Sheridan confused logic

Comments on Greg Sheridan “Attack dog again crosses red line”, 25/11/2010, http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/attack-dog-again-crosses-red-line/story-e6frg6zo-1225960447172
Greg Sheridan often has some interesting but strange views on foreign affairs. For example, his second point (of realities) states "Two, China bears a great deal of responsibility for what is happening."

He elaborated later on the reasons as: "Second conclusion: China's responsibility. Rudd has focused on the need for Beijing to exercise maximum influence and restraint on North Korea. It would be unreasonable to hold Beijing responsible for every act of murder and insanity that Pyongyang undertakes. But it was instructive that Beijing prevented the UN from officially concluding that North Korea sank the Cheonan."

From this Sheridan was using the Cheonan as the basis, although he started with Rudd's call "for Beijing to exercise maximum influence and restraint on North Korea".

But I am afraid that Sheridan is having a confused logic here. Does Sheridan mean that had China adopted a different stance for the Cheonan incident North Korea would have not shelled the recent round?

It is interesting to see that the foreign affairs editor of The Australian has so little knowledge on regional international affairs and employ false and confused logic.

His biased and misleading views on foreign affairs appear to reflect an outdated mentality of the cold war era.

Cold war has long gone, but some legacies still linger on with some people. One reason may be that some people find it hard to learn new skills for the changed time, so they have to use what they have had.