I'm hardly giving N.Korea the "benefit of the doubt". I posted references to their version of events. I would call that being fair and balanced. I never claimed to believe North Korea's version of events any more than South Korea's version of the events.
As far as who has legal jurisdiction over this area, I'd say that's debatable. The UN was one of the belligerents in the Korean war and is hardly an honest broker in this dispute. In fact it wasn't the entire UN that went to war with North Korea. China and North Korea fought against the US and its allies including Canada. The fighting ended when both sides signed an armistice. That agreement does not define the boundary in this area. The area fell under South Korea's control, because the US dominated the seas. In the current situation, the undisputed part of this area which belongs to North Korea is a tiny sliver of sea which is barely navigable. The disputed area claimed by both North and South Korea is currently occupied by South Korea. This area has navigable waterways and rich fishing areas traditionally accessed by villagers who live in North Korea. IMO, North and South Korea should have an agreement which defines borders and allows North Korea to share this area's rich natural resources and the right to use the navigable waterways. Instead it is 100% occupied and controlled by South Korea thanks to presence of the US military.
As far as the MSM is concerned, few of their accounts mention the military exercises going on in the area before the shelling and none mention North Korea's claim that they were shelled first. That's hardly fair or balanced.
If I was to take an educated guess as to what happened, I'd say that South Korea's military exercises probably included a sustained and unnecessary barrage of heavy artillery in the disputed border area claimed by both sides. I doubt South Korea fired any shells into undisputed areas belonging to North Korea. Likely South Korea's barrage was close enough to the border that it was affecting navigation and fishing on the North Korean side of the border. North Korea complained and South Korea responded by shelling even closer to the border. Eventually South Korea succeeded into provoking a response from North Korea. It appears that North Korea did not shell any areas ceded to South Korea by the armistice. They appear to have restricted their response to military targets in the disputed area, which included an island garrisoned with South Korean marines. As far as I know, no civilians were killed or injured.
Assuming the above is true, then I'd judge both sides as being bad neighbors and equally responsible. But I don't know that's what happened. My opinion is based on a limited amount of information, severely slanted in favor of South Korea and speculation.
An analogy of the situation would be like having a noisy neighbor whose party has gone past midnight and shows no signs of letting up. You phone your neighbor and ask them to turn down the music. They respond by turning up the music. You pound on your neighbor's door and when they open the door, you punch them in the face, leading to a fist fight. After a few good shots by both sides, you return home a little bloody, but at least the music isn't blaring anymore.
IMO, both you and your neighbor have behaved like jerks.
Continuing with the analogy. You fight makes the news, the next day. All that is reported is your neighbor's version of events, no mention the loud party which preceded the fight, your neighbor's bloody nose is on the front page and you are portrayed as a crazy person (which might be true). Maybe you should have called the cops. However the cops are good friends with your neighbor and several off duty police officers were at your neighbor's party. Good luck getting a fair resolution to your noise complaint.
No I don't think this latest spat between bad neighbors will escalate. North Korea succeeded in ending the shelling along their border and South Korea doesn't want a hot war any more than North Korea.
Last edited:
