西哈努克港市是第二個澳門

亞洲週刊 梁東屏 December 31, 2017

http://www.yzzk.com/cfm/blogger3.cfm?id=1513741210284&author=%E6%A2%81%E6%9D%B1%E5%B1%8F

 

This is another gain of China’s extra-military strategy

這是北京超軍事手段的另一項收穫

西哈努克港市是第二個澳門

20171230日 第3152

中國承諾在柬埔寨投資七十億美元,並大舉開發第二大城市西哈努克港市,要將之建設成「第二個澳門」。中國在柬投資額是美國的三十倍。

 

西哈努克港市:中國發揮巨大影響力

 

在柬埔寨總理洪森的示意下,該國最高法院十一月解散了力量最強大的反對黨「救國黨」。這個舉動引起包括美國在內的西方國家一片撻伐,美國及歐盟都揚言可能對柬埔寨進行制裁,美國也已經發布對柬國高層人員的旅行禁令。只不過柬國並不以為意,洪森甚至高調揚言歡迎美國制裁,因為「美國的援助只是在幫助反對人士進行叛國」,而且「我們有中國的援助,根本就不需要美國」。

 

洪森講的並非氣話,因為他說過那些話之後就去中國訪問了,結果獲得中方七十億美元的投資承諾,為柬埔寨興建高速公路、首都金邊市近郊的衛星城市以及多項教育、娛樂、金融計劃。

 

中國對柬埔寨的投資,具體展現在該國第二大城西哈努克港市。這個曾經一度破敗的城市現在已經開始翻身,迅速發展成為柬埔寨的新經濟中心,甚至於被稱做有望發展成「第二個澳門」。有不少前往投資的中國人都表示西哈努克市就像二十年前的中國,有龐大的商機。

 

西哈努克市是柬國在上世紀六十年代從叢林開發建成,以前任國王西哈努克為名,是柬埔寨第一大港口城市,擁有全國唯一的深水港。西哈努克市曾是柬埔寨精英階層的遊憩樂園,但在紅高棉大屠殺以及七十與八十年代的衝突爆發後逐漸沒落,之後更因為價廉而成為西方背包客青睞的旅遊目的地。

 

然而在中國提出「一帶一路」倡議後,發展商以西哈努克是一帶一路沿線「第一個停靠港」為賣點,當地政府也積極吸引中國投資者而突飛猛進。

 

西哈努克省長永明(Yun Min)曾任軍區司令員,也是洪森的親信,他多次訪問中國,邀請中國投資者前往,並承諾為他們提供保護。他告訴路透社:「我們希望有更多中國人來這裏,我估計西哈努克市的房地產有一半都被中國人租去了,這使得我們大有獲利。」

 

如今,這個人口約二十五萬的城市居住著成千上萬的中國人。市內隨處可見以中文書寫的標誌,當地超級市場也出售大量中國製造的貨品,柬國當地的貨品可能只剩啤酒及瓶裝水了。而且,未來應該還會有更多中國人湧入。

 

從前十分寧靜的獨立海灘,僅僅幾個月內就出現了許多水泥大樓,很多都是賭場、酒店及高級公寓。該市新的藍灣公寓項目負責人形容,西哈努克是「第二個澳門」。這項耗資兩億美元的公寓項目樓高三十八層,至少有七百個單位,當中約百分之二十已售出,售價從十二萬五千美元至五十萬美元不等。

 

當地還不斷有新的高樓大廈建成,未來還將出現更多賭場、酒店以及數以千計的住宅單位。西哈努克國際機場也將擴建,目前百分之七十的國際航線都飛往中國。中國也計劃建造一條從西哈努克至金邊的四線道高速公路,當地鐵路也將在一帶一路計劃下獲得改善。

 

從西哈努克港驅車,很快就能來到西哈努克港經濟特區,這裏現有的一百一十家企業中有百分之九十是中資企業,它們都享有進出口免稅及公司稅假期優惠。

 

美國學者索法爾.埃爾指出,中國在柬埔寨的投資還在持續與擴大。他說:「我們說的是超越其他任何人的訂單規模。他們正在憑藉龐大的數量與規模,擠出其他投資者。」

 

雖然中國目前的投資重點是在西哈努克市,但不可因此而忽略了它對柬國的整體投資。舉例來說,中國到達柬埔寨的遊客居於全球之冠,今年的頭七個月內,共有六十三萬五千人到訪,是到訪總人數的五分之一。柬國希望到二零二零年,每年能有兩百萬中國遊客到訪。

 

中國在二零一二年至一六年對柬投資為四十億美元,是美國的三十倍。去年的對柬投資為兩億六千五百萬美元,是日本的兩倍,美國的四倍。柬國的全國電力幾乎都由中國水壩供電,三分之一的外銷成衣廠是中資。不過,柬國的五十八億美元外債,其中半數是欠中國。

 

柬國也欠中國不少「政治債」。洪森政府早前逮捕反對黨救國黨領袖並解散該黨,為明年大選清除障礙,引起西方國家一致譴責,中國卻對柬埔寨採取行動維持國內秩序的做法表示支持。柬埔寨則投桃報李,在區域議題上支持中方,協助中國在東南亞擴大影響力。中國公司在柬國所擁有的特許,也讓它們控制了三分之一以上的柬國海岸線。

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

(yuan1)尾花 Iris 2018.4.4

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

川金峰會 (紐約時報2018.4.2)

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

中美貿易戰

--川普向中國拉開貿易戰序幕: 叫罵示威。

-- 倫敦經濟學人雜誌冷眼看穿。

林中斌 2018.4.3

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

僥倖言中
五個月前戰況失利,五個月後情勢逆轉

●20171013日 《聯合報》名人堂 林中斌「王岐山十九大應會留任」
●20171026日中共十九大落幕
●20171028日《聯合報》:「前國防部長林中斌(10)命中率零林中斌曾預估,習近平最依重的王岐山應會留任….
(“中國新核心 調查局猜中一半 國安會狀況外?《聯合報》 20171028)
●2018
317日《中時電子報》: 「習近平全票連任國家主席王岐山當選副主席」

敬請賜教
林中斌 2018.3.17

圖åƒè£¡å¯èƒ½æœ‰1 人

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

南北韓統一潛流逐漸浮現

當南北韓意外的開始正面互動時,全世界都熱鬧的反應時,北京卻出奇的安靜。
當時在下私下與朋友表示: 北京應已知曉南北韓將接觸。文在寅訪中時已告訴習近平與北韓互動之苗頭;而北韓雖表面慍中,私下應已照會北京與南韓接觸之苗頭。
兩三年前有山東某蘇姓?教授公開建議習: 應樂見南北韓統一,否則自我矛盾。。因為南北韓統一與兩岸統一的道理相通。
--201410月底在首爾國際會議中有中國國防大學戰略研究所副研究員鹿音上校表示,中國希望看到同屬一國的、幸福的南北韓國民。(王崑義教授觀察2014.11.4旺報)
在下竊以為尚有其他考量。
兩韓若統一,則美國失去在東亞部署軍力之立場。1950625日北韓侵略南韓,引動美軍介入,以至於今。
也有人說:若南北韓統一,強勁的南韓經濟會被拖累,約有10年。那是根據東西德統一後的經驗。於是,統一後的韓國會更依賴中國,對北京有利。在下以為:這是短視的想法,不足為取。長遠對北京有利的做法應令韓國人樂於與中國為鄰。
以上淺見,敬請賜教。

林中斌 2018.3.27

北韓最高領導人金正恩有可能閃電訪問大陸。日本電視台26日下午拍到抵達北京的北韓列車,這節列車與2011年金正日訪問大陸時搭乘的特別列車極為相似。金正恩此刻若訪北京,被認為是在5月「川金會」前,先與北京進行溝通。

而據丹東當地知情人士透露,金正恩昨下午56點從丹東入境北京,昨丹東火車站及鴨綠江大橋戒備,緊鄰鴨綠江畔的中聯大酒店全部遭到管制,所有入住的旅客全部被清空,飯店緊鄰江邊一側的房間窗戶全部緊閉;金正恩已抵達北京。

以北韓新聞為主的電子媒體《Daily NK Japan26日晚報導,北韓與大陸邊境的丹東被察覺有不尋常動態,丹東車站設置巨大的隔板牆,讓人感受警備森嚴的氣氛,當地人傳說,「北韓黨委員長金正恩來了?」,難道是北京的「特別列車」抵達了嗎?

25日的上午和下午,當地的大陸公安局在車站周邊進行了波紋狀路障的開關演習,到了下午10點還封閉了車站,以及北韓與大陸連接的鴨綠江大橋(道路、鐵路併用橋)。

當地消息人士指出,「從晚間10點起,丹東站就完全關閉,約在20分至40分之間,由21節車廂組成的列車朝瀋陽方向駛去」。

就在這4天前,有人看到似北韓人民軍所屬的船隻在鴨綠江大橋周邊待機。當地消息人士表示,「2011年當時的金正日總書記搭乘的列車經過丹東站時,北韓軍隊也在鴨綠江大橋附近監視。這次的氣氛與當時非常相似。」

金正日2011年訪問大陸8天,便是搭乘火車走從北京出發,經瀋陽、丹東再返回北韓的路線。當時丹東站也是完全封閉,且在鴨綠江大橋周邊也部署了公安和邊防警備隊。

有丹東的市民對這次的情形表示,「聽說因為有北韓高官來,故加強國境的管制」、「25日晚間10點起,警戒更加升級」。至於高官是誰並不清楚,但從北韓出發的特別列車在嚴峻的警戒態勢下的深夜通過,應該是最高層級的高官吧。

在北京也感受到緊張的氣氛。北京的消息人士指出,1周前大陸外交部與駐北京的北韓大使館相關人士舉行罕見的全體會議等,是值得關注的動作。消息人士指,「談的是和以往不同的事,不久之後,應會傳中朝關係改善等好消息。」

如果金正恩訪問大陸的話,與大陸國家主席習近平會談的可能性相當高。

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

美中貿易戰

盧永山 自由時報 March 27, 2018

http://news.ltn.com.tw/news/focus/paper/1187508

張加杜宗熹 聯合新聞網 March 27, 2018

https://www.udn.com/news/story/10814/3053458 

accessed March 27, 2018

 

善變川普,恫嚇戲碼,一再玩弄,世界被耍。
川普一再玩拉高籌碼的遊戲。觀察家仍未看穿。媒體配合,喧染緊張,促進銷路,提升收視率。
廿一世紀,國際關係,衝突難免,大戰難起。對外強硬,對內表態;對外強硬,對內加分。對外強硬,對內減壓。
川普換官,有如棄紙。最早鷹派,隨後鴿派。今日主戰,明日主和。
現在上台的強硬派,焉知不會應情勢改變而被換下?

 

敬請賜正。
林中斌 2018.3.27

〔編譯盧永山/綜合報導〕 美國總統川普宣布對中國進口六百億美元產品課徵關稅,大動作向中國叫陣,中國也不甘示弱,揚言祭出報復措施。但華爾街日報、金融時報報導指出,美中之間激烈的言詞交鋒,只是表演給各自國內民眾看的公關戲碼,雙方根本是「紙老虎」,私底下已展開磋商,中國對美國前倨後恭的態度更成為中國網民的笑柄。

拆解川普的貿易手段

川普上週四簽署備忘錄,指示行政部門對中國進口六百億美元產品課徵關稅,並向世界貿易組織(WTO)提告,限制中國企業在美國投資等,以反制中國竊取美國智財權,降低美中貿易逆差;中國則反擊將對美國進口卅億美元產品課徵關稅,且正在研究進一步的報復名單。

華爾街日報引述知情人士透露,美國財長努勤及貿易代表萊席爾上週五已致函中國主管經濟事務的副總理劉鶴,信中提出具體要求,包括降低對美國進口汽車關稅、增買美國半導體、放寬美企對中國金融業的准入。

降低貿易逆差 六個月內可做到

努勤週日接受福斯新聞網訪問指出,在考慮採取制裁之際,也在跟中國談判,看看能否達成降低美中貿易逆差一千億美元協議;「對於達成協議,保持審慎樂觀態度,如果不能達成協議,我們仍將實施這個關稅。」

英國金融時報引述中國資深官員指出,中國有信心可「精準」回應川普的關稅措施,以降低美中貿易緊張;包括在六個月內降低美中間三七五億美元貿易逆差,並宣布新的市場開放措施,讓川普能在十一月期中大選前宣稱取得勝利。該官員直言,中國國家主席習近平在貿易上與美國交手有更大的戰略目標,這次事件只是小事,發動大規模貿易戰並不符合中國利益;當雙方展開協商時,總是要虛張聲勢一下,且川普又是個生意人。

金融時報並引述未具名消息人士透露,中國提出轉移部分向台灣和南韓採購半導體的訂單,改為擴大向美國採購,以助削減對美貿易順差。

傳中增購美半導體 砍台韓訂單

對此,台灣半導體產業憂心,若此事成真,將對國內從IC設計、晶圓代工到封裝測試產業有相當衝擊,其中聯發科首當其衝,被美國高通取代,至於對一線大廠的台積電、日月光等影響不大,但二線廠是衝擊難測。

分析師認為,美中兩國政府都在打經濟民族主義的牌,以顯示他們是自家利益的捍衛者,這是演給民眾看的;英國衛報認為,美中都是「紙老虎」,兩國在關稅問題上有紛爭,但貿易戰看起來不太可能發生,雙方都不願讓衝突升級。

不少中國網民也點破官方撂狠話的矛盾,有人指出,既然美國對中國的貿易制裁是「搬起石頭砸自己的腳」,中國為何還要抗議、反制呢?中國商務部警告美國懸崖勒馬,美國既然已經到了懸崖邊上了,為什麼不一腳踹他們下懸崖,反而要他們懸崖勒馬?

 

 

 

美中同聲表態:談判取代貿易戰

美國總統川普對進口貨品課重稅引發的美、中貿易戰疑慮出現轉圜跡象。中國大陸總理李克強昨天表示,大陸對外開放的大門將越開越大,大陸也不會強制要求外國企業轉讓技術,中美應堅持談判化解分歧,雙方若打貿易戰將沒有贏家。

中國大陸總理李克強昨天表示,中美應堅持談判化解分歧,雙方若打貿易戰將沒有贏家。 (中新社)

白宮貿易顧問納瓦羅接受彭博新聞採訪時說,「美中已經在談判桌了」,美國財政部長米努勤與貿易代表賴海哲與中方積極交流。一名白宮資深官員則說,川普政府積極參與與大陸的談判,以解決貿易緊張情勢,美國無意展開貿易戰。

美國財政部長米努勤傳考慮前往北京進行貿易協商。 (路透)

知情人士表示,米努勤正考慮前往北京進行協商,大陸的協商代表為國務院副總理劉鶴。美、中雙方表態以談判取代貿易戰,資本市場對此正面解讀,昨晚開盤的美股道瓊指數開盤跳空大漲近三百點,隨後一度大漲超過五百點。

川普在以國安理由啟動對進口鋼鋁課徵高關稅後,之後又簽署總統備忘錄對大陸銷往美國的貨品課徵高關稅,中方也揚言報復,美、中這全球前兩大經濟體恐陷入貿易戰,讓全球經貿發展面臨不可測的風險,局勢如今卻出現轉折。分析認為,這顯示川普表面上在打全球貿易戰,實際上是以此作為政治與經濟籌碼,謀求全球貿易規則的話語權。

南韓貿易部昨天宣布,美方給予南韓永久性的鋼鋁稅豁免,南韓則同意在美韓自由貿易協議中讓步;華爾街日報報導,中美已針對兩國包含金融服務業和製造業在內的貿易展開磋商,討論擴大開放市場給美國;美方對中方提出包含降低對美國汽車課徵的關稅、增加採購美國半導體,以及擴大美國企業參與大陸金融業。英國金融時報指出,大陸提出轉移部分向台灣和南韓採購半導體的訂單,改為擴大向美國採購,以助削減對美貿易順差。

李克強昨天在北京會見出席中國發展高層論壇年會的外國代表時指出,打貿易戰沒有贏家,因為「對別人關上門、也擋住了自己的路」,中美經貿規模發展到今天的體量,靠的是市場力量和商業規則,本質上是互利共贏的。

米努勤廿五日接受福斯新聞採訪時則說:「我們正在跟他們(中方)進行很有成效的對話,對於達成協議,我保持謹慎樂觀。」他表示,兩國同意一定程度上減少美國貿易逆差,並嘗試「就公平貿易達成共識,以使雙方能夠開放市場、降低關稅並停止強制性技術轉讓」。

市場人士分析,若美中對擴大採購半導體取得共識,對台灣產業傷害甚大,尤其台灣在晶圓代工居全球市占之冠,若大陸客戶轉單英特爾代工,對台積電、聯電影響甚大。

 

 

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

加拿大的川普將竄起政壇

Stephen Marche New York Times March 22, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/22/opinion/doug-ford-populism-canada-trump.html

accessed March 22, 2018

加拿大今年67日安大略省選舉極可能出現像川普的新省長Doug Ford。他目前在民調中遙遙領先47% 只有26%的對手。(請見貼在樓上的紐約時報評論 Will Canada Elect a Tin-pot Northern Trump?)

一本心靈書(出版201711月屬系列的第四本)中開悟的老師預言未來世界說:將來會有更多crazy people winning election(p.129)。之前在第一本2002出版書"再見娑婆"(The Disappearance of the Universe )曾說2012.12.21 非世界末日,但會有許多災變。(更重要的是開悟的老師說: 無論發生任何災變,勿忘寬恕:"just be ready to forgive no matter what.")

Toronto — Tell me if you’ve heard this before: The spoiled son of a sprawling business dynasty positions himself as an anti-elite populist. During a pivotal campaign, he brushes off a history of crude remarks as political incorrectness to the delight of his base. Then, running against the establishment of his own party and an evidently more qualified female candidate, he loses the popular vote but manages, by way of an arcane voting system, to take power.

No, I’m not rehashing the victory of President Trump. I’m describing the rise of Canadian politician Doug Ford, who this month was elected leader of the Progressive Conservative Party of Ontario, the right-of-center opposition in the country’s most populous province. With his party leading in the polls ahead of a June 7 election, Mr. Ford has a strong chance of becoming premier.

Trumpism, it seems, has migrated north.

Several years before the 2016 United States presidential campaign, Mr. Ford’s brother, the deceased former mayor of Toronto, Rob Ford, more or less invented the politics of boorish, divisive populism the American president has since mastered. Rob Ford figured out as early as 2010 that riding out scandal, while blaming the media and other unspecified “elites,” was a winning political strategy.

Torontonians forgave flaws in his character, appreciated them, even embraced them as signs of authenticity. It didn’t matter to his base that he smoked crack cocaine while in office. The Rob Ford era demonstrated that someone as shameless as Mr. Trump had a shot as a political figure.

Doug Ford is a more serious and self-disciplined version of his bumbling younger brother. He has resisted comparisons between himself and the president, but has also spoken fondly about The Donald. “Absolutely he respects women,” he said of the Republican presidential candidate in 2016. “There’s millions of women that have voted for him. So all those millions of women are dumb? I don’t think so.”

Mr. Ford, while much less addled than his brother was, has also been connected to Toronto’s underbelly, where Rob Ford spent so much of his time as mayor. The Globe and Mail newspaper reported in 2013 that Mr. Ford sold drugs throughout the better part of the 1980s. (He has never been charged and denies the allegations.) Thirty years later, if elected his government would be responsible for implementing Ontario’s new, legal recreational cannabis stores.

Overnight, the election of Mr. Ford crushed the smugness Canadians have been feeling since their prime minister, Justin Trudeau, appointed a cabinet of 50 percent women and became the envy of enlightened progressives the world over. The deep-seated cultural and political alienation at the root of Trump and Brexit is in full force in Canada as well.

Mr. Ford is already a front-runner. One poll has the Progressive Conservatives at 47 percent support and the incumbent Ontario Liberal Party at 26 percent. The latter, having ruled since 2003, has nearly 15 years’ worth of scandal to show for it. Rising inequality across the province, distaste for progressive rhetoric and the sense of a generalized corruption of politics as a whole is fueling, as elsewhere, a populism as inchoate as it is powerful.

And from Italy to the Philippines to Canada, this cannibalizing populism is swallowing traditional Conservatism whole. Mr. Ford snuck through to the leadership on a voting system that ranked ballots. He won neither the popular vote nor the greatest number of constituencies. But the Progressive Conservative machine is behind him already. It operates on inherited loyalties, antipathy against scandal-plagued opponents, time-for-a-change sentiments and basic self-interest.

EDITORS’ PICKS

 

Ideas were probably always somewhat irrelevant, so it hardly matters that the so-called Conservative parties aren’t conservative anymore. Or rather, Conservatism itself has changed. The Conservatism of law and order, of common decency and of fiscal responsibility has been rendered null and void. After the last provincial election, which the Liberals won handily, Mr. Ford, then a Toronto city councilor, prescribed “an enema from top to bottom” for the caucus he just inherited. The effluent is now lapping at his feet.

They may hope to change him. They won’t. Already, Mr. Ford, who has never held a seat in the Legislature, is boasting about a historically large victory in the offing. His bragging has an all-too familiar ring stateside. To stand with Mr. Ford is to express rage — and this rage will take its customary atavistic forms.

The current premier, Kathleen Wynne, the first lesbian elected to the post, introduced a modernized sex-education curriculum to the province’s public school systems. Just days after his election, Mr. Ford pledged to remove it, a policy that has support among some new immigrant communities, who tend to be more socially conservative.

He’s also running the standard Ford playbook. Elites are people who sip “Champagne with their pinkies in the air.” (His family’s label and packaging company is said to make tens of millions in annual sales.)

His infamous brother, when you get right down to it, was only the mayor of Toronto, which is not a very powerful position. Toronto’s “weak mayor” system ensures that its leader only gets one vote on the city council. In Canada, it’s actually the premier of a province who matters. His or her government regulates the schools and the public health care system. Do the people of Ontario really want a tin-pot northern Trump in charge of things that affect their daily lives? Canada’s Constitution calls for “peace, order and good government”; it is hard to imagine anyone who could fulfill that mandate less.

Mr. Ford’s sweep in as quiet and stable a place as Ontario points to a broader global crisis from which apparently there is no escape. Conservatism is no longer a political ideology in the recognized sense, but a repository of loathing and despair. It’s where people thrust their hatred of modernity — of globalism and multiculturalism and technocratic expertise, but also of the democracy that fostered those systems in the first place. By giving high office to buffoons, by choosing thugs as their representatives and by reveling in nastiness for its own sake, the Conservative brand now is principally a marker of contempt for political order itself.

Conservatism has meant many things to many people around the world. Now, just about everywhere, it looks a lot like a raised middle finger; Ford and friends are the latest to salute.

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

四維花園

林中斌 2018.3.26

 

 

 

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()

The Dirty Secret of America Nuclear Arms in Korea

Walter Pincus New York Times March 19, 2018

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/19/opinion/korea-nuclear-arms-america.html

accessed March 19, 2018

North Korea may be unreliable, but it was America that broke with the Korean armistice by introducing nuclear weapons into South Korea in 1958.
北韓 或許不可靠,然而是美國先破壞 韓戰停戰協定:1958年美國 部署核子武器進南韓。

As President Trump prepares for a possible meeting with Kim Jong-un, the North Korean leader, many Americans are raising warnings that North Korea has walked away from previous arms agreements. But those skeptics should remember that it was the United States, in 1958, that broke the 1953 Korean Armistice Agreement, when the Eisenhower administration sent the first atomic weapons into South Korea.

By the mid-1960s, the United States had more than 900 nuclear artillery shells, tactical bombs, surface-to-surface rockets and missiles, antiaircraft missiles and nuclear land mines in South Korea. Even nuclear projectiles for Davy Crockett recoilless rifles were for several years based in South Korea.

The presence of those American weapons probably motivated the North Koreans to accelerate development of their own nuclear weapons. Although all the tactical United States nuclear weapons were removed from South Korea in 1991, the Seoul government still remains under the American nuclear umbrella — and the impetus for Kim Jong-un to have his own remains, as it did for his father and grandfather.

“The danger that U.S. nuclear weapons might be used against the North has been a central principle in its strategic thought and actions ever since,” Joseph S. Bermudez Jr., a North Korea expert, wrote in a 2015 paper.

 

The 1953 Korean armistice, which halted three years of bloody fighting, contained a provision that prohibited new types of weapons or ammunition to be introduced into the peninsula by either the United States-led United Nations forces, or the North Korean and Chinese forces. The armistice agreement even set up inspection teams from neutral nations to monitor incoming weapons shipments.

Image

People marched through Pyongyang, North Korea, in July of 1958 demanding the withdrawal of U.S. forces from South Korea.CreditKeystone/Hulton Archive, via Getty Images

However, declassified United States documents describe in detail how the Eisenhower administration, worried about the cost of defending South Korea and the prowess of North Korea’s Chinese-backed military, agreed to send tactical nuclear weapons systems to South Korea. In return, the administration was hoping to get the Joint Chiefs of Staff to support reducing the number of American and South Korean troops on the peninsula that the United States was financing, at a cost of about $650 million a year for the Korean troops alone.

Planning to send the atomic weapons to South Korea began in 1956. A Nov. 28, 1956, meeting involving Defense and State Department officials was titled “Defense proposal to authorize the introduction of ‘Honest John’ and the 280 millimeter gun in Korea,” according to a declassified memorandum.

According to that memorandum, the Pentagon’s general counsel argued that American soldiers in South Korea “should be permitted to have weapons of dual capability” — noting that the Honest John rocket system and the 280-millimeter gun “have both conventional and atomic capability.”

The State Department’s legal adviser, Herman Phleger, responded that the two weapons systems “would be a violation” of the armistice agreement and could not be justified as a matter of “liberal interpretation.” He added that these nuclear-capable weapons “would create an imbalance” which would violate the spirit of the agreement, especially since American officials could not establish that the North Koreans had deployed atomic weapons.

EDITORS’ PICKS

Pentagon officials argued that the Joint Chiefs of Staff regarded the introduction of the Honest John and Davy Crockett systems as “essential from a military viewpoint.” In turn they suggested that the North, by obtaining new artillery weapons and high performance aircraft, had violated the agreement and freed the United States “to disregard its restrictions.”

According to notes from a National Security Council meeting on June 13, 1957, Adm. Arthur Radford, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, indicated that military planning for South Korea could not continue “without being able to count on the use of nuclear weapons.” Eisenhower agreed that jets capable of carrying nuclear weapons should be introduced into the South. But he also noted that if the United States introduced nuclear-capable Honest John rocket systems and 280-millimeter guns to the South, they would be “so conspicuous that you would have to explain their introduction to the whole world.”

On June 21, 1957, the senior official on the United Nations Command of the Military Armistice Commission, Maj. Gen. Homer L. Litzenberg, indicated that, given the North Koreans’ alleged violations, the command would no longer consider itself bound by certain limitations in the armistice agreement. The North Korean representative at the commission described General Litzenberg’s statement as an attempt “to wreck the armistice agreement and turn South Korea into an American base of atomic warfare.”

That day, the abrogation of the weapons prohibition was announced by the United Nations Command. The New York Times reported from Panmunjom, North Korea, that during a United Nations meeting, General Litzenberg had “left the door open for the introduction in South Korea of weapons capable of firing atomic warheads.” General Litzenberg declined to say what type of weapons the organizations planned to bring in.

However, that same day in Washington, the assistant secretary of defense for public affairs, Murray Snyder, told Pentagon reporters that no ground weapons capable of firing atomic warheads would be introduced. That turned out to be untrue.

At an Aug. 8, 1957, National Security Council meeting, Secretary of State John Foster Dulles said, according to meeting notes, that ending the Korea arms prohibitions “had been pretty well received throughout the Free World.” Secretary of Defense Charles Erwin Wilson said the plan to put nuclear weapons in South Korea, if adopted, “would be able to bring home approximately 8,000 American military personnel and we could cut out four active South Korean divisions, which would save us approximately $125 million a year.”

It took months to negotiate reduction of four South Korean divisions with Syngman Rhee, the South Korean president. But on Dec. 24, 1957, Army Secretary Wilber Brucker was authorized to introduce into Korea the Honest John and 280-millimeter gun “as soon as is feasible under Army deployment schedules.”

Three days later, the American Embassy in South Korea proposed announcing the arrival of the atomic-capable weapons, saying the news was “bound to become public knowledge.” The United Nations Command agreed, and at a news conference in Seoul on Jan. 28, 1958, the arrival of the atomic-capable weapons was announced. A United States Army spokesman refused to say how many cannons arrived and whether they were accompanied by atomic warheads. It was a two-paragraph story on page 3 of The New York Times.

Since then, Americans have forgotten this history and American politicians have only blamed North Korea for undermining arms agreements. Pyongyang has indeed been unreliable; but its leaders recall what happened in the 1950s, having spent 33 years facing American nuclear weapons just across the border in South Korea.

The United States does not come to any future talks with totally clean hands. Both sides have reasons to adopt Ronald Reagan’s advice: “Trust, but verify.”

 

 

林中斌 發表在 痞客邦 留言(0) 人氣()