By I wonder what restraint the Russians would be urging if one of their ships was sunk by a foreign rival?
South Korean President Lee Myung-Bak (R) greets US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton
Russia on Tuesday called both Koreas to show restraint and prevent a war after the sinking of a South Korean ship by the North, Interfax news agency reported.
“Both sides must show restraint and common sense,” Interfax quoted a spokesman for Russia’s foreign ministry as saying. “The main thing is to prevent the tension from bubbling over into an armed conflict.” [Reuters]
The Chinese are following the Russian line of thinking on this as well:
China, the North’s only major ally and which effectively bankrolls its economy, has studiously tried to keep out of the fray, urging calm and refusing to voice support for the international report on the Cheonan sinking.
It means that South Korea has almost no chance of winning further U.N. sanctions against its neighbor. [Reuters]
Both countries will probably sign up for some soft UN resolution but it is highly unlikely that anything of a real punitive nature will come out of the UN. It is still important to go through the motions of using the UN in order for the South Korean government to show that they tried to pursue an international approach to this before implementing their own harsh penalties against the North Koreans.
12:21 pm on May 26th, 2010 1
Thank you, China, for proving my thesis ("nothing can be done about North Korea") [HERE] yet again.
1:01 pm on May 26th, 2010 2
If I were the Chinese government, I would be bent on maintaining the status quo. Growing a conscience would result in many uncomfortable realisations.
1:05 pm on May 26th, 2010 3
Dude, anyone who remembers the 1994 Agreed Framework and the cash-for-summit scandal knows that.
1:08 pm on May 26th, 2010 4
The problem for China is that Pyongyang — by committing acts of war that are less and less tolerated by people with whom China does a lot of business — is preventing Beijing from maintaining the status quo. No matter how much China wants to say "Nothing to see here, nothing to see here."
1:13 pm on May 26th, 2010 5
No, not really. A lot of people think the 1994 Agreed Framework was the wrong thing to do and it merely allowed North Korea to continue its brinkmanship. And then there are a lot of people who think that the Agreed Framework would have worked (did work) to prevent things from getting even more out of hand.
1:13 pm on May 26th, 2010 6
"Growing a conscience would result in many uncomfortable realisations."
Yes, and they've ignored far more compelling evidence than pieces of a torpedo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=veQIdaR0J70
1:17 pm on May 26th, 2010 7
It is harder to ignore the attention they are getting, but in the end it won't matter since everyone wants to maintain the status quo, even North Korea (as long as they get a handout, that is).
1:58 pm on May 26th, 2010 8
"Kumbaya, my lord , Kumbaya." "We are the world, we are the people" OK, lets all sing in harmony now.
Doesn't everyone feel more complete now that Hillory has done her part for "world peace". All she needs is the tie dyed t-shirt and a ring of flowers around her head.
Bill has the joint, unfortunetly he's somewhere under the bleachers with an aquaintence and unavailable at the moment.
7:34 pm on May 26th, 2010 9
…but it didn't work because, “nothing can be done about North Korea”.
9:12 pm on May 26th, 2010 10
Yes – I'd like to see the same amount of 'restraint' as Russia used against Georgia…
12:36 am on May 27th, 2010 11
So, are we worried in South Korea? Not me. I'm seeing my stock broker tomorrow.
1:31 am on May 27th, 2010 12
The Russian one belongs in the Onion.
6:29 am on May 27th, 2010 13
4:48 pm on May 27th, 2010 14
Have any of you heard about the Kursk?
9:01 pm on May 28th, 2010 15
Yeah, I heard about the Kursk. You're not insinuating that it was torpedoed, are you?
11:24 pm on May 28th, 2010 16
The top of the article reads "I wonder what restraint the Russians would be urging if one of their ships was sunk by a foreign rival?" To that I answer, the Russians say that the Kursk sank because an American sub which was shadowing it collided (which has been proved happened before in the past with other submarines by the way) and in spite of believing that they had lost a ship to a rival, the Russians showed considerable amounts of restraint.
6:34 am on May 29th, 2010 17
I think their restraint shows that they didn't really believe the collision story.
9:39 am on May 29th, 2010 18
Excellent point.
10:40 am on May 29th, 2010 19
They recovered the Kursk and found an internal explosion caused the accident. They really wanted to pin it on the US, but is was one of their torpedoes that did the damage. Nice try Rei/KoreaTeacher, pick up a book. Again I weep for your students.
11:55 am on May 29th, 2010 20
An internal explosion which could have easily been caused by a collision. Are you too ignorant to realize this?
9:41 am on May 30th, 2010 21
Circular outward explosion from a torpedo cooking off inside. No it wasn't caused by a collison, there is no other damage to the ship outside of where it hit the bottom fool. They raised the ship you moron.