N Korea 'severs all ties' with Seoul

[pampango]

Source: BBC

North Korea is to cut all relations with South Korea, Pyongyang's official news agency reports. KCNA said the North was also expelling all South Korean workers from a jointly-run factory north of the border.

The move comes after an international report blamed North Korea for sinking a South Korean warship.

Seoul announced on Sunday it was ending trade relations with the North in response to the sinking.

Tuesday's KCNA reports announcing the severing of all ties - including communications - said the North was also banning South Korean ships and planes from its waters and airspace.


Read more: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/world/asia_pacific/10156834.stm

[Captain Hilts]

1. North Korea's loss, not the South's. nt

[arcadian]

3. I don't think so.

When you're on a peninsula with two countries, it can be good for either party involved. Plus north Korea has essentially turned South Korea into an island.

[Captain Hilts]

4. I see your point, but the economic benefits kind of run South to North in this case.

But the situation is not a good one at all.

[sharp_stick]

5. They already were

the "ties" between North and South Korea have never been much more than window dressing. The North has always refused to allow any meaningful access to it's roads, airspace or waterways by the South.

The people this will hurt the most as usual are the people of the North that have never been high on their psychotic dwarf leaders list of priorities.

[dixiegrrrrl]

2. Roh oh.

[Lionel Mandrake]

6. The "Dear Leader" apparently wants to start a war,

or just to continue the old war, which technically never ended.

If he succeeds, the US and China may be sucked in.

World War 3, anyone?

[happyslug]

13. No, this sounds like the internal fight over his successor is getting hot.

Remember, the President of North Korea (Kim Jong il)has set up one of his sons as his successor. There has been rumors that the present leader of North Korea is sick and may be dieing. This would set up the country for a power struggle. It smacks of a classic power struggle between the children of the previously ruler AND their cousins. In such inherently monarchy the nasty fights in NEVER between brothers, but between Cousins (I.e. between the grandchildren of the person who founded the dynasty NOT the children themselves).

In such a struggle the fight will be between the Grandchildren of the founder of North Korea. Such relatives are in the best position to take over and know what is going on in the central government do to the fact their parent was running the Government before the death of that parent.

For more on Kim Jong il
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Jong-il

Kim Jong il had one half brother, Kim Pyong il, who is the North Korean Ambassador to Poland (And apparently made that ambassador to get him out of Korea). He is believed to have at least one daughter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kim_Pyong-il

Complicating the above, is the fact that the North Korean Military is the real power in North Korea and may have its own agenda. I.e. the Generals and Admirals may have someone else in mind to successor Kim Jong il. This could explain the attack, an effort to FORCE A SOUTH KOREAN RESPONSE SO THE KOREAN MILITARY CAN SHOW IT CAN DEFEND NORTH KOREA.

Just s comment that the attack may have more to do with the domestic politics on North Korea then anything any where else.

[Lionel Mandrake]

14. If the attack has mainly to do with domestic N. Korean politics,

as you say, then whoever launched the attack made a terrible mistake. The result for North Korea as a whole is likely to be a bad one, and the responsible party will lose credibility.

Something similar happened in Argentina in 1982. The ruling military junta decided that a nice little war against the UK would be just the thing to divert attention from domestic issues, such as economic problems and the questionable legitimacy of the junta. Their calculations were based on the premise that the UK would back down.

As it turned out, the war didn't do Argentina or its ruling junta any good at all.

[happyslug]

19. There is also an observation, it is better to be a hawk that is wrong, then dove that is right.

Thus whoever ordered the sinking may come out on top, even if his fleet and command is destroyed. He will claim he was preventing a South Korean attack and the proof is that after he sunk the shop the South Koreans attacked. This is up there with the statement "i only shot him for he was hitting me" Why was he hitting you? I had hit him with my billy club. Why did you do that? Because I was afraid he would hit me. Why were you afraid he was going to hit you? Because that is what I would do when I am hit by a Billy Club. Why did you think he would hit you with a billy club? Because he was hitting me after I hit him with my billy club.

In a weird way the above is logical, but the same with this attack. The ship was sunk because someone wanted to show what they could do if North Korea was attacked. That shows that the attacker is willing to defend North Korea. What has other people done to Defend North Korea?

Internal politics can be fatal even to people outside the rings of power especially as people die off and are replaced in a generational changeover (Which appears to be occurring, with people who came to power during and after the Korean war finally hitting 70 and 80 years of age and dieing off). Things may settle down (Like what happened in the 1980s in China as the Veterans of the Long March of the Chinese People Liberation Army of 1927 finally started to die off). Yes, Tiananmen Square of 1989, seems to have been at the end of such a generational switch. New people in power as the older generation dies off want to show they can rule. One group permitted the students to protest and show some freedom of speech, others saw it as an opportunity to show they were willing to defend China from any enemy, foreign or domestic.

Similar situation occurred at the same time in the Soviet Union. The Generation that came to power under Stalin during WWII was finally dieing off. The fight over who to succeed them, as they died off, lead to Gorbachev but finally to the dissolution of the Soviet State. I do NOT see that happening in North Korea, but anything is possible (One of the Comments on WWI is that it was another Generational Change, new people were replacing people who came to power during the unification of Germany and Italy in the 1860s AND revolution of 1871 in France, lead to new people in new position many with a filling that they have to show they were as good as their predecessor, and the foolish moves they made in 1914 lead to WWI).

Such a switch over, especially in a dictatorship leads to sever instability and that is something to watch. People tend to forget that while Dictatorships appear to be stable when you have a dictator, getting and replacing that dictator is unstable. The average term of the US President has been about six years, with most serving eight, the second most Four and only one more then 12 years (FDR). On the other hand the Roman Empire has several emperors that ruled for more then 20 years (Constantine and his son Constantius each ruled for more then 20 years), Trajan, Hadrian, Antonius Pius and Marcus Aurelius each ruled for more then 20 years. Augustus himself ruled for 70 years. On the other hand the average rule for a Roman Emperor was 18 months. This is do to those instable times when a dictator has to be replaced. Frequent Elections provide longer terms then life time appointment for the simple reason people will wait to un-elect someone, but if he can NOT be defeated in an election then that only leaves a armed revolt.

In North Korea we are facing an unstable dictatorship and we have to be careful on any response to what occurs inside North Korea AND how that is expressed outside North Korea.

[Lionel Mandrake]

20. Worst of all is to be a dove that is wrong.

The example that comes to mind is Neville Chamberlain, the Prime Minister of the UK who betrayed Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler in 1938. Chamberlain knew he had made a mistake when Hitler invaded Poland in 1939. The mistake caused the Labour party to withdraw support for Chamberlain. He was replaced as Prime Minister by a hawk (Churchill) in 1940.

[jimlup]

15. Not that it couldn't happen but

The dear leader has these episodes every few years. Nothing to be really alarmed at yet.

[sasquuatch55]

7. What pathetic, petty beings we are.

nt

[Suji to Seoul]

8. Best thing for the United States to do is stay well enough alone.

We're already fighting two civil wars. We lost one Civil War (Viet Nam).

We don't need a third war.

Let Korea sort out Korea's mess.

[sabbat hunter]

9. There is more to it than that

There are millions that live in Seoul. We have troops over in Korea as well as Japan (which can be targeted by NK missles)

It is a very complex situation, one that I do not know how is going to end.

[mbperrin]

12. Troops are there as bait, their loss guaranteed to trigger US

involvement.

This could be as bad as Vietnam, because after we lost, they got the contract to sew Wranglers. (Maybe they would have done it without all the deaths beforehand, don't know.)

Only wishing I was being in the least sarcastic.

[Suji to Seoul]

17. I lived in Korea. I know. There are almost 6000 troops in Yongsan garrison

and another 5000 in Camp Casey. We have 38,000 troops there.

I know the situation, and the best thing would be to sit back and offer advising, not direct intervention if war comes.

[caseymoz]

10. Unfortunately, American troops are alread there.

If NK Korea troops move through the DMZ, US troops will be fighting them. Unfortunately, that appears to be the one treaty our government was intent to honor.

[proteus_lives]

16. Not going to happen.

We've been SK's allies for over fifty years.

There already divisions there. The U.S. won't stand by and SK be attacked.

This is actually one fight we should be in.

[Poll_Blind]

11. If NK actually tries war it would be biggest case of suicide-by-cop ever.

I don't have much doubt that the U.S. strongly consider using a low-yield nuclear bomb on Pyongyang (or wherever Kim Jong-Il happens to be) within minutes of inbound artillery fire directed at Seoul. A single low-yield nuclear weapon would actually kill less people than that North Korean artillery would.

[Suji to Seoul]

18. I have long commented that "Yoda's" attitude might me "If I am dying, I'm going to take the rest of

the world with me." He is that sociopathic of a man.