(Cheonan attack) (News Focus) S. Korea working on diplomatic, military

(ATTN: UPDATES with reaction from China, U.S. in paras 10-13, 21-22; MINOR EDITS
throughout)
By Chang Jae-soon
SEOUL, May 20 (Yonhap) -- South Korea is seeking to punish North Korea after a
probe found the communist nation responsible for the deadly sinking of one of its
warships, but few options appear handy that could cause Pyongyang real pain,
analysts said Thursday.
An international team of investigators announced that the North torpedoed the
South's 1,200-ton Cheonan in waters near their Yellow Sea border on March 26. The
finding confirmed widespread suspicions the belligerent regime sank the patrol
vessel in a tit-for-tat attack after its defeat in a November skirmish in the
tense area.
The sinking, which killed 46 young sailors, has rattled a nation already
struggling to deal with North Korea and its nuclear programs. Prior to the
announcement of the probe's outcome, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak and
other officials in Seoul repeatedly vowed to deal sternly with those responsible
for the sinking.
Analysts agree that a retaliatory military strike is not a viable option because
it could escalate into a full-scale war or hurt South Korea's fast-recovering
economy. The South also doesn't want to disrupt the G-20 summit scheduled for
November in Seoul, they say.
Other military or diplomatic options would be hardly more than symbolic steps
with little teeth, such as orchestrating a shower of international opprobrium on
Pyongyang, or staging a show of force aimed at warning against a similar
provocation, experts said.
"That's the dilemma South Korea faces," said Cha Du-hyeon, a senior security
expert at the Korea Institute for Defense Analyses in Seoul, referring to the
lack of effective options that South Korea can take to make North Korea pay a
heavy price for its actions.
One of the most likely diplomatic options is taking the case to the U.N. Security
Council. South Korea has already launched a diplomacy campaign to rally
international support for a Council referral, providing closed-door briefings to
envoys from about 30 nations on the probe's outcome even before it was formally
announced.
But prospects are dim for getting the Council to adopt fresh sanctions or even
toughen existing ones against the North because China -- the North's
last-remaining major ally and a permanent Council member with veto powers --
could oppose such a move.
North Korea has denied any role in the sinking. Beijing has appeared more
sympathetic to Pyongyang's claim than Seoul's probe, repeatedly stressing the
importance of a scientific and objective investigation and even relaying the
North's claim to South Korea.
On Thursday, China issued a guarded response to the investigation outcome.
"It conforms to the interests of relevant parties to deal appropriately with the
Cheonan incident and safeguard peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula," said
Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Cui Tiankai, calling the disaster "unfortunate."
The diplomat did not denounce Pyongyang, saying only that Beijing hopes for an
early resumption of the six-party talks on North Korea's nuclear programs that
involve the two Koreas, China, Japan, Russia and the United States.
Analysts agree that China holds the key to getting the Security Council to take
punitive steps.
"We need to clearly show North Korea that it is bound to suffer if it does
something like this," said Yun Deok-min, a professor at the Institute of Foreign
Affairs and National Security. "That depends on China this time, too."
China is considered to have the most influence over Pyongyang as its aid to the
impoverished neighbor props up the North's teetering economy. But Beijing has
been reluctant to use its leverage for fear that pushing Pyongyang too hard could
lead to its collapse, instability on its border and ultimately the emergence of a
pro-U.S. nation next door.
The best possible result from a Council referral would then be a chairman's
statement or a resolution condemning the North. But such an action would only add
to the long list of international criticism the country has been under for its
human rights record and its pursuit of atomic bombs, missiles and other weapons
of mass destruction.
Even adopting a condemnation statement or resolution at the Council is not easy,
experts said.
They cited South Korea's past unsuccessful attempts to adopt such Council
documents after North Korea's deadly bombing in 1983 of a Myanmar cemetery in an
attempt to kill the then visiting South Korean president, or after Pyongyang blew
up a South Korean passenger jet in 1987, an attack that killed all 115 people
aboard.
"In a sense, the two previous cases were more serious than this because civilians
were killed at that time," Cha said. "But neither a chairman's statement nor a
resolution were adopted in both cases" due apparently to Chinese or Russian
objection or both, he said.
U.S. President Barack Obama has expressed full support for South Korea's handling
of the sinking. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will visit Seoul next week, a
trip seen as aimed at underlining Washington's security commitment to the
traditional Asian ally and sending a warning to Pyongyang against provocations.
The White House denounced the North, urging the regime to stop its provocations.
"North Korea must understand that belligerence towards its neighbors and defiance
of the international community are signs of weakness, not strength," White House
press secretary Robert Gibbs said. "Such unacceptable behavior only deepens North
Korea's isolation. It reinforces the resolve of its neighbors to intensify their
cooperation to safeguard peace and stability in the region against all
provocations."
Yun, the analyst, said that the U.S. could put the North back into Washington's
list of states sponsoring terrorism. Pyongyang, which was put on the list for the
1987 jet bombing, was delisted in 2008 amid progress in efforts to end its
nuclear weapons programs. Cha also said terrorist designation is possible, but
the U.S. could also be tempted to save the card for later use in nuclear
negotiations.
Security concerns over the sinking also touched off renewed calls in South Korea
for delaying its planned retaking of the wartime operational command over its
troops from the United States.
South Korea handed over control of its forces to the U.S. during the 1950-53
Korean War to defend against invading troops from North Korea. Peacetime control
of its forces was returned in 1994, and the country is scheduled to get back the
wartime operational control in April 2012.
Critics have claimed that South Korea's military capabilities are not yet strong
enough, and that the transfer would undercut the security alliance with the U.S.
and reduce the ally's support to South Korea.
However, both sides have so far stuck to their official positions that the
transfer will take place as planned.
In terms of military action, one likely option under consideration is displaying
military force through large-scale drills jointly with the United States in
waters off the peninsula's east and west coasts. Such exercises could put the
North's military on alert in response, making the impoverished nation spend its
scarce resources, Yun said.
That would also be a warning to the North that a similar provocation wouldn't
work, Cha said. Other options include toughening the rules of engagement in the
western sea border area, and bolstering weaponry to early detect and counter
similar provocations, he said.
"But these measures amount to no more than a warning," Cha said. "Conditions are
not right for making North Korea suffer real pain."
jschang@yna.co.kr
(END)