(EDITORIAL from the Korea Times on Nov. 12)

Aftermath of clash
Koreas should talk to prevent escalation or recurrence

The inter-Korean naval battle on Tuesday couldn't have come at a worse moment as
the two sides are about to shift from confrontation to conversation.

It was comforting that no South Korean soldiers were killed or wounded during the
first armed clash with the North on the West Sea in seven years. Depending on how
the two Koreas deal with its aftermath, however, the biggest casualty could be
their barely thawing relationship.
No one knows for sure whether the intrusion by a North Korean patrol boat was a
contingency or a calculated move, so Defense Minister Kim Tae-young was prudent
enough when he didn't rule out the possibility of an accident. President Lee
Myung-bak was also right to call for a firm but calm stance so as to not
aggravate the situation any further.
Some defense experts echoed those sentiments, cautioning that something was
missing from being able to conclude that it was a premeditated provocation, as
the intruder was a single patroller, and did not even use large-caliber guns
during its counterattack.
Many others seem to have no doubt that it was an intentional act, however, as the
North Korean ship ignored the repeated transmission of warning messages from
South Korean vessels and made sighting shots in comparison with the latter's
warning shots. They then quickly jumped to guess the motives behind Pyongyang's
actions, such as ratcheting up tensions prior to President Obama's visit to Korea
and the impending resumption of bilateral nuclear talks with Washington.
These inter-Korean hawks may be right, but that should not preclude other
possibilities, however slim their chances may be. Retired Navy officers say
communication problems often happen at sea, and most soldiers cannot
differentiate warning shots from direct attacks once they are hit first. So the
first thing the military should do is to carefully analyze what happened,
preferably by meeting with their North Korean counterparts.
None of this is to deny the soldiers' brave and correct countermoves, but one
might as well question whether the new, revised rules of engagement that grant
greater discretion to field commanders as well as stress the need for resolute
and decisive retaliation might be behind what could prove to be an overreaction.
The social atmosphere under the Lee administration to make heroes of the dead
sailors during previous West Sea clashes in a movie also could have exerted some
influence on the soldiers' subconsciousness.
As long as the so-called Northern Limit Line remains as it is now, similar
clashes could happen again anytime, so it is urgent for the Koreas to sit down
together and narrow their differences on the maritime demarcation line set
unilaterally by the U.S.-led allies in the early 1950s, which the communist
regime has never accepted but only tacitly recognized as a sea border.
Needless to say, these military skirmishes could have been prevented in the first
place had the Koreas discussed the creation of a peace zone or joint fishing area
on the disputed waters by respecting the two summit agreements.
No one can deny that the armed forces' existence is to repel enemy provocations.
There are times, however, when cool diplomacy should be placed ahead of hot
bravery, as history shows many of the tragic wars have been sparked by minor
incidents.
(END)