By This may be seem like surprising news for those who don’t follow North Korea closely, but in reality there is not much new from the recent Wikileaks document dump in regards to North Korea:
Julian Assange, the WikiLeaks founder
Leaked U.S. diplomatic cables show China’s frustration with communist ally North Korea and speculate Beijing would accept a future Korean peninsula unified under South Korean rule, according to the documents released by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.
The memos indicate the enormous import American and South Korean diplomats place on China’s attitude toward the future survival of the isolated and impoverished hard-line communist regime in Pyongyang.
The release of the documents follows new tensions in the region with North Korea unleashing a fiery artillery barrage on a South Korean island that killed four people a week ago. The regime also warned that joint U.S.-South Korean naval drills this week had pushed the peninsula to the “brink of war.”
China “would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a ‘benign alliance’ as long as Korea was not hostile towards China,” then-South Korean vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, is quoted as telling U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Kathleen Stephens, in February.
The diplomatic cables warn, however, that China would not accept the presence of U.S. troops north of the demilitarized zone that currently forms the border between the two Koreas. [Associated Press]
Read the rest at the link, but the documents go on to explain how the Chinese would prefer to keep the status quo with North Korea going, but are concerned that after Kim Jong-il dies that the regime could collapse a few years afterward. This is all nothing new for people who have been following North Korea closely.
If the regime was to collapse the Chinese military would not intervene and would be willing to accept a unified Korea if certain economic inducements are made and US troops remain in South Korea. Keep in mind that these views are coming from what a South Korean diplomat told the US ambassador Kathleen Stephens; not directly from a Chinese source. Because of this I am not entirely convinced that these are the real views of the Chinese government, but it is plausible.
Anyway does anyone else have any thoughts on the plausibility of the claims made by the South Korean diplomat?
11:11 pm on November 29th, 2010 1
During one of his interviews, he said his 'role' is to be the face of his group and take the heat. Wikileaks is not a one man operation. There are others behind the scenes.
They are supposedly very computer savvy and know how to hide, distribute and release their data across the Internet without being tracked. They have plans going forward with or without Assange. They want to put out they dirty little secrets of the financial industries next.
11:50 pm on November 29th, 2010 2
After 9/11, there was an effort to get the different parts of the intelligence community to cooperate and share information more. Now, they will want to hold back and stovepipe again. DoD may get cut off from State department's raw messages.
4:42 am on November 30th, 2010 3
#4
So the wikileak guys will put the general public in more danger? Brilliant.
4:48 am on November 30th, 2010 4
I wouldn’t want to be that guy Julian Assange right now. He’s basically on the lam, a man without a country.
I’m sure the U.S., Sweden, and his home country of Australia can think of some very, very creative ways to correct their “problem”.
6:28 am on November 30th, 2010 5
One thing is for sure…
For a long time to come, nobody is going to trust America with any honest speaking.
If the Gobbermint can’t keep important stuff like this under wraps, how can anyone expect them to safeguard medical records, financial records or gate-raape full body scans.
Shocking.
Julian Assange likely will come to an example-setting end one way or another… an isolated prison cell on shaky charges or a “suicide” due to (insert official story here).
Bradley Manning, the flamingly homosexual dropout that somehow got into the Army, kinda gives a double-whammy lesson as to why militant queers and educationally-wavered recruits should not be too welcome in the military. He was actually going to be chaptered for assault… but somehow still had access to the secrets.
Some will argue those three issues, gay/dropout/kickedout, have no relation to his actions. Others will counter that the drop in recruiting standards and the growing tolerance of those who flaunt the rules encourages rouge actions by those who were never really on the program to begin with.
Y’all can debate that one out.
11:00 am on November 30th, 2010 6
The words of Chun Yung-woo to Kathleen Stephens sound like wishful thinking. I'm waiting for China to say it and to act accordingly. Could be a long wait.
11:46 am on November 30th, 2010 7
#6
Yes what the SK official said to US official means nothing.
8:52 am on December 1st, 2010 8
For people who like to bash Obama:
Joshua Stanton http://www.freekorea.us/
under the heading "National Review nails it" links to
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254087/nor…
8:55 am on December 1st, 2010 9
Sorry, I meant to linkg to page 1.
http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/254087/nor…
8:56 am on December 1st, 2010 10
If Obama wants to off this guy, all he need do is give Putin a ring. He knows how to handle these type of things.
10:50 am on December 1st, 2010 11
Loeon LaPorte 10, Obama already claims the right to designate a US citizen an ememy combatant and a legitimate target for assassination. He could do that a fortiori to a foreigner.
I don't think Putin will do our dirty work for us. He probably wants us to do it ourselves, as a sign of sincere repentance and renewed commitment to state secrecy. Of course, if we want to buy a milligram of polonium-210, he might be willing to discuss it.
8:00 pm on December 1st, 2010 12
Some want WikiLeaks to be designated a terrorist organization. Maybe that will get them on a hit list.
They did change their tactic this time. Unlike the releases of the Iraq and Afghanistan SitReps and videos, which were full document dumps to the public, this time they handed over the documents to established news organizations and left it to their discretions what they would release. So, it is those organizations that share culpability and responsibility for what the general public gets to see. Should they also be gone after?
4:34 am on December 2nd, 2010 13
fear the journalist
needless of advertisers
cannot be controlled
1:03 pm on December 2nd, 2010 14
The NY Times should share some responsibility in this too. If you get caught with goods that were stolen by someone else, you’ll be persecuted to the fullest extent of the law. Didn’t they accept stolen goods? But one of our founding principles is freedom of the press. It’s difficult to draw a line where the information contained in stolen documents become news, as opposed to classified information that was obtained through criminal activity. How many hands does it have to pass through before it’s sanitized?
8:11 pm on December 3rd, 2010 15
Affirmation of what I pointed out earlier @12.
3:14 am on January 5th, 2011 16
China just gave a warning of sorts…
…was it intended for North Korea?
…a unified Korea?
…Russia… Iran… France… England… Israel?
…the USA?
http://english.kyodonews.jp/news/2011/01/64900.ht…
8:55 am on January 5th, 2011 17
ChickenHead 16, if that's true it's shocking. I thought China had a no-first-use policy. Communists wouldn't lie, would they?