The two Koreas are not at peace in any sense of the word, and there has been a continual series of provocations and clashes over the last sixty years. The status quo is, in fact, a continuing series of provocations and sabre rattling by NK that the South has been quite restrained in responding to.
For you to claim that SK shells entering NK water is an “escalation” is laughable in light of their history since the armistice.
It was not an escalation. There was no peaceful status quo that was destroyed by SK, and their actual act was far less than any of NK’s previous incursions against SK. I mentioned the invasion tunnels above; there have also been repeated incursions into South Korean territory by NK commandos, by NK soldiers across the MDL, and most recently, by a NK torpedo into the hull of a SK ship, killing 46.
Besides, you mention “escalation” like that’s an okay thing, when escalating response quite clearly leads to open and unrestricted war. The whole point of the doctrine of proportionality is that it offers both sides an opportunity to back down because the response does not escalate the situation.
Again, your analogy fails because this is not comparable to shells falling into open water. A platoon of soldiers wandering San Francisco obviously presents a far more aggressive act than that same platoon on a boat, crossing the U.S. maritime border but never coming close to American civilians or property, and leaving a short time after entering U.S. waters.
“I don’t care for the reality in which North Korea wasn’t actually threatened in any way, shape or form and then responded with lethal force. I’d prefer we substitute a different reality, friend.”
Let’s ask our friend this question directly: Given your doctrine of escalation, what would be a justified South Korean response to the tunnels dug by North Korea under the DMZ (and thus bypassing it) and into South Korean territory, whose only purpose could be to facilitate covert entry by the North Korean military?
No. An armistice is quite clearly not a treaty, and no peace treaty has ever been signed between the two Koreas. Technically, they’re in a perpetual state of war, though thankfully it’s the mostly peaceful kind.
Any test of common sense or decency would do. Deliberately shooting someone you think is trespassing on disputed land fails any test you could dream up.
Kim Jong Il is a mentally unstable dictator/wannabe movie director. He was visiting the artillery site that fired on civilians hours before it happened along with his General-by-Daddy son. It was nothing but premeditated murder and if he lives long enough he will die at the hands of his own people for his crimes.
There you have it, folks. Commissar does not believe that a formal agreement between two or more parties is, in fact, a treaty, even if it is not a peace treaty. No doubt his oh very special dictionary was published in 1984 and the author of said dictionary complimented the esteemed Mr. Orwell on the dedicatory page without realizing that Mr. Orwell was condemning such an approach to facts.
“Mostly peaceful”? For you to make that statement requires the utmost of willfull ignorance on your part. The facts are quite clear. Well, they are quite clear to anyone who is not blinded by their partisanism or ideology. Your accusations against other posters and me are reflective of your own behavior and, as mentioned above by other posters, not based on the facts we have presented. It truly astounds me that any educated individual at this late date can believe the tripe you have posted in this thread regarding North Korea’s actions over their entire history since the end of World War II.
I believe that a spectrum of possible justifiable responses would be available, chief among them the demolition of the tunnels. I would also think that escalation would be called for in the sense that the South could justifiably bomb the parts of the tunnel located in Northern territory. Unrelated escalation (example: shelling a nearby Northern batallion) would, in my opinion, be unjustifiable.
Spin it as you like, the armistice is not a treaty. An armistice is a temporary cessation of hostilities that allows the sides to work on a permanent agreement. From the relevant document:
“…in the interest of stopping the Korean conflict, with its great toil of suffering and bloodshed on both sides, and with the objective of establishing an armistice which will insure a complete cessation of hostilities and of all acts of armed force in Korea until a final peaceful settlement is achieved, do individually, collectively, and mutually agree to accept and to be bound and governed by…” [emphasis added]
As you can see, the armistice was signed in the hope that it would eventually lead to a permanent peace treaty. This has not yet happened. The armistice is still a legal document, to be sure, and represents a mutually binding commitment, but that does not make it a treaty.
I would say that the armistice does impose obligations on the two Koreas, but giving up the right to self-defense is not one of them.
Yes, mostly peaceful. If you do not recognize the fact that post-armistice hostilities are nothing compared to pre-armistice hostilities, then I would encourage you to read up on 20th century history. By and large, the Koreas have been peaceful for 50 years now.
Figured out yet what those bits of international law or international customary law are that say that shells falling in open waters and harming not one single person or matchstick of property is a casus belli?
Seeing as how your argument isn’t just nonsense, of course…
Interesting double standards, as your responses all along have been about your rationalization of someone else infringing on sovereign territory. Evidently, as soon as it’s not a totalitarian state being “infringed” upon, the sliding scale slides right off the table.
Totalitarian state has shells fall in open water that it doesn’t even have a claim to: sovereignty has been violated, so the justified and appropriate action is to take action to start a war and hit civilians along with military targets.
Democratic state has an actual incursion into its sovereign territory for the purpose of placing foreign special ops forces into that territory: sovereignty has been violated so the justified and appropriate action is to do anything other than employ military force against military targets.
Yet again, your ignorance is not someone else trying to deceive you or “spin” things or whatever your next excuse will be.
Quite clearly you have no idea what a treaty is, and you’ve somehow glomed onto the mistaken idea that the only type of treaty is a peace treaty. Not, say, a treaty to suspend hostilities and the framework in which that will happen and be maintained.
And the same pattern of dishonesty, along with analogies that aim at rewriting the facts. Do explain how protecting empty water by ending human lives is “self-defense”.
Or dodge that massive hole in your argument yet again. Why change thing now?
I’m not going to play “find the ball” games with you, my friend. If you are going to assert that a particular North Korean action violated an applicable existent treaty, you’re going to have to say so. Otherwise, you have nothing (which is a pretty good summarization of your, er, “arguments” so far).
The justifiability of retaliation does not depend on the economic or political philosophies of the state in action. Justifiable retribution is justifiable for all, regardless of the actor.
In the case at hand, if we assume that the facts played out as stated, then North Korea was justified in returning fire. Southern artillery violated Northern territory, and the North responded with force against the offending artillery emplacements. If the tables were switched, the South would be no less justified in pursuing the same response.
Note, however, that the escalatory retribution still ought to be against the responsible party, rather than a target of opportunity. Hence, in the tunnel scenario, it would be justified to demolish the tunnels, to kill any enemies attempting to use the tunnels, or to target those digging the tunnels. It would not be justified to fire at a nearby enemy batallion that had nothing to do with the tunnels and was not doing anything to violate your sovereignty. Once again, this holds true for either side.
I eagerly await your definition of “treaty,” as well as your explanation of how a temporary ceasefire can be categorized as a treaty.
Not that the terminology is all that important in the first place. Let’s assume that the armistice is a treaty. You now have to prove that the North violated the agreement while somehow showing that the South’s provocation was not a violation. Have at it. Or dance around it, if you will.
So then you’re admitting that shelling a civilian village in response the recent artillery exercise was not justified and therefore was, in fact, murder.
This reminds me of a theist asserting, “God exists, and if you disagree, it is your duty to prove that he doesn’t.”
Um, no. Logic does not work that way, nor does international law. If you believe that a violation of international law occurred, you carry the burden of proof in establishing that fact. It is not my job (nor that of the North Korean government) to prove that any given North Korean action comports with treaty law. I’ll wait, but it seems abundantly clear that you have no real argument here.
Murder is a domestic criminal issue, so it wouldn’t really be applicable here anyway. You’re right, however, that my theory would not view purposeful targeting of civilians in this situation as a justifiable escalation of hostilities.
However, I am not convinced that this is what happened. From what I gather, North Korea struck back against Southern artillery, which was located recklessly close to their own civilians. Artillery rounds being dumb, collateral damage was all but assured. It is not self-evident to me that the North purposefully went after Southern civilians.
In that analogy, of course, you’re the “theist”. You are continually asserting that the murder of SK citizens was justified and appropriate while you refuse to cite intentional law or custom that shows that the military response NK engaged in was in response to an actual casus belli. I was even kind enough to point out what the most up to date summary of international customary law is for maritime conflicts, and you distorted its contents, its context and its relevance.
And when caught in the fact that you have absolutely no support for your position, you respond with the same strawman that’s been pointed out over and over and over and over again. And what’s more it’s a strawman based on a very bizarre lack of understanding about what a treaty is, what the international laws of warfare are and what intentional customary law is.
So you going to provide that citation showing that shells landing in open ocean is a valid casus belli?
No, eh?
Found that cite yet that intentional law or custom allowed NK to “strike back” against any targets, at all, due to having a valid casus belli?
Oh, and “from what you gather”? In other words, you’ve pretty much made it up out of whole cloth because it helps your double standard of absolving tyrannical regimes and demonizing democracy and capitalism, yes? We all know that’s the case, and if you contend it’s not, provide your cite which you base your geographic understanding upon.
Yes yes…but are you convince-able? Because the evidence is that you are not, and assuming that is the case, it’s not meaningful to say you are not convinced.
Several hours after the South fired into the sea. Correct, or do you dispute that as well?
So, ultimately (in your opinion) this was all the South’s fault, yes? You simply want to look at the raw events without context or nuance, and thus affix guilt or at least attempt through obfuscation to muddy the waters enough to try and justify the North’s actions.
It’s funny that none of the South’s artillery caused any ‘collateral damage’ though, don’t you think?
By the way, readers should note that Yeonpyeong Island is about 3 square miles in area, meaning that no matter where troops were stationed, our good buddy good pal friend-a-go-go would be able to claim that they were “recklessly” close. So not only does he claim that NK’s act of war was just and appropriate without being willing to actually cite how the “provocation” would be considered a casus belli, but the mere fact of the South Korean government defending the Island means that he can blame them for NK killing civilians, too.
I am confident that most readers would now have realized the absurdity of your position. You would like to make an assertion, refuse to back it up, and order your opponent to refute it. Once again, I respectfully refuse to play your illogical games. Nations, like people, are not generally considered guilty until proven innocent. If you have a complaint against a nation, make it, and then back it up with outside authority that proves the validity of your claims. If you believe that North Korea broke a treaty, produce the treaty. It is indicative of the weakness of your position that you cannot do so.
I have now repeated myself twice, and am loath to do so again. I am sure that you will once again respond with a lengthy diatribe demanding that I refute unsupported assertions. I will do no such thing. Unless your response contains something new and interesting, I will not waste our mutual time replying to it. When you find the appropriate treaty that allegedly proves your point, we’ll talk. Happy hunting!
Nope, it is your position the one that is absurd and most readers clearly do not agree with you.
And **FinnAgain **found evidence that unguided rockets were used by North Korea against the island, that has not changed your tune at all so I agree with xtisme.