International issues are rarely of the black-and-white variety. When the rare issue of this type comes along, it presents an opportunity not to be wasted. The sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan fits this description.
On March 26 a mysterious explosion broke the Cheonan in two, causing it to sink, killing 46 sailors. An investigation involving experts from South Korea, Australia, Sweden, the UK, and the US was convened to determine the cause of the explosion. The team determined that a torpedo caused the explosion. Furthermore, they found that:
The evidence points overwhelmingly to the conclusion that the torpedo was fired by a North Korean submarine. There is no other plausible explanation.These findings weren't unexpected. Independent analysts looking at the pictures of the vessel taken after its recovery from the sea floor had identified the damage as being consistent with that caused by torpedoes.
No one has seriously questioned this evidence, though North Korea did (predictably) accuse the South of "foolishly seeking to link the accident with the north at any cost." But more importantly, China has not publicly questioned the experts' conclusions, saying only that all sides should remain calm in the wake of the "unfortunate" incident.
In fact, China has studiously avoided saying much of anything about the issue, except that it was conducting its own "assessment" of what had happened to the Cheonan.
Why wouldn't China take a stronger stand when faced with such strong evidence? As a Council on Foreign Relations backgrounder points out:
China's support for Pyongyang ensures a friendly nation on its northeastern border, as well as provides a buffer zone between China and democratic South Korea, which is home to around twenty-nine thousand U.S. troops and marines. This allows China to reduce its military deployment in its northeast...
China clearly has some interest in keeping the North Korean regime around. However, those who would rather that the regime disappear have an equally important interest in changing China's mind. This is for the simple reason that North Korea is more dependent than ever before on Chinese aid. After sanctions were tightened in 2006 and again in 2009 (after the North's two nuclear weapon tests), the North's aid from and trade with countries other than China has fallen off. Trade with the South was its other major source of income, and with both South and North Korea announcing their intentions to sever bilateral ties, this number is likely to plummet.
America has given China several opportunities to demonstrate that it stands with the responsible members of the global community, including during the recent visit by Secretary of State Clinton and Treasury Secretary Geithner. China will get another chance when Prime Minister Wen heads to Seoul on Friday.
If it fails to take this chance to make the morally obvious choice, the U.S. should force China's hand. The biggest stage on which to do this would be in the U.N. Security Council. As one of the Council's five permanent members, China can veto substantive resolutions, but on procedural matters (like whether to bring a resolution to a vote) no single country has veto power.
Forcing China to choose whether to veto, abstain, or approve a resolution condemning North Korea's actions would signify a choice between being a responsible world power or covering up a blatant act of war. Even an abstention would speak volumes about China's willingness to step up when it counts. The stakes would be raised even further by the fact that, again according to the Security Council's rules of procedure, both North and South Korea would have the right to be in the Council during the vote.
There will no doubt be analysts who oppose this tactic on the grounds that embarrassing China into a choice of this sort would be counterproductive, given our reliance on them for support on other issues. But if the timing is right (after a vote on sanctioning Iran), and the resolution is short and sweet, the black-and-white nature of this incident will dominate the analysis. Taking a stand against unprovoked acts of war ought to be the bare minimum required of a country that appears to aspire to global leadership. If China chooses to retaliate by withdrawing support for other issues, its reputation will only diminish further.
North Korea's attack on its neighbor to the south was an outrage. Despite the North's attempt to cover its tracks, no one has seriously disputed that is was responsible. China's support for North Korea has costs, but the administration can't expose these costs by slow-playing its hand. China shouldn't get a free pass if it wants to cover up for its rogue ally. It must be made to choose between responsibility and criminality.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hainan_Island_incident
And then there are threats against Taiwan and the US by China. (Bear in mind that there is no freedom of press in China - if something is published, the government has no objection to it, or it wouldn't be published.) :
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/05/harsh-words-from-chinese-military-raise-threat-con/
There are civil liberties in China, but the laws are in Chinese and most westerners can't read them. Just because they can't read them doesn't mean it doesn't exist. As for belligerent militaries, at least the Chinese doesn't have 700 military bases all over the world. And don't give me the BS how they want the US bases there. Okinawans tried to get rid of the US military base for years now and not to mention the Iraqis.
As for the Hainan Island incident, a Chinese pilot died because of that and it was over a US spyplane.
Again there are certain amount of freedom of the press in China. Ever heard of the South China Morning Post? Just because you never heard about it, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We are expected to believe that a North Korean Sub, was able to penetrate this fleet of the most state of the art warships in the world, fire a german torpedo, sink a South Korean ship and slip away unnoticed.
If the USA is trying it's best to get yet a third war going you would think that after all of the practice it has had in lying to the world about phony attacks that never took place to begin illegal wars, that they could come up with something a little more convincing than this weak scenario.
Another thing. Hillary Clinton goes around the world Hissing and barking like a cross between a venemous snake and a rabid dog. Obama should muzzle her in the name of peace in the world. Enough already.
China might also be aware of history, which typically vanishes in situations like this, that the US has a history of making up incident claims to justify wars -- see Tonkin, Gulf of, and Iraq, invasion of. See also Bruce Cummings' excellent Korea: the Forgotten War for a discussion of how the opening of the Korean conflict is a lot more ambiguous than most people think.
I wish commentators would stop pretending that things are cut and dried. Remember Hussein's nukes?
Michael
http://www.japanfocus.org/-Tanaka-Sakai/3361
Tanaka places at center stage a range of factors, some fully documented, others speculative, that have been missing, distorted, or silenced in US and ROK narratives: they include the fact and location of the US-ROK joint military exercise that was in progress at the time of the incident and the possibility that the Cheonan was sunk by friendly fire. Tanaka presents evidence suggesting the possibility that a US nuclear submarine was stationed off Byaengnyong Island and that a US vessel may have been sunk during the incident. He also considers anomalies in the role of US ships in the salvage and rescue operations that followed, including the death of an ROK diver in the attempt to recover that vessel.
Make China Choose.
America has given China several opportunities
China will get another chance
If it fails to take this chance to make a morally obvious choice
It must be made to choose between responsibility and criminality.
Is this really the way to talk to a country that is helping fund the day to day operation of the US government? Is this the gratitude China gets for helping Europe by declaring they will not abandon the Euro?
I have problems with people who speak of moral absolutes and make complicated matters simplier than they are. Up to the point of the Iraq invasion, analysts like Mr. Black try to sell to the public that it was a simple moral choice to invade Iraq to get rid of their WMD. No Weapons of Mass Destructions were found, but this mistake cost the lives of at least 100,000 Iraqis and 4400 Americans.
Mr. Black you speak of choosing responsibility and criminality. The responsible thing to do is to remain calm just as China is doing now and not push North Korea further into a corner! No one wants a war in Korea, how is condemning North Korea going to help instead of hinder a solution from this mess? It is nothing but criminal to rush into a condemnation and escalate the situation that would risk the lives of Korean civilians on both side of the DMZ!
As for China being a responsible world power, nobody from America has any moral high ground from which to question the ethics of other nations. Let's see, exactly how many sovereign nations has China invaded and occupied? Ever!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-_KbdJ6XjU&feature=related
opportunistic, cloistered and provincial all at once. We do not need a Litmus test
that is also a hand of Russian Roulette in order to establish this country's uniquely
ugly identity. China has one saving grace in this issue, and that is that it can be
pragmatic as it takes opportunities arisen. North Korea is of no use whatsoever to
China, is nothing but a bad appendix. Realpolitik may gain from China what rash
pressure most probably won't. Sam Black, keep blogging. Don't go into the foreign
service.
China is no more "vile" than the USA.
add that info to the fact that the investigators leaked the info that the torpedo was made in germany and the incident looks a lot like an unfortunate friendly fire incident.
not wanting a bad thing to be used for good nk has been accused with the knowledge that china is their closest ally for the strategic reasons mentioned.
if you haven't noticed, yet, china calls the shots in that region. if you think they will bend to the needs of the usa you are wrong.