Naval Incident in the Yellow Sea: ROK/DPRK
Expected Council Action
The Council seems likely to take up the situation involving the ROK and DPRK arising from the sinking of the Cheonan, a South Korean navy ship, on 26 March as a result of an explosion which killed dozens of sailors. The ship was near a disputed maritime border between the ROK and the DPRK in the Yellow Sea.
The ROK has indicated it plans to request the Council to take action on the matter.
Key Recent Developments
On 26 March a Republic of Korea (ROK) navy ship, the Cheonan, sank as a result of an explosion. Forty-six sailors were killed in the incident, which occurred near disputed waters about a mile off the coast of Baengnyeong Island in the Yellow Sea. Initial indications were that the explosion was external and therefore might have been caused by a torpedo or mine. A detailed investigation into the incident was undertaken which included experts from Australia, Canada, Sweden, the UK and the US.
On 17 April the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) state news service, quoting an unnamed military commentator, reported that North Korea had no involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan.
DPRK leader Kim Jong Il travelled on an unofficial visit to China from 3 to 7 May. After Kim’s return, the DPRK state news service reported that the visit came at the invitation of Chinese president Hu Jintao and was meant to continue development of relations between the two countries. Some media accounts reported that Kim told Hu that the DPRK was prepared to rejoin the six-party talks.
Two DPRK ships crossed into ROK waters on 16 May near the site of the Cheonan sinking and then returned to DPRK waters after warning shots were fired by ROK forces.
US President Barack Obama spoke with ROK President Lee Myung-bak on 17 May to discuss the investigation of the sinking. Obama expressed full US support for ROK efforts to secure justice for the attack, as well as for its defence against any aggression. ROK government officials had stated previously that the six-party talks could not resume until the sinking was fully resolved.
On 20 May the ROK released the report on the sinking prepared by the investigation team with international experts. The investigation confirmed an external explosion caused the disaster, and after examining eyewitness accounts and forensic evidence—including torpedo parts found at the site of the incident that are consistent with weapons used by the DPRK—the report concluded that a DPRK attack was the likely cause of the sinking.
A statement issued by the US on 19 May [US time] said the report “points overwhelmingly” to the conclusion that the DPRK was responsible. A Chinese statement on 20 May called for restraint by all parties and said China would be making its own assessment of the incident. The DPRK on 21 May again denied any involvement in the sinking.
On 24 May Lee announced an ROK response involving economic measures against the DPRK including a trade ban and the closing of a commercial shipping route. Lee also said he planned to take the issue of the sinking of the Cheonan to the Council. (At time of writing, the Council had not received a request from the ROK on the matter.) Also on 24 May, Clinton said that the US fully supported the ROK’s actions and would work with other Council members to agree on a way forward. The Secretary-General said he expected the Council to take appropriate action promptly and that he hoped it would lead to a quick resumption of the six-party talks involving the DPRK, China, Japan, the ROK, Russia and the US.
The DPRK on 25 May said that it would cut ties and halt cooperation with the ROK, and accused it of repeatedly violating its territorial waters.
On 26 May US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said during a visit to the ROK that the international community should address the Cheonan incident with a strong and measured response.
On 27 May the ROK military conducted an anti-submarine drill, and the DPRK said it would cancel joint agreements with the ROK that aim to improve communication and prevent naval confrontations.
Key Issues
A key issue is whether Council members will agree to a meeting to discuss the matter of the Cheonan, and if so, whether the Council will take formal action.
Another issue is whether the DPRK will seek to use the possibility of a return to negotiations on its nuclear disarmament within the six-party framework to try to deflect Council members from taking up the Cheonan incident. (The DPRK withdrew from the talks in April 2009.)
Underlying Problems
An underlying problem is the lack of confidence between the DPRK and other members of the six-party talks. Past provocative acts on the part of the DPRK in the form of missile launches and military clashes and noncompliance with Security Council resolutions have exacerbated this lack of trust.
Options
Options for the Council include:
-
an initial debate to hear a presentation by the ROK of its concerns (and no doubt a response by the DPRK);
-
adopting a resolution or statement on the Cheonan incident;
-
requesting the Secretary-General to convene an independent panel to review the claims by both the ROK and DPRK;
-
indicating an intention to consider sanctions in response to the Cheonan incident; or
-
deferring action on the Cheonan for a defined period and calling on the parties and regional countries together with interested states to meet for a period of dialogue for a limited period of say eight weeks.
Council and Wider Dynamics
Council members seem generally very cautious about next steps until the ROK decides how and when the matter of the Cheonan will be formally brought to the Council. Members are aware that the leaders of China, Japan and the ROK are set to meet on 29-30 May to discuss cooperation in East Asia, and some view this as a chance for regional dialogue prior to the Council’s involvement.
US officials have said that the sinking of the ship represents a very challenging situation, and have promised strong support for the ROK. Clinton met with top officials in China in the last week of May to discuss the issue. With China bordering the DPRK to the north and thousands of US troops stationed in the ROK to the south, a common understanding between these two permanent members appears to be crucial in addressing the issue.
Full forecast
