From wharms@soback.kornet.nm.kr
Date: Tue, 24 Sep 1996 05:20:07 -0900
From: Bill Harms 
To: moogoonghwa@UCSD.EDU
Subject: RE: Another Set back to N-S relations

At 12:16 PM 9/23/96 -0700, Korea Information & Resource Center/Korea Report
wrote:
>Bill Harms suggests a plausble cause of the submarin"infiltration" and 
>"armed provocation," for which no SK media dare to suggest in current 
>frenzy against NK. 

Not exactly true, the "fact" that Lee stated that the mission was on a
routine mission and drifted off course was reported by the ROK media in some
of the initial reports of this incident. It was reported as late as 23
September in the KOIS news release.

>We only have Lee Kwangsoo's words to go by and they 
>are filtered out by SK interrogators, who admit that Lee changes story 
>many times. Just as NK defectors say what SK debriefers want to hear, 
>Lee may be saying what SK authorities want to hear and convey to the 
>media and public. There is even a media directive from the ROK military 
>as to how to call these NK soldiers-- moojang gongbi (armed communist 
>bandits) instead of kanchup (spies).  

>I see a political reason why SKG is escalating this incident. The 
>timing is important. If this incident occureed at other time, reaction 
>of SKG might have been different.
>These incidents probably happen occasionaly. (SK probably don't wnat to 
>admit this since it would show that its coastal defense is in disarray.)
>The SKG is in a position to downplay or escalate the incident to send a 
>message to NK as well as SK populace.  
>If a comparable incident can be found, the U.S. helicopter strayed into 
>NK airspace and we had the pilot's story and NK's story to go by. This 
>incident came at a sensitive moment when the nuclear accord was being 
>negotiated. If NK wanted, it could have made the incident bigger than 
>what it was, but it did not and returned the pilot rather promptly 
>(compare this incident to Pueblo incident), presumably because NK 
>wanted the nuclear accord to go through.
>
>I also cannot figure out why Lee Kwangsoo is the sole survivor other 
>than those fugitives. There was no shootout with ROK forces when 11 NK 
>soldiers were found dead near the shore. Now SK military is saying that 
>those 11 might have been"executed" by those who went to the mountains. 
>(COuldn't journalists who were on the scene figure this out? Why are 
>vital information coming our of ROK military only?) Then did Lee escape 
>this "execution"? Was Lee supposed to have been among those "executed"? 
>If Lee was "executed," then we would not have these theories pursued by 
>SK media and SKG, would we?
>SKG says that the fugitives are highly trained in guerilla warfare and 
>political indoctrination and very dangerous to SK populace, then why 
>did one of the fugitive tell a SK woman that he came from NK when he is 
>supposedly doing clandestine behind-the-enemy operation? WHy would he 
>leave a trail behind?  
>ALl these things don't add up. There are too many loose holes.
>

Just wondering what you are suggesting? The south set up the incident? That
doesn't add up either. I think you are perhaps giving too much credit to the
ROK authorities, if so. Please back up your thoughts with concrete facts. I
am truly interested in what you think. The fact of the matter is that we do
not know what exactly what happened and may never know.

I agree with you that we need to find corraborating evidence to back up the
ROK authorities' stories. I think it is prudent, however, to be careful to
not jump to any conclusions until we do...

Bill Harms
Seoul, Korea





moogoonghwa@ucsd.edu
Back to: Moogoonghwa