(David Thornley) wrote in message m...

In article ,
Han Kim wrote:
While many historians had thought that the Soviets were reluctant
supporters duped by a unruly client, the declassified archives show
otherwise. The Soviets were doing their share of instigating and
were quite active in supporting the North Korean plans
to start a conventional attack on the South. The Korean War was
certainly not started behind Stalin's back.

I believe that the poster meant that the UN intervention was
started behind Stalin's back, and one implication is that Stalin
did not feel bound by it. (Not that Stalin would have necessarily
followed a UN resolution if he didn't agree with it.)

There is the possibility that the US could have intervened on
behalf of South Korea, without direct UN auspices. Again without
looking it up, I believe the UN charter allows the use of military
force in defense, and not only defense of one's own country.


Yes and No.
UN charter Article 51 says:
"Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual
or collective self-defense if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the
United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to
maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in
the exercise of this right of self-defense shall be immediately reported to
the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and
responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take
at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or
restore international peace and security. "

"the inherent right of individual or collective self-defense if an armed
attack occurs" is the right of all countries. The UN general secretary Annan
specially mentioned this article before US, UK by-lateral barbaric
invasion to Iraq in 2003. He meant that the US, UK invasion of cause
does not belong to this category and could not be classified as
legal defense according to UN charter. It is of cause a barbaric OFFENSE
invasion to an weak independent sovereign country.

According to this article, any country could help another country who is
invaded by the FOREIGN imperialists. For Example: France, UK declare war
against NZ Germany AFTER Hitler invaded Poland, China helped NK AFTER
US invaded Korea in 1950, US led Allies fought with Iraq AFTER Iraq
invaded Kuwait. Does USA army entering Korea belong to this category?
No. It was the Korea CIVIL WAR before USA invasion. USA army was
the FIRST FOREIGN army entered Korea CIVIL WAR. In 1950, including USA saw
Korea as a whole country. Both Korea governments also thought this way.
In late 1940s, USA initiated a resolution in UN to hold an election in
WHOLE Korea and the resolution was passed. So clearly Korea was viewed
by both USA and UN as an SINGLE independent country rather than two separate
countries. However, the elections were hold separately and two governments
were elected. So, before USA army invaded Korea, there was Korea CIVIL
WAR and the aggressor in the CIVIL war was NK. It is the internal affairs
of Korea and UN charter clearly prevent FOREIGN forces to intervene
the internal affairs of an independent country, especially military
invasion intervention. So it is crystal clear that USA intervention
was an invasion to Korea. Korea future should be decided by Korea people
and army rather than by foreign invasion army. If the Korea were two
separate countries and if both Korea governments, the world thought that
way, yes, USA could legal help country SK against country NK aggressive
attack. Same rules apply to the Vietnam war and so called protection to
Taiwan province of China against mainland Chinese government.

USA also had a famous civil war. If in this war any other country sent
army into US to fight either side, it clear was an imperialist invasion.
The fate of USA should be decided by the people of US rather than any
other nations' army.

But in the world, when some countries feel they are really strong, then
they ignore the international laws, the sovereignty of those weak
countries. In the last two centuries, we see a lot of this kind of
examples, e.g. western colonist history, NZ, JIA, the wars fought
in the second half of 20th century, Korea war, Vietnam war, invasion to
Panama in 1982, 1968 Prague Spring, USSR invasion to Afghanistan,
etc... Unfortunately, in the 21st century, we still see this kind of
invasion. The preemption conducted by JIA, NZ become official policy
of some countries though it clearly violate the international laws and
sovereignty of other countries. What a pity!

Have a nice weekend!

Dazuixia





--
David H. Thornley | If you want my opinion, ask.
| If you don't, flee.
http://www.thornley.net/~thornley/david/ | O-