If it was the North, Why?

We still do not know why the Cheonan sank. But if it was a missile launched by a North Korean vessel/submarine why did they do it? There are a number of possible reasons which are not mutually exclusive. This article will focus on three possible reasons, which are all valid to a certain extent.

First where was the Cheonan when it sank? On the west coast near the ‘Northern Limit Line’ as it is known in English. This was the line unilaterally drawn by the US and ROK forces at the end of the Korean War to denote the sea border between North and South Korea. The line has never been accepted by the North and has been the sight of many minor skirmishes and more major but localised naval incidents since 1953. Four deadly skirmishes have taken place in the last 11 years if we count the Cheonan. The North disputes the line for a number of reasons, namely that it was drawn without its consultation and was not included in the armistice agreement. From the US-ROK side this makes perfect sense, seeing as sea-borders are fluid (forgive the pun) but the DMZ was literally the de-facto border at the cessation of hostilities. Furthermore not only was the North not consulted, but the border is extremely advantageous to the South, the angle is entirely different to the Southward going DMZ. This is a long standing issue which flares up regularly regardless of who occupies the Blue House.

Second who is occupying the Blue House? Lee Myung bak may not be a warmonger, but his North Korea foreign policy is very dark compared to his Sunshine predecessors. The North has become used to unconditional South Korean investment (in Kaesŏng and Mount Kŭmgang) and massive amounts of unconditional aid in the form of fertiliser and free food from the South. The Sunshine policy as it was known is still looked back on by the North Korean elite with nostalgia. When I went to North Korea last summer my guides were shocked and sad to hear that Roh Moo-hyun had died, and were dismayed to hear that Kim Dae-jung was at death’s door. They had nothing to say about Lee Myung-bak which in itself said a lot. His policy of linking aid and investment to progress on the Nuclear issue has stung Pyongyang. Their response has been schizophrenic, first delivering revenge with the shooting of an innocent South Korean tourist at Mount Kŭmgang, but then offering a peace treaty in their latest New Years address. The bellicose rhetoric has resumed with a vengeance since late January. One gets the impression that the North Korean leadership does not know what to do. If it responds with threats they are ignored, if it responds with cooperation, they demonstrate their weakness and therefore begin to lose what little diplomatic leverage they have. The sinking of the Cheonan may very well be a show of strength; and it certainly does demonstrate the weakness of the Lee’s North Korean position. The South and their most important ally the United States have very little leverage over North Korea. The Sanctions regime cannot become any tougher without China reversing its policy of unconditional aid to the North. The South cannot attack the North this is both risky and a vote looser. So the North has successfully made the President of the South look very impotent if that was their intent. But there are other possible reasons.

Third the North Korean economy is in terrible shape. Late last year North Korea launched a currency redenomination which was catastrophic for the real North Korean economy. There are several theories as to why the North launched the redenomination. The North is currently in the middle of a massive propaganda drive to build a ‘Strong and Prosperous Nation’ (in Korean: 강성대국) by 2012 for Kim Il Sung’s 100th birthday. This allegedly involves stamping out market activities which are now pervasive in North Korea, reports say that over 70% of working North Koreans work in a job related to the Market. The redenomination therefore seems to have been designed to stamp out the Market by confiscating the earnings of the entrepreneurial class and the savings of the middle income class in North Korea, thus destroying the a lot of capital which created and perpetuates the Market system. This has not resulted in the recreation of the Socialist System because the government does not have the capital to distribute food to the people, nor to restart the centrally planned industrial economy. Instead it has sparked rage across the country and the temporary closure of the markets until early January. It has not brought prosperity but anarchy. Marcus Noland a seasoned observer of North Korea has speculated that the redenomination was supposed to be the coming-out party for the successor Kim Jong-eun but its cataclysmic effects have resulted mean that this was not possible. Many western observers have started to speculate that the regime’s days are numbered to a couple of years. When Kim Jong-il dies, they think the regime will probably splinter and collapse with him, leaving an extremely unpredictable and messy situation. Thus as a show of strength the Cheonan incident makes perfect sense. It could also be used by the regime to sure up support for the Jong-eun succession amongst the military top-brass in Pyongyang, if it is linked to him as Noland has speculated.

So there are three very good reasons why the North could have attacked the Cheonan. Yet it could still have been an accident resulting from faulty hardware, or Korean War era mines. It would be ironic if it turned out to be a mine from the Korean War, this being the 60th Anniversary Year of the outbreak of the Korean War.