see round 4 of this franchise.
I somehow doubt that someone of his age and inexperience is really in charge. I suspect Kim Jong Un is really a figurehead while North Korea is being run by the top brass of their army.
He seems to have had enough power to cut phone lines with the south and break a 60 year old treaty and place them in a condition of war. He may be a five year old with his daddy's gun but he's still holding a gun that looks like a couple of nukes and a large army.
Re:for the seventh time since 1993 (Score:2, Insightful)
People keep talking about the massive influx of refugees in any conflict situation.
If we were really committed to dealing with the North Korean problem, I'm sure that the refugee issue could be solvable. Make a deal with the South Koreans and the Chinese to share the cost of looking after these people. Make preparations beforehand: Build housing and infrastructure for them in Chinese and SK territory and even the US in advance of any action. Have stockpiles of food, water and medicine waiting. Have a welfare and education system ready to take them in with systems in place to either welcome them to other countries as citizens, or send them back to a new life in a rebuilt North Korea.
Sure it would be a hideously expensive project requiring unprecedented levels of organisation and cooperation, but it is not beyond us, especially if the international community were to really work together on it. Would somebody care to remind me just how much Iraq and Afghanistan are costing again? It's in the realm of billions per day, for the last ten years. And who knows, compared to the colossal failure of planning for post-invasion Iraq, maybe in the long run helping people will turn out cheaper than getting bogged down in an unwinnable, unquittable quagmire of perpetual killing.
Actually, this brings to mind something I read a few years ago: China are building huge, empty cities in the middle of nowhere. Apparently it was some weird symptom of the way their banking/ savings/ home ownership systems worked. Maybe they are actually refugee centres for the event that they will someday have to house millions of displaced North Koreans..?
Anyway, here's how I'd try to do it.
1 - Convince China that something needs to be done, co-operatively, to deal with NK in a mostly peaceful fashion. Get South Korea on board as well, maybe Japan and anyone else who has a stake in it. Offer to share the costs of the project. All steps beyond this are done with China and South Korea's approval and assistance.
2 - Prepare extensively for refugees. (Difficult to do in secret, I grant you).
3 - Simultaneously kill or kidnap leadership, seize/ disable their nuclear assets and bomb the fuck out of all the artillery pointing at Seoul. (Have Seoul prepared for bombardment anyway, just in case). Do all this with minimum casualties. Again, this is a hell of a lot harder than I make it sound, but with the world's superpowers pulling together, almost anything should be possible.
4 - Within minutes of 3, airdrop food parcels over every town, city and village. Drop more along the roads to the SK and Chinese borders. Include nice "we are your friends, the borders are now open" leaflets with every parcel. Some satellite-linked netbooks might be a good idea too, to enable communication with the rest of the world.
5 - Within hours of number 3, clear safe paths through the minefields to SK. Set up big "Welcome, North Korean friends" banners at every exit, with free cake and buses ready to ferry people to your comfortable and welcoming but very secure refugee centres. Refugees who change their minds and want to be transported back to NK should be allowed to do so at any time, no questions asked- They are not prisoners. However all movement in or out of NK is to be controlled, so you'll need to watch the coast as well. Refugees should be given access to education and training in fields that will be useful in the eventual rebuilding of their country. Also, obviously, unfiltered access to the the internet and the world's media, they have a lot to catch up on. OK, maybe filter out 4chan, but that's it.
6 - Patrol the borders with all the high-tech surveillance tools at your disposal. Have overwhelmingly powerful military forces ready to deploy to anywhere on the border (particularly to the refugee welcome points) at a moment's notice. NK's military has a lot of manpower but pretty crappy technology. A couple of attack helicopters and tanks will probably be pretty intimidating to them. Any NK military formations attem