Seoul to blame North Korea for warship attack: report

WASHINGTON Tue May 18, 2010 4:42pm EDT

The South Korean naval ship Cheonan is seen sunk near the Baeknyeong island off Incheon, west of Seoul, March 27, 2010. REUTERS/Ongjin County office/Handout

The South Korean naval ship Cheonan is seen sunk near the Baeknyeong island off Incheon, west of Seoul, March 27, 2010.

Credit: Reuters/Ongjin County office/Handout

Photo

Air strikes in Gaza

Our latest photos from the scene.   Slideshow 

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - South Korea will formally blame North Korea for sinking one of its navy ships in March, killing 46 sailors, The Washington Post reported on Tuesday.

Citing unidentified U.S. and East Asian officials, the newspaper said on its Web site Seoul had reached the conclusion that North Korea was responsible for the torpedo attack after investigators from Australia, Britain, Sweden and the United States pieced together portions of the ship.

The navy ship Cheonan sank on March 26 after an explosion on the vessel as it sailed in the Yellow Sea off South Korea's west coast.

The Post said the officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because South Korea had not yet disclosed the results of the investigation, said analyses showed the torpedo was identical to a North Korean torpedo previously obtained by South Korea.

The formal accusation is expected to be announced on Thursday and South Korea will ask the U.N. Security Council to take up the matter, Post sources said.

The White House said President Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myong-bak spoke about the Cheonan incident by telephone Monday night but did not disclose details of the investigation.

Lee thanked Obama for U.S. help in the investigation and Obama repeated the U.S. commitment to South Korea's security, a White House statement said.

South Korean officials had made little secret of their belief that Pyongyang, which has raised concerns around the world with its nuclear tests, was behind the attack.

The report comes amid a growing chill in relations between the rival Koreas, which remain technically at war under a truce that ended fighting in the 1950-1953 Korean War.

Seoul's belief in the North's involvement in the sinking of the Cheonan has also been a source of friction between Seoul and Beijing.

(Writing by Deborah Charles; editing by Doina Chiacu and Todd Eastham)

We welcome comments that advance the story through relevant opinion, anecdotes, links and data. If you see a comment that you believe is irrelevant or inappropriate, you can flag it to our editors by using the report abuse links. Views expressed in the comments do not represent those of Reuters. For more information on our comment policy, see http://blogs.reuters.com/fulldisclosure/2010/09/27/toward-a-more-thoughtful-conversation-on-stories/
Comments (12)
Docpolitx wrote:
Actually, such a public charge would signal a step forward in relations. I’m sure that before deciding onn this course of action, the South had to consider a reciprocal action, such as the sinking of a North Korean vessel by covert action. “Jaw, jaw is better than war, war.”

May 18, 2010 3:36pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
THeRmoNukE wrote:
If China will not rock Kim’s world now, then we have a new enemy.

May 18, 2010 4:09pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
bobrashman wrote:
All the papers are so quick to say North Korea is the culprit but my guess is that America was behind this. I say this because the timing of the sinking was exactly when Japan was being forced by it’s citizens to remove a US base from the Japan mainland. America needed to fear the Japanese people that there are real war fears to keep the base… and as a result of the sinking, the premier of Japan who had earlier promised to move the US base, changed his mind !

I’m saying that because America had such a huge motive for the sinking, they shouldn’t have been allowed to investigate and should have been on the top of the list of suspects. It’s only fair to all those died to make sure every rock is overturned.

May 18, 2010 4:46pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.