 |
That's the North. Note the bright lights of Seoul, near the border, hence concerns
about a unilateral attack on the North. Seoul would be hammered. NASA photo. |
LETTER TO SOUTH CHINA MORNING POST: [Attention: John LEE: the bits in [square brackets] are side-comments, easily cut if you wish)
A. W. Jayawardena says that had the US not intervened in 1950, Korea would have been unified under the North. ("Trump's belligerent stand not the best way to rein in North Korea" | Letters, 2 October).
That is almost certainly true. [Though to be precise, it was the U.N. and not the U.S. which "intervened"]
What is most assuredly not true is that this would have been a good thing.
I visited North Korea six times on business during the 1980s. I can confirm from personal observation that it was (and remains) a severely poor country, pathetically so in contrast to its southern neighbour.
Had the North controlled the whole peninsula, that famous satellite night photo of the Korea — in which the North is pitch black, while the South blazes in capitalist glory — would have been all black. The population of the whole peninsula would have suffered the malnutrition and stunted growth than affects the North today.
The North's attack on the South in 1950 was unilateral and unprovoked. It was enabled by a dubious Stalin giving in to the vainglorious wishes of the [then Chinese-speaking] "Great Leader" Kim Il-sung to unify Korea under a Workers' dictatorship. [Kim's grandson Jong-un continues the family tradition of vainglorious dictatorship].
The US involvement in 1950 was the result of a United Nations Security Council resolution. The US provided most of the forces, but a total of 16 countries participated including my own, Australia.
Thus the counterattack to avoid a dictatorship in Korea was morally [1], legally [2] and geo-strategically [3] justified.
To claim otherwise, as does A.W. Jayawardena, is to indulge in revisionism and gratuitous America bashing.
Pf etc
*****************
[1] Morally: the morality of not leaving what were then 20 million people in the South to the depredations of a murderous communist dictatorship.
[2] Legally: United Nations Resolution 82, et seq.
[3] Geo-strategically: A counter to unilateral moves by the Soviet Union and China to expand their influence via a proxy. The Cold War, remember.
*****************
PS: A curiously confused comment from North Korea, defending its Black Nights: "The essence of society is not on flashy lights" (i.e., darkness is good). But then goes on to predict that the US would be "meeting its sunset" and "… can't avoid its dark fate." (i.e. darkness is bad). So: living with candles…. good or bad??
