The Asia-Pacific Journal | Japan Focus Volume 8 | Issue 21 | Number 1 | Article ID 3361 | May 24, 2010

1

Who Sank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? A New Stagein the US-Korean War and US-China Relations　　韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層　　田中宇 •Japanese original available

Tanaka Sakai

Who Sank the South KoreanWarship Cheonan? A New Stage inthe US-Korean War and US-ChinaRelations The original Japanese texti s a v a i l a b l e h e r e(http://www.tanakanews.com/100507korea.htm)

Tanaka Sakai

Translated by Kyoko Selden

Introduction [Updated May 24, 2010]

At 9:22 on the night of March 26, the 1,200 tonROK Navy corvette Cheonan was on patrolwhen it was severed in two and sank in thewaters off Baengnyeong Island, a contestedarea twenty kilometers from North Korea, theclosest point of South Korean territory to theNorth and to Pyongyang. Forty-six crewmembers died and 58 of the 104 member crewwere rescued. It was the worst ROK navaldisaster since 1974 when a navy landing shipcapsized killing 159 sailors.

Nearly two months later, the elaborate politicalchoreography of explanation and blame for thedisaster continues on the part of North andSouth Korea, China and the United States. Thestakes are large: ranging from an easing oftensions on the Korean peninsula to a newstage of fighting in the Korean War. With pollsin early May showing that 80 percent of ROKcitizens believe that the sinking was caused byNorth Korean attack, tensions have remainedhigh. While segments of the US, European and

Japanese mainstream press have exercisedcaution in jumping to the conclusion that aDPRK ship had attacked the Cheonan, theinternational media have shown no interest infollowing the leads opened by South Koreanmedia and citizen researchers. The article thatfollows does not resolve the case by any means.But it exposes anomalies in official accountsand invites scrutiny of a range of intriguingissues that call for further investigation.

An ROK-sponsored investigation, with technicalsupport from the United Kingdom, the UnitedStates, Sweden, Canada and Australia, led to aMay 20 ROK government announcement thatthe submarine was sunk by a DPRK torpedo.Case closed. What is evident, however, is thatimportant issues have been ignored orsuppressed by the US and South Koreanauthorities.

In the article that follows, independentjournalist Tanaka Sakai hypothesizes aboutwhat may have happened on the night of March26 and after. Drawing on ROK TV and pressreports and photographs, some of which weresubsequently suppressed, Tanaka places atcenter stage a range of factors, some fullydocumented, others speculative, that have beenmissing, distorted, or silenced in US and ROKnarratives: they include the fact and location ofthe US-ROK joint military exercise that was inprogress at the time of the incident and thepossibility that the Cheonan was sunk byfriendly fire. Tanaka presents evidencesuggesting the possibility that a US nuclearsubmarine was stationed off Byaengnyong

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

2

Island and that a US vessel may have beensunk during the incident. He also considersanomalies in the role of US ships in the salvageand rescue operations that followed, includingthe death of an ROK diver in the attempt torecover that vessel.

At stake are issues that could rock the ROKgovernment on the eve of elections, and couldimpinge on the US-ROK military relationship asthe US moves to transfer authority overcommand to ROK forces by 2012, and toexpand the role of China in the geopolitics ofthe region. There are implications for tensionsbetween North Korea and the US/ROK on theone hand, and for the permanent stationing ofUS nuclear, and nuclear-armed, submarines inSouth Korean waters. Above all, there is thepossibility that renewed war may be imminentin the Korean peninsula at a time when theROK has cut off all trade with the North and ismoving toward demanding the imposition ofUN sanctions.

Tanaka's analysis, published on May 7, wasamong the earliest attempts to engageimportant anomolies in early ROK officialaccounts. We publish the full originalcontribution while noting that some of itssuppositions were subsequently disproved. Thisincludes the hypothesis that the USS Columbiawas sunk, while leaving open the possibility ofthe loss of anothr US ship. The USS Columbiasubsequently returned to Hawaii. Core issuesthat Tanaka raised, however, remainunresolved and ignored in media accounts. Inlocating the incident in the context of the US-ROK military exercise Foal Eagle, heldprovocatively close to North Korea, the authorinvites readers to consider the plausibility thatNorth Korea's primitive ships could have sunkthe radar- and sonar-equipped Cheonan andescaped to North Korea at a moment ofmaximum ROK-US readiness. And, if it did, thatthe ROK would remain silent about the event inthe immediate aftermath. He reflects onpossible motives for an attack by North Korea,

but also consider the attractions of claims of aNorth Korea attack for the ruling ROK partyinterested in undermining the credibility of theNorth and exciting nationalist passions amongvoters on the eve of a major election. These arebut a few of the issues raised in the article thatfollows, and in the investigations of otherresearchers appended to this article below.

Mark Selden

On 26 March, 2010 near Baengnyeong Island(White Wing, also known as Baekreong) to theSouth of the northern limit line, the maritimedemarcation line between South and NorthKorea, South Korea’s large patrol boatCheonan (Heaven’s Peace) exploded and sank.Already, more than one month after theaccident, the cause of the sinking has not beenconfirmed. In early April, the South Koreangovernment announced that either a torpedostruck or an underwater mine exploded,sinking the ship, indicating that it was notdestroyed by an explosion or accident insidethe boat but by an external cause.

The stern of the Cheonan docked on abarge off Baengnyeong Island on 7 May,

2010. Lee Jung-hoon.

However, it remains an enigma as to who fired

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

3

or set off a torpedo or underwater mine. TheSouth Korean right, claiming that a NorthKorean semi-submersible ship fired a torpedo,demands that the South Korean governmentlaunch a revenge attack on the North. The leftand pacifists in the South suggest that thewarship may have touched off an underwatermine installed in the 1970s by the SouthKorean military to prevent North Koreaninfiltration and still left there.

136 underwater mines were installed inresponse to the tensions in the Yellow Sea and,ten years later, fewer than ten percent hadb e e n r e m o v e d(http://www.jrcl.net/frame10053h.html)

Baengnyeong Island is only 20 kilometers fromNorth Korea in an area that the North claims asits maritime territory, except for the SouthKorean territorial sea around the island. Atpresent there are two demarcation lines on thesea. South Korea and the US (UN) claim thatthe Northern Limit Line (NLL), which runs justnorth of Baengnyeong Is land, i s thedemarcation line between North and South.However, since 1999, North Korea has claimedthat the Military Demarcation Line furthersouth is the border between North and South. About 5 ,000 South Koreans l i ve onBaengnyeong Island and regular ferries link itfrom Inchon. In the reconciliation betweenNorth and South in the year 2000, North Korearecognized this ferry route and the sea aroundthe island as an area where South Korean andAmerican boats can navigate freely. At thesame time, North Korea has regarded Americanand South Korean boats entering the sea areabeyond that as violating the economic zone ofNorth Korea.

Map of Baengnyeong Island (1)

Map of Baengnyeong Island (2)

In the vicinity of Baengnyeong Island SouthKorea constantly confronts the North Koreanmilitary. The Cheonan was a patrol boat whosemission was to survey with radar and sonar theenemy’s submarines, torpedoes, and aircraft,and to attack. If North Korean submarines andtorpedoes were approaching, the Cheonanshould have been able to sense it quickly andtake measures to counterattack or evade.Moreover, on the day the Cheonan sank, USand ROK military exercises were under way, soit could be anticipated that North Koreansubmarines would move south to conductsurveillance. It is hard to imagine that theCheonan sonar forces were not on alert.

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

4

South Korean military spokespersons told themedia immediately after the incident that theprobability of sensing torpedoes two kilometersaway with sonar was over 70 percent. Later theprobability was reduced to over 50 percentbecause the water is only 30 meters deep. Thisreduction, I believe, is for the purpose oftheorizing North Korean responsibility for theattack.

The patrol boat sinking; doubling the area oft h e s e a r c h(http://www.chosunonline.com/news/20100419000034)

A US Submarine that sank by the Number3 Buoy

The sinking of the Cheonan remains unsolved.But around the time of this incident anothersinking occurred that has hardly been reportedin Japan. Near the site of the sinking of theCheonan, a colossal object, which appears to bea US submarine, was found to have sunk. AnROK underwater team searched for, and onApril 7 South Korea’s KBS TV showed, a UShelicopter carrying what seems to be the bodyof a US soldier. KBS is a public broadcastingstation with the highest credibility in SouthKorea.

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, in thecourse of conducting an underwater search, amember of the special unit of the ROK Navy,UDT-SEAL (Underwater Demolition Team, SeaAir Land) Han Joo-ho, lost consciousness andlater died. This was a secondary disaster. Whilecollecting information on the death of WarrantOfficer Han, KBS learned that his memorialtook place neither near where the rear of theship was found (the first buoy), nor near wherethe head of the ship was found (second buoy).Rather, it was six kilometers away near thethird buoy, between the first and second buoy,that is, at a location that had nothing to do withthe Cheonan sinking.

A map provided by KBS TV. The third buoyto the East of Baengnyeong Island is wherethe head of the Cheonan sank, and the rear

of the Cheonan sank to the West.

The map of the search generally reported:two black dots to the South of Baengnyong

are where the halves of Cheonanreportedly sank. The third buoy is not

shown.

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

5

US and ROK troops at work searching thesea several hundred meters from the cliffof the island. The first and second buoys

where the Cheonan sank are bothseparated from the island by about twokilometers, and are not right in front ofthe cliff as shown in this Yonhap News

photo. This is likely to be the place of thethird buoy where the US submarine sank.But there South Korean reports claim that

this is the location of the search for theCheonan survivors.

T h i s s i t e(http://johnhoon.sblo.jp/article/36743688.html)is the source of the maps and photo.

(When a boat is discovered on the sea bed,divers connect a buoy with a rope to the sunkenboat, so that the location can be specified fromabove. After the explosion split the Cheonan intwo, the two halves separated, drifting on thefast tide. They were discovered 6.5 kilometersapart.)

Warrant Officer Han, who dove at the thirdbuoy, lost consciousness and later died. KBS,while investigating UDT-SEAL and othersources on the sea bed at the location of thethird buoy, learned that something like a largesubmarine had sunk and that the interior of thesubmarine was quickly searched under USmilitary jurisdiction.

The US military so rushed this search that itdid not wait for decompressors necessary forunderwater search to arrive before sendingROK troops underwater. Although the safe

duration of the time for diving is as short asfifteen minutes, the US military pushed aheadto make the Koreans search the complexinterior of the boat so that even skilled UDT-SEAL personnel lost consciousness one afteranother. And in that situation, the accidentinvolving Warrant Officer Han occurred. SomeUDT-SEAL officers claimed that “US diversdeclined to carry out such a dangerousoperation, so they made our ROK team do thework.”

A Suppressed KBS TV Scoop

ROK and US authorities did their best to hidethe fact that a US submarine sank at about thesame time as the Cheonan. The ROK authoritiesdid not announce the sinking of the USsubmarine, nor did they call Warrant OfficerHan’s death an accident which occurred whilesearching inside a US submarine. Instead, theyannounced that he died while searching forCheonan survivors’ bodies. Warrant OfficerHan was honored as a national hero.

South Korean honor guard bearing thecoffin of Han Joo-ho

However, the memorial for Warrant OfficerHan was performed not at the site of theCheonan, but at the site of the sunk USsubmarine. US Ambassador Kathleen Stevensand Commander-in-Chief Walter Sharp of USforces in Korea attended. They praised Han and

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

6

offered solatium to the bereaved family. Theattendance by high US officials and monetarypayments probably were for the purpose ofsuppressing anti-American sentiment thatmight blame the delayed search for Cheonansurvivors caused by the precipitous US searchfor its own victims, resulting in Han fallingvictim.

An object like a corpse pulled up from the seaat the third buoy was taken away not by anROK helicopter but by a US military helicopter.This too suggests that what sank at the thirdbuoy was not an ROK ship but a US militaryboat.

The search and recovery of the Cheonan wasgiven to a civilian company and the commandof the operation was in the hands of a Koreanbarge. The search at the third buoy wasconducted by a special ROK UDT-SEAL teamand the latest ROK light-weight aircraft carrier,the Dokdo, served as the command center.What can be assumed from this disparity is thatthe US and ROK military prioritized the searchfor the American submarine at the third buoyover the search and recovery of the Cheonan.This is especially the case for the US military,which commands the ROK military. After theincident, the start of the search and recovery ofthe Cheonan was delayed, probably because USand ROK authorities prioritized the search forthe US submarine.

KBS TV in the 9 o’clock news featured thisunder the title, “The Mysterious Third Buoy.Why?” Subsequently, a number of ROKnewspapers and magazines reported on theincident. The ROK authorities vigorouslycriticized these reports and sued KBS for “falsereporting” and maligning the government.After the trial, the KBS website had to stopdisplaying film and articles about the incident.

T h e M y s t e r i o u s T h i r d B u o y . W h y ?(http://news.kbs.co.kr/tvnews/news9/2010/04/07/2076673.html)

A gag order was issued to the UDT-SEAL team.When it was found that the problem of the thirdbuoy was not about the ROK authorities butabout the US military, official pressureincreased and KBS and other Korean mediastopped reporting on the incident. As in Japan,the Korean media, which is subject to Americanauthority, seems to share an implicit rule not toinquire into US military matters.

A Nuclear Submarine Armed with NuclearWeapons was Underwater?

KBS, which reported on the existence of thethird buoy, was criticized for filing a falsereport. Thereafter, the possibility that theCheonan was attacked by an Americansubmarine was regarded as a dangerous andgroundless rumor, and was virtual lysuppressed in South Korea.

However, the suspicion that the Cheonan sankas a result of friendly fire surfaced within theSouth Korean media immediately after theevent. On the day of the incident, ROK and USforces were conducting the joint militaryexerc i se Foa l Eag le to the south o fByaengnyeong Island. According to a joint US-ROK announcement, the exercise was to havebeen completed on 18 March, but the actualexercise was prolonged to 30 April. On the dayof the incident, the exercise was underway.After the incident, the US-ROK authoritiesmade no mention of the fact that the jointmilitary exercise was in progress. But the dayafter the incident, various ROK media andnewspapers reported that the Cheonan mighthave been sunk by friendly fire during themilitary exercise.

The Cheonan and the “suspic ion” ofinadvertent attack during the ROK-US JointM i l i t a r y E x e r c i s e(http://www.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/29/2010032901461.html)

In response to the report, ROK authoritiesacknowledged that the military exercise was in

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

7

progress, but stated that it was not taking placenear Byaengnyeong. Rather, it was off the coastof Taeon, Chungchong Namdo, which is about100 kilometers to the south of Byaengnyeong.ROK authorities announced that the Cheonandid not participate in the military exercise. Buta high-speed ship can reach Byaengnyeongfrom Taeon in two to three hours. Since lastyear, the DPRK has been criticizing the US andROK for threatening activity in approaching itsmaritime area during ROK-US joint militaryexercises. This time, too, US and ROK shipsmay have gone north close to Byaengnyeongisland. If the Cheonan had sunk during theexercise, the ROK authorities, in order to avoidcriticism from North Korea, would not makesuch an announcement. Although theauthorities announced that the Cheonan did notparticipate in the exercise, it is possible thatthe announcement deviates from the fact.

The Jaju Minbo of the ROK (left wing) analysedthe KBS News report. What is interesting is theanalysis of the geographical environment of thethird buoy where the submarine sank. TheAmerican submarine sank in the offing severalhundred meters off the coast near cliffs thatare called Yongteurim Rocks, on the southernside of Byaengnyeong. Around ByaengnyeongIsland there are many shoals where submarinescan run aground while underwater, but the seain front of the cliffs is deep. There, the northernand eastern sides are divided by land and ifNorth Koreans tried to watch Byaengnyeongfrom their territory, they would not be able tolocate a US submarine on the south side of theisland. North Korea recognizes the sea areaaround Byaengnyeong as ROK territory. A boatmoving underwater near the island would notbe attacked by the North Korean military,making this a safe hiding place for a USsubmarine.

On the basis of this kind of geographicalinformation, novelist Soo Hyon-o, a specialist inmilitary affairs, told the Jaju Minbo: “Perhapsthe American submarine adopted a posture of

near war. Meaning that it can send a missiletoward North Korea during an emergencyw h i l e u n d e r w a t e r i n t h e s e a n e a rByaengnyeong Island. Using the sea around therocks as a base, it can intercept DPRKcommunications from the opposite shore of theisland.”

J a j u M i n b o(http://www.jajuminbo.net/sub_read.html?uid=5790&section=sc2&section2=): “Did the NorthHit and Completely Sink a US Submarine?”(http://www.jajuminbo.net/sub_read.html?uid=5790&section=sc2&section2=)

Byaengnyeong Island is the nearest point inSouth Korea to Pyongyang . . . about 170kilometers. For the US-ROK military, it is thebest place to counterattack in the event ofemergency, and it is also well placed for radiointerception. If the US places a submarine nearByaengnyeong Island and it stays for a longtime, in the event of a North Korean attack onSeoul, the submarine can fire a missile withinminutes.

A submarine employed for such an operation isundoubtedly an atomic submarine, which canstay under water for one month. An atomicsubmarine extracts oxygen using electric powergenerated by the atomic reactor on the boat byelectrolysis of sea water. Unlike a dieselsubmarine, such a boat does not have tosurface at all. Many US atomic submarines canbe loaded with nuclear missiles. In order tocounter North Korea, which claims to be armedwith nuclear weapons, the US military mightmaintain a nuclear-armed submarine at alltimes near Byaengnyeong Island, the closestpoint to North Korea.

If the US and ROK military installed a missileaimed at North Korea on Byaengnyeong Island,they would be fiercely criticized by NorthKorea, which would agitate ROK citizens whoregard citizens of the North as their brethren,necessitating removal of such a missile.However, a US submarine loaded with atomic

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

8

missiles underwater near the island would havethe same effect as a land-based missile at atime of emergency. It would not be known bythe North, nor would there be a need to informROK citizens about it. Thought about in thisway, the possibility of a US submarine armedw i t h n u c l e a r w e a p o n s b e i n g n e a rByaengnyeong Island is almost greater than itsnot being there.

Many US atomic submarines have more than100 crew members. They operate thesubmarine by night and day shifts, so the crewis large. If a US submarine sank under the thirdbuoy, there could have been many victims,their number comparable to those who died inthe Cheonan incident. There is also the fear ofradioactivity leakage. What the US militaryhastened to recover from the sunkensubmarine could have been a nuclear warhead.That is why the UDT-SEAL team of the ROKmilitary was made to conduct the searchhastily. Warrant Officer Han’s death on dutyoccurred in the process.

The sinking of the Cheonan was widelyreported immediately, but the sinking of theAmerican submarine was concealed by the USgovernment, and the ROK authorities weremade to assist in the concealment. The reasonfor concealing the sunken submarine isprobably to prevent North Korea and ROKcitizens from knowing that a US submarine wasunderwater near Byaengnyeong Island for thepurpose of attacking North Korea in time ofcrisis. If that fact became known, the Northwould be angry and attempt some form ofretaliation, and anti-US sentiment among ROKcitizens would be fanned. But, because KBSand others reported on the sinking of the USsubmarine, even though handled as an error,the North can be presumed to have grasped thesteps of this event fairly well.

When military secrets were exposed by thesinking of the Cheonan, the military started tot a k e m e a s u r e s

(http://japanese.yonhapnews.co.kr/Politics2/2010/04/19/0900000000AJP20100419001500882.HTML)

Mistaking the American Submarine for aNorth Korean Submarine?

The discussion so far has not come to the mostimportant question: why did the Cheonan andthe American submarine sink? I will addressthis now. The Jaju Minbo article, whichanalyzed the report by KBS TV, writes that aNorth Korean submarine came South, attackedthe Cheonan and the US submarine, and mayhave sunk both boats. However, in my view, thepossibility of the North having done this isextremely low.

Right after the Cheonan sinking, the US andROK governments announced that there waslittle possibility that the Cheonan sank as aresult of North Korean attack. If there had beena North Korean submarine attack, the NorthKorean government, after a few days, mighthave proudly announced that it had sunk bothR O K a n d U S b o a t s . I f U S a n d R O Kgovernments announced before then that thesinking was probably not the result of a NorthKorean attack, both governments would riskbeing criticized by citizens, and high officialswould have had to assume responsibility andresign. If it was truly not an attack from theNorth, the US and ROK governments would beexpected to quickly announce that it was notfrom the North. Jaju Minbo, a leftwingnewspaper close to North Korea, perhapssimply wanted to show the power of NorthKorean military.

As noted, a US-ROK joint military exercise wasin progress that day near Byaengnyeong Islandand it is highly probable that the Cheonan wasat the site as part of the exercise. If a militaryexercise was going on, then other US and ROKships were present. So if a North Koreansubmarine did attack, the US and ROK wouldhave fiercely counterattacked and sunk it. Evenif they failed to sink it and it escaped, if there

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

9

had been an attack from the North, then the USand ROK could stand in the position of justicefor simply having defended themselves, so theywould immediately have announced that such abattle had occurred.

The North feared that the US and ROK woulduse the joint military exercise as a pretext tomove north and attack its nuclear facilities.Pretending to conduct a military exercise as acover for a real attack is a plausible US militarystrategy. For the North to attack in such asituation would be suicidal as it would give theUS and ROK a pretext for war.

If the boat was not sunk by an attack from theNorth, the remaining possibility is that an erroroccurred. I suspect that the US military had notinformed the ROK that an American submarinewas stationed underwater near ByaengnyeongIsland. If the American submarine that sank atthe third buoy was underwater for a long time,it follows that it did not participate in the jointexercise that day (it had other duties).

I think it likely that the US submarine, whichwas off the coast to the south of Byaengnyeong,happened to approach closer to the shore thanexpected and ROK forces, mistaking it for aNorth Korean submarine, fired. When the USsubmarine returned fire, both boats sank as aresu l t o f a f r i end ly a t tack due to amisconception. The US submarine must haveknown of the approach of the Cheonan with theuse of a passive sonar used for receivingcommunication. But if the American militarywas keeping the presence of the submarinesecret from the ROK, then the US submarinecould not communicate by radio with theCheonan.

The Cheonan was attacked from the port side.The ROK authorities announced that theCheonan at that time was heading northwest. Ifthat is really the case, then the boat’s portfaced the open sea. The American submarineunderwater near the shore would haveattacked from the island side, the reverse of the

open sea side. This contradicts the abovehypothesis. Except, in order to hide the friendlyattack by the US military ship, the possibilityexists that the ROK authorities announced thedirection of the Cheonan in reverse. (If theyannounced that the Cheonan was attacked fromthe island side, then the North Korea attacktheory would not be possible and the suspicionof a friendly attack would become stronger.)

China’s Role in North-South ArbitrationAfter the Cheonan Incident

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, mediaand political circles in South Korea uniformlyexpressed condolences. Concerts andentertainment events were canceled one afteranother. The rightwing suddenly becameactive, demanding that the government“counterattack North Korea.” ROK localelections will take place in June. The Cheonanpolitical situation will greatly influence thecampaign.

Donald Kirk, an American reporter in SouthKorea, who is familiar with the Americanmilitary situation, compares the Cheonanincident to 9/11. Some people say that this isgoing too far. But the possibility that they wishto conceal, that the Cheonan was sunk byfriendly fire from the American submarine, isachieved by casting suspicion that it was sunkby North Korea. The result is that politicalcircles and society are aroused, naturallymaking Americans want to liken the incident to9/11.

A former reporter for the New York Times callsthe sinking of the Cheonan a tragedy that isc o m p a r a b l e t o 9 / 1 1(http://japanese.joins.com/article/article.php?aid=128300&servcode=A00&sectcode=A00)

An opposition member of the ROK NationalAssembly challenged the Minister of NationalDefense, demanding that the truth be revealedand noting that the sinking of the Cheonan mayhave been a mistake made by the US military.

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

10

He was criticized by rightwing media as “afoolish congressman trusting conspiracytheorists.” The same label was applied by them a s s m e d i a t o U S a n d J a p a n e s erepresentatives who sought to inquire into thetruth of 9/11.

Rep. Park Yongson Engages the Minister ofNational Defense over “The AmericanInadvertent Bombing Theory,” which wasO f f i c i a l l y R e j e c t e d a s F a l s e(http://japanese.donga.com/srv/service.php3?biid=2010042700058)

Following the sinking of the Cheonan, if the USand ROK had announced that the Cheonan wasattacked by the North and they wouldcounterattack, the result would have been full-scale war. However, the US military in SouthKorea is moving toward withdrawal. Thecommand in case of emergencies is scheduledto be transferred from the US to the ROKmilitary in 2012. Moreover, leadership ofinternational politics in the Korean peninsula isin process of transfer from the US to Chinawith the approval of US administrations fromBush to Obama.

Within the military-industrial complex centeredin the Pentagon, there must be opponents ofmultipolarization who wish to reverse this.They do not wish to sit back and watch EastAsia fall under Chinese hegemony in thismanner, with US military withdrawal. Theynaturally seek to take advantage of theCheonan incident to induce war between SouthKorea and North Korea, and, as at the time ofthe Korean war, develop it into war betweent h e U S a n d C h i n a s o a s t o r e v e r s emultipolarization in East Asia. Although I maybe projecting too far, one may even suspectthat they provoked the friendly attack byconcealing from the ROK military theunderwater navigation of the US submarinearound Byaengnyeong Island.

If a great war again erupts on the Koreanpeninsula triggered by the Cheonan Incident,

even if Japan does not bribe the US with the“sympathy budget”, the stationing of US forcesin Japan would continue, and the US wouldagain view Japan as an unsinkable aircraftcarrier. The Japanese economy would thusaga in bene f i t f r om Korean spec ia lprocurements after sixty years. This would be adesirable outcome for Japanese who favordependency on the US.

However, amidst the strife centered, USmultipolarists appear to be stronger than themilitary-industrial complex (and US-Britaincentrists). The result is that the CheonanIncident has not led to a second US- KoreanWar. Further, what is regrettable for those inJapan and the ROK who wish to continuedependence on the US, the US has transferredto China the role of mitigating the aggravatedNorth-South relationship.

Chairman Hu Jintao of China, on 30 April,talked with President Lee Myung-bak whoattended the opening ceremony of the WorldExpo in Shanghai. Three days later he hosted avisit from North Korean President Kim Jong-il,making possible a China-North Korea summit.It is unclear whether Six-Party talks will beheld subsequently, but China has certainlystrengthened its role as mediator betweenNorth and South Korea.

Many South Korean citizens have come todistrust government pronouncements on theCheonan Incident. In the ROK, the fact that theAmerican submarine sank near the third buoymay change at some future t ime from“conspiracy theory” to fact. As long as ROKnational policy remains one of dependence onthe US, the matter of the third buoy will haveto be suppressed. But to the extent that theROK moves toward multipolarization(emphasizing China and coexistence betweenNorth and South), the lid will be taken off.

This is an updated version of an article that was

APJ | JF 8 | 21 | 1

11

originally published at Tanaka Sakai’s websiteon May 7, 2010. 韓国軍艦「天安」沈没の深層(http://www.tanakanews.com/100507korea.htm)

Tanaka Sakai posted another article on thea f t e r m a t h o f t h e i n c i d e n t(http://www.tanakanews.com/100531korea.htm) on May 31, 2010.

See Satoko Norimatsu's survey of criticalE n g l i s h l a n g u a g e a n a l y s e s(http://peacephilosophy.blogspot.com/2010/05/very-little-has-reported-in-english-on.html) ofthe Cheonan Incident at Peace Philosophy blog.

(http://gowans.wordpress.com/2010/05/20/the-sinking-of-the-cheonan-another-gulf-of-tonkin-incident/)

See also Selig Harrison, What Seoul Should DoAbout the S ink ing o f the Cheonam.(http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_opinion/420827.html)

See Jeff Stein, Asian Analysts Question KoreaT o r p e d o I n c i d e n t(http://blog.washingtonpost.com/spy-talk/2010/05/asian_analysts_question_korea_torpedo_inci

dent.html?hpid=news-col-blog).

See Yoichi Shimatsu, Did an American MineS i n k > S o u t h K o r e a n S h i(http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/did-an-american-mine-sink-south-korean-s h i p / ) p ? (http://alethonews.wordpress.com/2010/05/29/did-an-american-mine-sink-south-korean-ship/)

Tanaka Sakai is the creator, researcher, writera n d e d i t o r o f T a n a k a N e w s(www.tanakanews.com), a Japanese-languagenews service on Japan and the world.

Tanaka Sakai's new book is 『

日本が「対米従属」を脱する日—多極化する新世界秩序の中で—』

The Day Japan Breaks with "Subordination tothe US": Amidst the Multipolarizing New WorldO r d e r(http://www.fuun-sha.co.jp/book/57tanakasakai.html)

Recommended citation: Tanaka Sakai, "WhoSank the South Korean Warship Cheonan? ANew Stage in the US-Korean War and US-ChinaRelations," The Asia-Pacific Journal, 21-1-10,May 24, 2010.