After Cheonan, South Korea Needs International Cooperation

Published in Segye
(South Korea) on 17 May 2010
by Editorial (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Shanna Tan. Edited by Amy Wong.
The Cheonan sinking incident is coming to a close. Although investigations on the central piece of evidence, a fragment of a torpedo, are still ongoing, circumstantial evidence that has surfaced points to North Korea as the one responsible for the attack. The investigation will be concluded in 20 days. Defense Minister Kim Tae-young is in charge of presenting the final investigation report to the North, and President Lee Myung-bak will be making a public announcement.

A system of international cooperation is essential in times like this. It is basic to seek intimate cooperation with the other countries (U.S., China, Russia and Japan) in the six-party talks. Help is also needed from both the permanent and non-permanent members of the Security Council. The use of sanctions against North Korea will only be effective with international cooperation.

The positive attitude of the U.S. is also encouraging. The U.S. has been actively participating under the basic premise that “the six-party talks are a priority during the Cheonan incident” and has announced its resolution towards North Korea on May 14. The U.S. sees the Cheonan attack as “a military attack against our ally,” further emphasizing the alliance between South Korea and the U.S. This is in stark contrast to the distant relationship the previous South Korean government had with the U.S. The upcoming “two plus two meeting” of foreign and defense ministers from both countries in July is likely to further strengthen the South Korea–U.S. alliance.

Needless to say, China, which has an alliance with North Korea, plays an important role. In the meeting among the foreign ministers of South Korea, China and Japan, China maintained its prudent stance and called for “intimate communication and cooperation” between the countries. China’s “Two-Korea Policy” is clearly displayed here. It’s the government’s role to strengthen foreign relations with China using the evidence from the Cheonan attack and other circumstantial evidence.

The aggressive use of the Cheonan attack in foreign policies is quite a pressurizing tactic against North Korea in itself. North Korea will find it difficult to endure if South Korea resumes loudspeaker propaganda broadcasts along the borders and stops trade and commerce and if the U.S. adds North Korea to the terrorism list again.

Even under current situations, North Korea’s coastal defense ships invaded the Northern Limit Line on two occasions on May 15. In order to put a stop to North Korea’s endless provocations, South Korea’s cooperation with both the U.S. and China is absolutely needed. An elaborate foreign policy is being called for.


천안함 사건이 마무리 단계에 접어들었다. 결정적인 증거물인 어뢰 파편 등을 조사 중이지만 지금까지 나온 정황증거만으로도 사실상 북한의 소행으로 굳어지는 상황이다. 20일쯤 조사 결과가 나오면 김태영 국방부 장관은 대북 성명을, 이명박 대통령은 대국민 담화를 발표할 예정이다.

국제공조 체제 구축은 이럴 때 긴요하다. 천안함 사건 조사 결과를 북핵 6자회담국인 미국, 중국, 러시아, 일본에 설명하고 긴밀한 협조 체제를 구축하는 것은 기본이다. 안보리 상임·비상임 이사국의 도움도 구해야 한다. 대북 제재를 하더라도 국제공조가 있어야 효과적인 것이다.

미국의 적극적인 태도는 고무적이다. ‘천안함 사건이 6자회담을 우선한다’는 기조 아래 적극 참여해온 미국은 지난 14일 대북 결의안을 발의했다. 그제는 천안함 공격을 ‘동맹국에 대한 군사 공격’으로 간주하며 한미 동맹을 과시했다. 소원하던 전 정권의 한미 관계를 생각하면 격세지감이다. 7월 한미 외교·국방장관 ‘2+2회담’에서 한미 동맹을 더욱 다져야 할 것이다.

북한과 동맹관계인 중국 역할의 중요성은 두말할 나위 없다. 그제 한·중·일 외무장관회담에서 중국은 “긴밀히 소통하고 협의하자”는 등 시종일관 신중한 입장을 보였다. 중국의 ‘두 개의 한국 정책(Two Korea Policy)’ 기조를 그대로 보여준다. 천안함 사건의 증거와 충분한 정황증거를 통해 대중 외교를 다지는 것은 정부 몫이다.

적극적인 ‘천안함 외교’는 그 자체로 북에는 상당한 압박 수단이다. 휴전선이나 서해상 접북지역에서의 대북 방송 재개나 대북 교역 중단, 미국의 대북 테러지원국 재지정 등 구체적인 조치까지 뒤따른다면 북은 견디기 어려울 것이다. 이런 상황에도 북한 경비정은 15일 저녁 두 차례나 북방한계선(NLL)을 침범했다. 끊임없는 북의 도발을 무력화하는 데 한미, 한중 공조는 절대적이다. 정교한 외교가 요구된다.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Japan: Trump Administration: Absurd Censorship

Austria: The Showdown in Washington Is about More Than the Budget

Russia: Bagram Absurdity*

   

Thailand: Could Ukraine Actually End Up Winning?

Thailand: Southeast Asia Amid the US-China Rift

Topics

Germany: Trump’s Peace Plan: Too Good To Be True

Mexico: The Kirk Paradox

Turkey: Cost of Trumping in the 21st Century: Tested in Europe, Isolated on Gaza

Austria: The Showdown in Washington Is about More Than the Budget

Singapore: Trump’s Gaza Peace Plan – Some Cause for Optimism, but Will It Be Enough?

Singapore: US Visa Changes Could Spark a Global Talent Shift: Here’s Where Singapore Has an Edge

Thailand: Could Ukraine Actually End Up Winning?

Related Articles

South Korea: Trump Halts Military Aid to Taiwan, and It Concerns Us, Too

India: Trump’s Tariffs Have Hit South Korea and Japan: India Has Been Wise in Charting a Cautious Path

Hong Kong: China, Japan, South Korea Pave Way for Summit Talks; Liu Teng-Chung: Responding to Trump

South Korea: Where Is the War in Ukraine Heading?

Zimbabwe: China Is the True Power in Putin and Kim’s Budding Friendship