View Full Version : Koreas adopt military agreement
Koreas adopt military agreement (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070511/ap_on_re_as/koreas_talks)By JAE-SOON CHANG, Associated Press Writer
North and South Korea adopted a military agreement Friday enabling the first train crossing of their heavily armed border in more than half a century, the South's Defense Ministry said.
The rail test, planned for Thursday, would be the first time trains have crossed the tightly sealed border since inter-Korean rail links were severed in the middle of the 1950-53 Korean War.
Two tracks have been reconnected as part of a series of reconciliation projects launched since the two sides held the first-ever summit of their leaders in 2000.
The test would be just a single run of trains along the restored tracks on each side of the peninsula, with regular train service between the two sides unlikely to begin anytime soon.
The two Koreas had agreed in principle on security for the rail test earlier this week, but the adoption of a formal agreement came only after more than 30 hours of extended talks that stretched into Friday due to unspecified sticking points.
South Korea hopes the inter-Korean railways could ultimately be linked to Russia's Trans-Siberian railroad, and could allow an overland route connecting the peninsula to Europe — significantly cutting delivery times for freight that now requires sea transport.
Economic officials from both sides agreed last month to conduct the train run, but North Korea's military had the final say on whether it goes forward because such a border crossing requires security arrangements.
The security accord sets out protocols for the train crossings next week, including what areas of the border should open and for how long, as well as pledges from each side to guarantee travelers' safety.
South Korea had hoped to expand the agreement to cover similar future border crossings, but the North refused.
The two sides also agreed in principle to set up a joint fishing area around their disputed western sea border and continue talks on that issue and other measures aimed at preventing accidental clashes in the area, according to a joint statement summarizing the negotiations' outcome.
North Korea doesn't recognize the current sea border demarcated by the United Nations at the end of the 1950-53 Korean War, and has long claimed it should be further south.
The waters around the border are rich fishing grounds and boats from the two Koreas routinely jostle for position during the May-June crab-catching season. In 1999 and 2002, their navies fought deadly skirmishes, killing several sailors and sinking six ships.
The two sides agreed to hold the next general-level talks in July and continue discussions to set up a defense ministers' meeting, the joint statement said.
This week's talks were the first high-level military contacts between the two sides in a year. The two Koreas remain technically at war because the Korean War ended in a cease-fire that has never been replaced with a peace treaty.
Ties between the two sides have warmed significantly since the 2000 summit, although they suffered during the international standoff over North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
Pyongyang conducted its first-ever nuclear test in October, chilling relations with the South.
But the South began reaching out again to the North after Pyongyang agreed in February to shut down its nuclear reactor under an agreement with the United States and four other neighboring countries.
Still, the communist regime missed an April deadline to close the reactor because of a separate financial dispute with the United States, and it is unclear when it will close down the facility.
*********************************************************
I am curious as to what others think, is the U.S. military prescence in South Korea the reason the North is moving forward with relations with the south? I find the macro North Korean situation based on economic reality (from the tidbits of data I do get) as opposed to any real threat of invasion.
Does this mean a withdrawl of U.S. forces from the Korea's can now commence in ernest? I for one say yes, as South Korea is capable of conducting its own military affairs at this late stage of the game. While I dont dismiss the situation with North Korea as resolved, I do believe this is a shinning example of U.S. deployments that are hindering a potential diplomatic process.
Anyone?
I am curious as to what others think, is the U.S. military prescence in South Korea the reason the North is moving forward with relations with the south? I find the macro North Korean situation based on economic reality (from the tidbits of data I do get) as opposed to any real threat of invasion.
I don't see it that way. The south is the one who pursues these initiatives. Because they are the ones with the most to lose. Having started them in the 90's in some cases. The only real change is that the north now sees reasons for pursuing them too.
Does this mean a withdrawl of U.S. forces from the Korea's can now commence in ernest? I for one say yes, as South Korea is capable of conducting its own military affairs at this late stage of the game. While I dont dismiss the situation with North Korea as resolved, I do believe this is a shinning example of U.S. deployments that are hindering a potential diplomatic process.
Anyone?
The south needs that US troop insurance policy. They'd be fools to give it up. Now if the self-defense plans pan out they might consider going it alone. But that's 20 years off, much like their blue water navy.
The only real change is that the north now sees reasons for pursuing them too.
So my question to you is whats the reason? Is it economic or military? If economic I dont see the value of U.S. troops other then to serve as an unpleasant reminder that we are watching.
The south needs that US troop insurance policy. They'd be fools to give it up. Now if the self-defense plans pan out they might consider going it alone. But that's 20 years off, much like their blue water navy.
Well its hard to argue that the south needs it, but the South is more then capable of diplomatic give and takes with the North. I guess my thinking is that this situation has progressed passed the military engagement possibility, and one of survival based on the Norths economy, and souths desire to live in peace.
On a side note, my family vacations in Nova Scotia almost every other year, you live in wonderful part of the world mate. :2thumbsup:
Seamus Fermanagh
05-11-2007, 19:30
Odin:
Note one of the last paragraphs in the piece:
Still, the communist regime missed an April deadline to close the reactor because of a separate financial dispute with the United States, and it is unclear when it will close down the facility.
This says that withdrawal would be premature.
Mind you, if the ROK can bind the PROK to itself in such a fashion that the PROK's aggression South is neutered a bit, then withdrawal becomes quite viable.
However, given 30 plus hours of negotiation to finalize a one-time run of two trains on the renewed tracks, I'm not thinking "thaw" in relations yet.
Odin:
Note one of the last paragraphs in the piece:
This says that withdrawal would be premature.
Mind you, if the ROK can bind the PROK to itself in such a fashion that the PROK's aggression South is neutered a bit, then withdrawal becomes quite viable.
However, given 30 plus hours of negotiation to finalize a one-time run of two trains on the renewed tracks, I'm not thinking "thaw" in relations yet.
Okay Seamus fair enough.
Im not thinking "thaw" either, Im thinking "lets let the Koreans hammer out the rest". If infact the North were to excersise the military option its highly likely the U.S. prescence would be more of a rallying cry then a deterrent.
the ongoing press of the South to be the "good guy" against the U.S. "bad guy" might actually have some dividends, but is that predicated on military personnel present? Or the economics of complete isolation?
I argue the later, but of course I have so little data on the actual economic condition of the North its a hard argument to make factually, still it fits nicely with my overall desire to pull back from the world stage and its many smoldering spots.
Seamus Fermanagh
05-11-2007, 19:42
I'm not thinking "thaw" either, I'm thinking "lets let the Koreans hammer out the rest". If infact the North were to excersise the military option its highly likely the U.S. prescence would be more of a rallying cry then a deterrent.
True (current numbers deployed there are more token than substantive), but that tripwire is itself a deterrent. US forces would fight, would probably get smashed back to Pusan in quick order, but NK would have attacked US forces in the field. Ultimately it is the Koreans themselves who'll have to hammer things out -- simply no other means to that end.
the ongoing press of the South to be the "good guy" against the U.S. "bad guy" might actually have some dividends, but is that predicated on military personnel present? Or the economics of complete isolation?
I agree the latter seems more likely.
...but of course I have so little data on the actual economic condition of the North its a hard argument to make factually, still it fits nicely with my overall desire to pull back from the world stage and its many smoldering spots.
Well, that's hardly surprising considering how "forthcoming" the NK goverment is with information.
So, you are one of those Americans who's longing for a bit of isolationism again. Can't say I haven't had a thought or two along those lines myself. Not sure if its practical in our "global village" though.
So, you are one of those Americans who's longing for a bit of isolationism again. Can't say I haven't had a thought or two along those lines myself. Not sure if its practical in our "global village" though.
Measured isolationism yes, Im a capitalist too and as much as I hate to admit it our economy is dependent on many global factors. Militarily, and politically, and for that matter U.S. aid, well I think our resources are better served at home then abroad given the current world climate.
Having the ability of power projection affords us the opportunity to pull back, the Korean situation is a budding prospect for that imho.
So my question to you is whats the reason? Is it economic or military? If economic I dont see the value of U.S. troops other then to serve as an unpleasant reminder that we are watching.
Recent events (read axis of evilness and such from Bushy) have made the north more beligerent in it's rhetoric but also more willing to bargin.
Well its hard to argue that the south needs it, but the South is more then capable of diplomatic give and takes with the North. I guess my thinking is that this situation has progressed passed the military engagement possibility, and one of survival based on the Norths economy, and souths desire to live in peace.
From what I've seen of the south from Seoul to the DMZ is less of a nation and more of an armed military base. With armed army check points. Tank bunkers along the highways, with tank traps. And every few kilometers along the main highways are 20 tonne concrete road blocks ready to be blown into position at a moments notice. (Redleg could tell you more on that, I believe he's been there) The possibility of military engagement is never far from the minds of the souths government. Yes the south does desire to live in peace. But that's what the sunshine policy, this rail deal, and all that martial hardware is all about.
On a side note, my family vacations in Nova Scotia almost every other year, you live in wonderful part of the world mate. :2thumbsup:
Cept for days like today where it's humid and windy. Friggin tease that is. :thumbsdown:
Recent events (read axis of evilness and such from Bushy) have made the north more beligerent in it's rhetoric but also more willing to bargin.
The whole axis thing was silly to begin with, I'll concede on it ramping up the rhetoric.
From what I've seen of the south from Seoul to the DMZ is less of a nation and more of an armed military base. With armed army check points. Tank bunkers along the highways, with tank traps. And every few kilometers along the main highways are 20 tonne concrete road blocks ready to be blown into position at a moments notice. (Redleg could tell you more on that, I believe he's been there) The possibility of military engagement is never far from the minds of the souths government. Yes the south does desire to live in peace. But that's what the sunshine policy, this rail deal, and all that martial hardware is all about.
That said it looks like there prepared for the worst case scenario anyway, on top of that thier economy is humming along fine so they ought to be able to afford to field a division or two more if needed.
The amount of US troops in the south is neglible from a military preparedness stand point. 29,086 troops. 90% army and air force personel. Compare that too the ROK's 686,000 active troops (conscripts on 24-28 month terms depending on branch). ~81% of that army, 560,000 . With a total force (IE including reserves) of 5,209,000. Really the whole point of having the US troops there on the Korean DMZ is so that if the north attacks they have to attack the US too.
The whole axis thing was silly to begin with, I'll concede on it ramping up the rhetoric.
And I should add that Iraq has made an impression on Krazy Kim and co. too. If there is one good thing Iraq proved it's that the US can be reiled enough to use force.
The amount of US troops in the south is neglible from a military preparedness stand point. 29,086 troops. 90% army and air force personel. Compare that too the ROK's 686,000 active troops (conscripts on 24-28 month terms depending on branch). ~81% of that army, 560,000 . With a total force (IE including reserves) of 5,209,000. Really the whole point of having the US troops there on the Korean DMZ is so that if the north attacks they have to attack the US too.
Agreed, but induldge me for a minute. If the North did attack who would benefit more from the U.S. being present and part of the foray? (its semi rhetorical as I assume you know where I am heading). The south has the most to gain here, with a minimal investment. I concede this was a nice situation during the cold war, but thats over with now, and this deployment, while a deterrant, is also an antagonist.
I understand the value of having troops there in terms of our allies, but it hardly is in the U.S. best intrest at this time. If the limited data we have is true, the north is starving to death anyway, there ready for a deal and at the table. The south can handle the invasion scenario, and we know it wouldnt matter if the US had 30,000 or 30 troops we come in on the side of the south.
And I should add that Iraq has made an impression on Krazy Kim and co. too. If there is one good thing Iraq proved it's that the US can be reiled enough to use force.
True, I wonder if Mr Chavez has ever heard of granada, or panama? Thankfully a lot of players on the world stage continue to underestimate the willingness of the U.S. to actually go the distance. right or wrong we do act, accept for that mess in Iran with Mr Carter, and somalia with Mr Clinton but there democrats after all. :oops: did I really say that ? ;0
Agreed, but induldge me for a minute. If the North did attack who would benefit more from the U.S. being present and part of the foray? (its semi rhetorical as I assume you know where I am heading). The south has the most to gain here, with a minimal investment. I concede this was a nice situation during the cold war, but thats over with now, and this deployment, while a deterrant, is also an antagonist.
That's the rub though isn't it. On the Korean penninsula the cold war didn't really end. It's nearly the same situation between the Koreas in 2007 as it was in 1957.
I understand the value of having troops there in terms of our allies, but it hardly is in the U.S. best intrest at this time. If the limited data we have is true, the north is starving to death anyway, there ready for a deal and at the table. The south can handle the invasion scenario, and we know it wouldnt matter if the US had 30,000 or 30 troops we come in on the side of the south.
True they are at the table now. But they could decide that a war to try and grab it all in last desperate stab is the way to go. Not likely but...
True, I wonder if Mr Chavez has ever heard of granada, or panama? Thankfully a lot of players on the world stage continue to underestimate the willingness of the U.S. to actually go the distance. right or wrong we do act, accept for that mess in Iran with Mr Carter, and somalia with Mr Clinton but there democrats after all. :oops: did I really say that ? ;0
Chavez hasn't really done much beyond rattle his saber. For 3 years straight. :inquisitive:
Samurai Waki
05-12-2007, 09:13
I mean... I think everybody is completely dismissing the fact the the ROK does indeed have a military, and a substantial one at that, and is within reasonable measures, fully capable of defending itself from the PROK. I believe that Kim has more intelligence on the South, than the south does of the North (but I could be wrong), either way you put it, if Kim was investing in nuclear missiles, he wouldn't be pointing them at the South, he'd be firing that at the US and Japan, because any potential land acquisitions would be a wasted effort if Nukes were involved. I think ultimately Kim just wants to be LEFT THE HELL ALONE, by both the US and the ROK, but believes the only way to secure his power (and not die), is by reassuring the US and the South that they do have teeth, and if the situation arises, can bear them down upon the both.
Whatever the case may be, The North Koreans compromising with the south is only token effort, and there isn't good will involved. I believe when Kim starts feeling the noose tighten so to speak, when his Generals disapprove of the overall situation he changes the plan, so as to keep loyalty intact, and those guns don't turn on him. His soldiers need food, its time to be peaceable and compromising, his soldiers get fed, its time to shutter in again. Its a No-Win situation no matter how you look at it, and ultimately we'll have to see the Stalinist approach put to the wayside by the North, which could take Decades at least. Anyways, I'm fairly sure that the situation will continue as the way it has for quite some time, and eventually in the far future, both will look at each other, and wonder what the tiff was all about, of course this could be spurned on when the South is trotting around in Mech Warriors, and the North still has guys armed with RPG-7s, and AK Pop Guns.
Chavez hasn't really done much beyond rattle his saber. For 3 years straight. :inquisitive:
My point was really to illistrate that the U.S. willingness to go to war (even in the smallest of extreme's Grenada) has value, and dosent mean we need to have troops present in order to ensure our participation.
Perhaps thats why all he has done is saber rattle, and thus my point, however I concede your point that the cold war hasnt really ended in the korea's. Generally its the acception to my theory of the cold war being over so the U.S. can take a new global military posture.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.