Keesing's World News Archives
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Keesing's World News Archives http://www.keesings.com/print/search?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print&kssp_search_... Keesing's Record of World Events (formerly Keesing's Contemporary Archives), Volume 29, November, 1983 South Korea, Soviet Union, Page 32513 © 1931-2006 Keesing's Worldwide, LLC - All Rights Reserved. Shooting down of South Korea airliner by Soviet fighter International repercussions Summary and key dates South Korea airliner shot down by Soviet fighter (Sept. 1 Soviet veto of draft UN security Council resolution (Sept. 12 European Parliament resolution critical of Soviet Union (Sept 15. Temporary ban by airline pilots on flights to and from Soviet Union agreed (Sept 6. Suspension of Aeroflot landing rights by many Western countries (mid-September) A South Korea Boeing 747 airliner was shot down by a Soviet fighter on the night of Aug. 31–Sept. 1, 1983, apparently while flying over the Soviet territory of Sakhalin (a large island in the Sea of Okhotsk, to the north of Japan), and all 269 passengers and crew were presumed to have died in the ensuing crash although only four bodies had been recovered from the sea by late October. The incident caused widespread protest (particularly among the non- communist countries of the world, but also from the People's Republic of China and from Yugoslavia) at what was felt to be an inadmissible use of Soviet military force against a civilian craft in peacetime, and many of these countries decided in the following weeks to impose retaliatory sanctions against the Soviet Union, such as the suspension of landing rights for the Soviet airline Aeroflot or the suspension of their own airlines” flights to and from the Soviet Union. Meanwhile investigations continued into the reasons for the airliner's presence over Soviet territory, although no clear conclusions had been reached by late October. While Western sources variously attributed the airliner's deviation from its planned route either to a failure of its navigational equipment or to an attempt by the pilot to save time and fuel by deliberately shortening the route, Soviet sources consistently maintained that it had instead been conducting an intelligence operation on behalf of the United States with the aim of establishing details of military installations in the area. In this connexion the United States authorities conceded on Sept. 5 that an American RC-135 reconnaissance aircraft had indeed flown a mission in the area on the night of the shooting, although they maintained that it had remained in international airspace throughout its mission and that it had landed on a Japanese island one hour before the shooting took place. The Boeing 747, belonging to Korean Air Lines, had been on flight KAL-007 from NewYork to Seoul (the South Korea capital) at the time of the shooting, and had made a refuelling stop at Anchorage (Alaska) before heading south-west along a course which should have taken it first across the North Pacific, to the east of the Kurile Islands, and then to the south-east of Hokkaido (the most northerly island of Japan) before crossing Japan to reach South Korea. Instead of this, according to the Japanese air traffic controllers, it veered off course after leaving Alaska and set a direct course for Seoul so that it passed over the Soviet territory of the Kamchatka Peninsula, then on into international airspace over the Sea of Okhotsk and finally across the island of Sakhalin where it was intercepted and later destroyed by the Soviet aircraft. There was considerable uncertainty as to the nationality of persons aboard the aircraft at the time of its destruction. A revised list issued on Sept. 4 by Korean Air Lines stated that, apart from the 29 crew members (all of whom were South Koreans), there had been 81 other South Koreans, 56 Americans, 28 Japanese, 23 citizens of Taiwan, 15 Filipinos, 13 residents of Hong Kong, 10 Canadians, six Thais, four Australians, one Swede, one Malaysian, one Indian and one Vietnamese citizen aboard; however, subsequent reports claimed that the number of US citizens had been 61, and also that a British citizen named as Mr Ian Powrie had been killed in the incident. Among the Americans was Mr Lawrence P McDonald (Democrat, Georgia), a member of the US House of Representatives. Mr George Shultz, the US Secretary of State, told a press conference in Washington on Sept. 1 that the aircraft had been destroyed over Sakhalin by a missile fired by one of eight Soviet fighters which, he claimed, had tracked it for some 2 1/2 hours across the Sea of Okhotsk but had made no attempt at communication with it before attacking. He said that the United States reacted “with revulsion” to this “appalling act” for which he saw “no excuse whatsoever”. President Reagan, who was on holiday at the time, issued a statement on Sept. 1 ordering the State Department to demand “an immediate and full account” of the incident from the Soviet Union, for which he said that that country owed an explanation to the world. He met the National security Council on Sept. 2, when he said that the “brutal” Soviet action indicated a “stark contrast… between Soviet words and deeds”, adding: “What can we think of a regime that so broadly trumpets its vision of peace and global disarmament and yet so callously and quickly commits a terrorist act to sacrifice the lives of innocent human beings?”. The then South Korea Foreign Minister, Mr Lee Bum Suk, said on Sept. 2 that his country was uncertain as to why the airliner had been off course but that its destruction had been a “shameless” and “savage” act; he called on the Soviet Union to apologize, to pay compensation for the loss of life and property and to “punish the perpetrators” of the attack, and he demanded a meeting of the United Nations security Council. [see below] Sir Geoffrey Howe, the British Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, summoned the Soviet ambassador to the United Kingdom, Mr 1 of 5 6/24/11 11:53 AM Keesing's World News Archives http://www.keesings.com/print/search?SQ_DESIGN_NAME=print&kssp_search_... Viktor Popov, on Sept. 2 to demand an apology, compensation and the punishment of the offending officers, although he stressed in a television interview later that day that the incident should not be allowed to disrupt the Geneva talks on arms control which were currently being conducted between the Soviet Union and the United States. [see 32460 A] It was also reported that the French, West German, Dutch and Japanese Governments had on Sept. 2 conveyed to the respective Soviet ambassadors in their countries the seriousness of their concern over the issue; the West German Government called the shooting “an inconceivable act of unsurpassed brutality”, while the French Government said that it “placed in question the principles which govern international relations and respect for human life”. The Italian Government referred to it as “a mad gesture of war” which could harm the Geneva talks, and the Belgian Foreign Ministry called it a “cynical action”. The Chinese Government on Sept. 2 expressed its “shock and regret” at the Soviet action, and the Australian and Canadian Governments voiced strong protests over the issue during the following days. The Netherlands cancelled a Soviet ministerial visit which had been planned for Sept. 13, and the French Government postponed (to Sept. 9–10) a proposed visit to Paris by Mr Andrei Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, which had been scheduled for Sept. 5–6. [For further cancellations of meetings with Soviet ministers and officials, see below.] Pope John Paul II on Sept. 2 expressed his shock at the incident and conveyed his “heartfelt condolences” to South Korea, but he refrained on the whole from further comment on the issue. Anti-Soviet demonstrations over the shooting were reported on Sept. 4 in South Korea, in Japan and in the United States. The Soviet news agency Tass stated on Sept. 1 only that “an unidentified plane” had twice violated Soviet airspace (i. e. over Kamchatka and then over Sakhalin) on the night of Aug. 31–Sept. 1, and claimed that it “did not have navigation lights, did not respond to queries and did not enter into contact with the despatcher service”; therefore, it said, Soviet fighters belonging to the anti-aircraft forces had attempted to guide the “intruder plane” to a Soviet airfield (as had also happened to a Korean Air Lines jet in April 1978–see 29060 A), but that it had ignored their signals and warnings and had proceeded towards the Sea of Japan. While confirming on Sept. 2 that a Soviet fighter had fired warning tracer shots at an “unidentified intruder plane”, it was not until Sept. 6 that Tass issued a revised government statement acknowledging that the Soviet pilot had “fulfilled the order of the command post to stop the flight” of the South Korea plane, after the latter had allegedly ignored attempts to communicate on the international emergency frequency [but see also below], and after it had also ignored warning tracer shells fired by his fighter. (Western press sources later maintained that the aircraft responsible for the attack, a Sukhoi-15, was not equipped with guns which could have fired tracer shells but was armed solely with two missiles, both of which were used in the shooting.) Tass insisted that the Soviet action had been “fully in keeping with the law on the state border of the USSR”, and added that its forces would “continue to act in keeping with [Soviet] legislation, which is fully in accord with international regulations”, insisting that the country had a right to protect its borders and its airspace.