China protests over South Korea's plan for US missile defences

[Tiqiu]

(3rd LD) U.S. now says it has not yet launched official THAAD talks with S. Korea

(3rd LD) U.S. now says it has not yet launched official THAAD talks with S. Korea
2016/02/18 15:05

• Tweet
• Facebook Share
• Google +1

• Reduce
• Enlarge
• Print

(ATTN: UPDATES with Seoul's reaction in last 7 paras)

By Chang Jae-soon

WASHINGTON/SEOUL, Feb. 17 (Yonhap) -- Reversing itself, the U.S. Defense Department said Wednesday that it has not yet launched official talks about the possible deployment of the U.S. THAAD missile defense system to the Asian ally.

A Pentagon spokesman, Cmdr. Bill Urban, told Yonhap News Agency earlier in the day that a joint working group the two countries established to discuss the THAAD issue had met and consultations are ongoing, confirming that the two sides have launched formal consultations on the matter.

But the spokesman later retracted his statement, citing miscommunication with U.S. Forces Korea.

"The (joint working group) has not met and is sorting out details prior to consultations. The ROK-U.S. alliance is working 'expeditiously but meticulously' through those details, so no timeline has been established," Urban said.

Shortly after North Korea's Feb. 7 missile launch, South Korea and the U.S. jointly announced they would begin official discussions on the possible placement of the U.S. Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) missile defense system in South Korea.

That ended more than a year of soul-searching by Seoul over how to deal with the issue amid Washington's desire to deploy the system and China's intense opposition to it. The North's twin provocations of its fourth nuclear test on Jan. 6 and then a missile test a month later gave Seoul justification for the decision.

China has claimed THAAD could be used against it, despite repeated assurances from Washington that the system is aimed only at deterring North Korean threats. Beijing expressed regret after the South and the U.S. announced the decision to hold THAAD talks.

This week, China's Executive Vice Foreign Minister Zhang Yesui reiterated opposition to the THAAD deployment.

Responding to China's opposition, Seoul's Defense Ministry spokesman said the country will put top priority on the right to self-defense in making a decision on the issue.

"We will approach this issue and make a decision from the perspective of the right to self-defense," Moon Sang-gyun said in a briefing Thursday, virtually dismissing China's resistance.

"Measures to protect people's life and property from North Korea's increasing nuclear and missile threats are more important than anything else," he said.

Speaking on the THAAD deployment front, Defense Minister Han Min-kook said the allies will select the location of the THAAD battery in consideration of the safety of South Koreans as well as the environment.

"The site to deploy THAAD will be determined through both governments' approval after the joint working group makes relevant recommendations," Han was quoted by ruling Saenuri Party lawmaker Kim Sung-chan as saying during a meeting with the ruling party lawmakers.

"The site for deployment will be selected so that it could effectively defend South Korea from North Korea's nuclear threats and shut out any impact on the safety of the people and the environment," he added.

The allies are currently in the process of mapping out the terms of reference on the governing of the joint working group and official THAAD negotiations will kick off after the joint group sets sail, according to the ministry.

jschang@yna.co.kr

 

[anon45]

LMAO how you define Patriotism?? only those who suck up with Americans are call patriot?? , we Chinese didn't twist @Nihonjin1051 's arm. we will let him discover the truth regarding China and US, who harm Japan's interest the most and who is Japan real enemy, no nation desire to have a neighbor as enemy and be lectured by a country thousand miles away, he want an harmonious unified north east Asia, and dream Japan as free nation that not to be controlled or at the mercy of US such as the Plazza accord that screwed up literally Japanese economy in 1980s.

And with his thread regarding North East Asian Integration, we all see the true color of western members and some east south Asian members, they just want to use Japan against China but not willing to see a peaceful and harmonized north east Asia because they're too scare and not in their best interest to see Japan. get along with China.

As for some Chinese include me we support his idea because it's in China and Japan's interest not to waste our time to fight each other and the mercy of a nation thousand miles away but to concentrate our energy and resource to make both countries better.

Patriotism is love or devotion to ones country, and I never accused you or any Chinese member of 'twisting his arm'. as if any of you could. His support for North Korea contradicts that patriotism because North Korea has stated publicly, and many times, its willingness to nuke Japan, its willingness to declare war on Japan, and through deed its willingness to kidnap Japanese citizens for as far as I can tell inscrutable reasons. Do we even know why they were kidnapped to this day?


Saying Japan is not a free nation now is an insult to Japan and the Japanese, they are their own sovereign government and are free to act as they wish, whether its seeing common interest with the US or ordering the US out (which the lawmakers have shown they do not want to do as of yet)

I think the talk about a unified North East Asia is fantasy, that isn't hostility or desire to divide (lol as if our talk could possibly influence global politics) but my own opinion from what I see your countries are doing, how they are acting in their percieved interests. This goes for Japan, Korea, and China. I'm not disgusted with the view of a united North East Asia,, though I am bemused by the naivette of it happening anytime soon and think it is simply a code word for Chinese regional hegemony from many interested parties. Chinese interests will always come first to China, and you have in no way given up on any of your territorial claims (you being your country). I don't see any doubt or opening for compromise from China short of all territorial disputes being resolved under China's eventual favor with whatever conditions that can facilitate that. As long as these disputes exist and are so emotionally charged at the very least I don't think a NEAU warrants any serious consideration.

My disgust comes purely from the verbal support I see from him for North Korea, not only for the barbarity of its regime, but what it has repeatedly done to his country and continues to support doing. He instead focuses on its 'independence' and Anti-Americanism as if that is an end goal, in which case he has pretty clearly put himself against the interests of my country regardless of its actual interests, simply because it is the United States and it is in Asia.

From where I stand, the only reason I see for that support are racial, because the US is 'white', or because an Asian alliance would be more 'harmonious' (whatever that actually means, I think that means suppression of people's actual opinions, and to scale that up to the global level would be suppression of a country's interests ).

 

[anon45]

That was actually the US that rendered Japan bath in nuclear and carpet bombing fire. And that was several times more brutal than how they did it in Europe.

We were enemies, and China or Japan would have gladly used it if they had the weapons at the time, don't act like they wouldn't have in the depths of world war 2.

The president actually asked a general about using the bomb on Germany after the battle of the bulge. Would the atomic bomb have been used against Germany? | Restricted Data (yes its a blog but it's well sourced.)

For the US, East Asia was, and it is now, a place with low beings that it thinks can easily handle, manipulate and kill at will. No more.

public opinion polls show the population in general has a positive view of Japan and views it as an ally vs a pawn. Geopolitically all countries manipulate for their interests, whether its Japan , the US, China, or Korea, they are expected to. The US does not believe Asia is unimportant or the countries of Asia being unimportant though, the actions of the US in its attempts at coalition building contradict that.

What Japanese have the US government killed in the last 50 years anyways?

China has no first use policy and will never and NEVER use it against a neighbor. China's entire defence conceptualization (from the development of long range missiles to high-yield nuclear explosives and delivery vehicles) is made with the US in mind. No one else.

It is made with the US primarily in mind, but can be used against anyone else. Words without verification are worthless in general, reasons to ignore a past promise can always be manufactured, its been proven time and again all around the world, whether in the West or the East. The US policy is to not treat China's NFU policy as a credible promise if war begins, which isn't exactly far-fetched.

Because it is not.

Tell that to PyongYang, not me.

Japan understands the real enemy, which, on the Japanese soil, abducts, rapes and kill people thanks to its chokehold on the iron triangle in Japan in violation of the common desire of the Japanese people.

The Japanese people speak through their congress, they desire US protection still, and the government does not hold the actions of bad apples against the overarching interests of the US and Japan. The US for its part is willing to work with those concerned while still preserving its capacity to protect Japan.

That's, also, slowly being changed as we see the Okinawan resistance which is having spill over effect on Tokyo in a good way.

If that is the decision of the Japanese people, we will see it in their government and the US will work with them to do so while preserving the alliance. If they wish to discontinue the alliance then they only need inform us and give us time to remove our equipment and shut down our bases or turn them over to Japan. Such a decision would obviously have reverberations in our relations, I don't see our alliance currently being in danger though. In fact it is stronger than ever, with Japan being increasingly capable of pulling its own weight as the US encourages a stronger Japan.

Japan Would Attack North Korea To Defend US After Missile Attack, Defense Minister Says

And in the US, he would be interrogated through legal torture techniques in a place that is technically not a US soil.

No, he would have first amendment rights and would face no legal repercussions, though he might draw lots of public criticism depending on how far his view propagated.

If he had a visa and acted to funnel money towards a group of Okinawans who bombed a US military base in Okinawa, killing 15 soldiers and 22 Japanese contractors (yes I know its far-fetched but work with me here), then he could be held and eventually imprisoned for providing aid to a terrorist organization. More likely he would be deported to Japan to face trial there though (possibly after he finished his sentence in the US). Speech is protected, action is not. Doesn't mean I can't have my opinion on his opinions though.

 

[Oldman1]

The Americans must stop asking China to pressure NK. NK has proposed a peaceful resolution, what say you America?

What kind of peaceful resolution? South Korea under Kim's rule? Acceptance of nuclear Korea? All they say was they would stop nuclear tests, not getting rid of nuclear weapons.

 

[Pangu]

What kind of peaceful resolution? South Korea under Kim's rule? Acceptance of nuclear Korea? All they say was they would stop nuclear tests, not getting rid of nuclear weapons.

What makes you think NK has the capability to defeat SK? You telling me US trained & equiped SK would lose? C'mon! Also, they've presented the opportunity to engage them, so go ahead & negotiate. At least meet them half way & give it a chance.

 

[Oldman1]

What makes you think NK has the capability to defeat SK? You telling me US trained & equiped SK would lose? C'mon! Also, they've presented the opportunity to engage them, so go ahead & negotiate. At least meet them half way & give it a chance.

President Clinton already gave them a chance buddy. North Korea is building nukes and South Korea doesn't have any. So you tell me which country would win?

 

[TaiShang]

a sign of hope. true to the confucian ideals of compromise.

This demonstrates, when left alone and unprovoked, our own regional dynamics tilt toward consensus and harmony. The big question is, what sort of provocation the US is going to stage to effectively block Korean proposal and, with the help of its neo-fascist regime media, make most people forget there was in fact no such proposal by the DPRK.

We were enemies, and China or Japan would have gladly used it if they had the weapons at the time, don't act like they wouldn't have in the depths of world war 2.

Still, historical reality is such that it was the US that actually did what you had insinuated China or Japan would have done to each other. And even beyond that, history is for reflection, not for revenge.

It is made with the US primarily in mind, but can be used against anyone else. Words without verification are worthless in general, reasons to ignore a past promise can always be manufactured, its been proven time and again all around the world, whether in the West or the East. The US policy is to not treat China's NFU policy as a credible promise if war begins, which isn't exactly far-fetched.

The strategic distrust is mutual. So, I think we will just look what is to happen on the ground.

If that is the decision of the Japanese people, we will see it in their government and the US will work with them to do so while preserving the alliance. If they wish to discontinue the alliance then they only need inform us and give us time to remove our equipment and shut down our bases or turn them over to Japan. Such a decision would obviously have reverberations in our relations, I don't see our alliance currently being in danger though. In fact it is stronger than ever, with Japan being increasingly capable of pulling its own weight as the US encourages a stronger Japan.

We also encourage a more independent Japan freed from the US sphere of influence. Future developments will show to which direction Japan will tilt.

No, he would have first amendment rights and would face no legal repercussions, though he might draw lots of public criticism depending on how far his view propagated.

No, because he is not a US citizen, he would be tortured and kept in cage with no formal indictment for some 20 years -- after developing cancer in cell.

 

[Dungeness]

More than 5% of entire South Korean population are living in China now, more than those in USA. SK should keep close relationship with China, and understand China's concerns.

 

[Aepsilons]

This demonstrates, when left alone and unprovoked, our own regional dynamics tilt toward consensus and harmony. The big question is, what sort of provocation the US is going to stage to effectively block Korean proposal and, with the help of its neo-fascist regime media, make most people forget there was in fact no such proposal by the DPRK.

My friend i think it is prudent to review the sanctions leveled on Korea and discourse on whether or not they are viable.

Any sanctions-imposing body, whether the United Nations Security Council, regional inter-governmental organizations, groups of countries or a single country, should ensure that a sanctions regime passes the six-prong test prior to implementation. A proposed sanctions regime that does not pass the six-prong test should not be imposed, or if imposed should be immediately moderated.

However, there are situations where a sanctions regime that may initially be deemed acceptable subsequently fails the test. Accordingly, sanctions regimes should always be under periodic review, generally at intervals of no longer than every six months.

When serious allegations of violations under a sanctions regime are brought to the attention of the sanctions-imposing body, that body should be deemed to have received "notice" and accordingly should undertake immediate review of and make appropriate adjustments to the sanctions regime. A sanctions regime deemed to have gone on too long and with inadequate results should be ended.

Difficulties in regard to remedies for civilian victims arise when the sanctions are imposed by the United Nations itself or by a regional body. Victims may not be able to file directly against the entity itself. However, the sanctions-imposing entity may still be in violation of international norms. What is needed is for these entities - the Security Council, regional governmental organizations or regional defence pacts - to establish special mechanisms or procedures for relevant input from non-governmental sources regarding sanctions, including, especially, civilian victims.

What's your view on that, @TaiShang ?

 

[TaiShang]

However, there are situations where a sanctions regime that may initially be deemed acceptable subsequently fails the test. Accordingly, sanctions regimes should always be under periodic review, generally at intervals of no longer than every six months.[/USER] ?

Very solid points deserving of a comprehensive response. But, due to time limits, my friend, I just wish to comment on the above point of yours.

It has been often the case that sanctions lose their relevancy and initial applicability as it often fails to respond to the changing geopolitical conditions. The post 1st Iraq War sanctions were not only ineffective but also exacerbated the conditions for civilian populations. Sanctions on basic medicine, for example, were destructive on the wellbeing of women, children and elderly.

It may also be the case that sanctions are used unilaterally to punish and achieve some country-specific objectives. The US resorts to unilateral sanctions outside the mandate of the UN, a recent example being the one placed on Russia. Being unilateral (even though supported by the EU), these sanctions can be ignored by capable nations, but this is not the case for weaker nations or the nations under strong US influence. In that case, sanctions regime might be inimical to the interests of not only those the sanctions placed upon, but also of those that are forced to join.

Unilateral energy sanctions on Iran were of the same nature. China, Japan and others took pains to differentiate proliferation and trade in energy, but, the US pressure was at times just too strong to ignore. Hence the rocky ride before the P5+1 finally (and miraculously) solved the crisis.

I think the UNSC is balanced in terms of decision making on sanctions, but, no body can do anything when a country decides to unilaterally to do so. And if that country has a certain power of conviction (through force, if needed), then, even the best sanctions regime won't be of much difference in terms of the fate of the countries that have to bear punitive punishment.