Korean Job Discussion Forums

[Ya-ta Boy]

This is an interesting article from Asia Times Online. The end of it has a series of suggestions for bringing peace to NE Asia. What do you think?

How long will it be before you hear some of these points raised by South Koreans?


Why North Korea isn't talking
By An Sang Nam

(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)

PYONGYANG - Today, the situation in Northeast Asia surrounding the Korean peninsula is more inflamed than ever before. This causes great concern not only among all the Korean people, but also among people in the region. This urgent situation presses for steps to prevent a new war and ensure the peace and security in the region by concerted efforts of regional countries.

Rising tension
The US's hostile policy against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK) and its arms buildup constitutes a major factor threatening security in this region. The six-party talks have yet to be resumed and the resolution of the nuclear issue has been delayed. To all intents and purposes, this is the fault of the US.

Several times, the DPRK put a just demand to the US to change its hostile policy aimed at seeking "regime change" and shift its policy in favor of peaceful co-existence between the DPRK and the US. If the US does this, the nuclear issue can be resolved.

But the second Bush administration, like that of the first term, stipulated as its policy not to co-exist with the DPRK, but to "overturn" the system chosen by the Korean people themselves.

The Bush administration says that it is not hostile toward the DPRK and it doesn't intend to invade it. But it acts differently from what it says. It sets as its "overriding objective" "regime change" in the DPRK and remains persistent in employing double-faced tactics of stick and carrot for this purpose.

This is well proved by the fact that President George W Bush labeled the DPRK, defining it as part of the "axis of evil" and an "outpost of tyranny". Worse still, he slandered the supreme leadership of the DPRK.

It is well established that Bush, as soon as he took office, reneged on all dialogues and negotiations with the DPRK that the previous administration had held, and defined the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil" in his State of the Union address of late January 2002, and named it as a target of a US "preemptive nuclear strike" in March that same year.

This time, Bush, rather than retracting his labeling of his dialogue partner the DPRK as part of an "axis of evil", overstepped the mark, listing the state-chosen DPRK government as an "outpost of tyranny", defining it as the object to be removed. He thus made the DPRK fail to find any credible reason to participate in the six-way talks.

The US puts its dialogue partner in dishonor, though it says it wants to hold negotiations. All told, this is not what we call a sincere approach to resolving the nuclear issue.

The US is also massively deploying huge ultra-modern war hardware in south Korea under the pretext of "repositioning its forces". The repositioning of US troops in south Korea is part of a new war preparation based on the theory of "preemptive strike". [Editor's note: while North Koreans traditionally refer to their own country as the DPRK, they usually refer to the Republic of Korea as south Korea rather than South Korea or the ROK.]

The US announced in May 2003 an "arms buildup plan" with an envisaged investment of US$11 billion for south Korea. In mid-2004, it began deploying en masse its latest war hardware with an increased fund of $13 billion under the signboard of "relocation of combat forces".

The "arms buildup plan" is justified to fill the "security vacuum" to be caused by the "reduced US troops" in south Korea. This plan [has already been more than half realized].

The US earmarked a lion's share of its budget for the research of smaller nuclear weapons aimed to destroy underground bunkers of the DPRK and simulates dropping nuclear bombs by deploying in south Korea US Air Force planes stationed in Japan, Guam and other places, in addition to the US forces in south Korea. This fact is no longer considered secret. The US brings into south Korea the latest war hardware, the destructive power of which was tested in the aggressive war in Iraq.

The US, as it reinforces its armed forces in south Korea, commits itself to continued joint military exercises on a large-scale basis against the DPRK. Last March, the US and belligerent forces in south Korea staged in the whole area of south Korea joint military exercises codenamed "Foal Eagle". Such military exercises are, to all intents and purposes, a nuclear war rehearsal with its eye on the north, and include massive participation of elite forces in south Korea , the US mainland, and overseas and other nuclear strike forces such as aircraft carriers.

Through such exercises, the US pursues efforts to upgrade maneuverability beyond the Korean peninsula at a moment's notice, not making its operational field confined to the DPRK, but is designed in the light of the changed mission of US forces in south Korea to become a "mobile force in the wider region".

To cope with the grave situation created by the US hostile policy toward the DPRK, the DPRK on February 10 clarified that it was compelled to suspend its participation in the six-party talks for an indefinite period until there was justification for it to attend and there were ample conditions and atmosphere to expect positive results from the talks. The DPRK also took a measure to bolster its nuclear weapons arsenal in order to protect the ideology, system and democracy chosen by its people as the US disclosed its attempt to topple the political system in the DPRK at any cost.

It is quite natural to respond to nukes in kind.

Aggravating the regional situation
China now increases its influence in Asia. South Korea is at loggerheads with the US over the "security issue". What the US is cooking in this situation is a proxy war in which countries in Northeast Asia turn their backs and fight each other. For this, the Bush administration tries to put in place a structure of confrontational containment against the DPRK and China by the US, Japan and south Korea.

Recently, the US fans Japan over Tokdo islet, sacred territory of Korea, and Tokyo's bid for permanent membership on the UN Security Council. This puts a great spur to Japan in its undisguised bid to seize territories of other countries and distort history.

The US does not like to see the Korean nation moving toward reunification hand-in-hand and tries by all possible means to put a fifth wheel in the smooth development of inter-Korean relations. This year alone, the US has put pressure on the south Korean authorities to "keep pace with the speed of economic cooperation" and "make it clear on the conception of a principal enemy".

All the facts prove that the US does not seek reconciliation and cooperation between the north and the south of Korea and security in Northeast Asia, but instead seeks confrontation between the north and the south.

How to ensure security

First, in order to ease tension in Northeast Asia and ensure regional peace and security, it is essential for the US to renounce its hostile policy toward the DPRK and co-exist with it in peace.

The nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US is a product of the Bush administration's extreme hostile policy. Such being the case, the key to this resolution lies in the US changing its hostile policy into a policy for peaceful co-existence between the DPRK and the US. As long as the US does not change its hostile policy against the DPRK, we can neither expect regional peace and stability nor the resolution of the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US.

It is par for the course that the US should apologize and withdraw what it said about the DPRK "ending its tyranny" and gives up its hostile policy aimed at "regime change" in the DPRK. It also should make clear its political will to move toward peaceful co-existence. Through all this, the US should put its money where its mouth is.

The DPRK remains unchanged in its principled stand and maintains its overriding objective: to denuclearize the Korean peninsula and resolve the nuclear issue peacefully through dialogue and negotiations.

The DPRK is prepared to participate in the six-way talks at any time if the US provides the DPRK with conditions and justification for the resumption of the six-party talks without disregarding the DPRK. The switchover of the US policy from hostility toward the DPRK to one of peaceful co-existence with the DPRK and a complete solution to the nuclear issue between the DPRK and the US will naturally bring about settlement of the security issue in Northeast Asia.

Second, one way of ensuring regional security is that those countries interested in the security in Northeast Asia and linked to the continent meet to discuss the issue of security. The master of Northeast Asia is the countries and people in this region. They are deeply interested in this security and have the potential and capacity to be responsible for regional peace and security. That is why it is very important for these countries to meet to discuss the issue of regional security. As the US is across the ocean and Japan is away from the continent, they have no interest in the peace and security of Northeast Asia - nor can they have any responsibility for them.

Third, it is possible to ensure the security of Northeast Asia only when all aggressive forces deployed in this region are completely removed. In order to ensure regional security, US forces along with all its lethal weapons must be withdrawn from this region and US interference in the internal affairs of other countries be terminated.

Fourth, the militarism of Japan must be checked at any cost. Japan's ambition to beautify and justify its dirty history of aggression, to grab the territory of other countries and step up preparations to reinvade Asia must be frustrated at all costs as it is a very dangerous development from the viewpoint of peace in Asia and the rest of the world.

The DPRK, as a responsible country located in Northeast Asia, will make every possible effort to ensure regional peace and security, as it did in the past.

An Song Nam is senior researcher at the Institute of Disarmament and Peace, Pyongyang, DPRK. This paper was originally presented at the 19th Asia-Pacific roundtable that was recently held in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. Opinions expressed are solely those of the author.

(Used by permission of Pacific Forum CSIS)

*********
Among the most objectionable parts of this article are the claims that the US is behind Japanese claims to Tokto and that the Japanese are making plans to reinvade Asia. Both these ideas are silly. Cynical, but silly. Too bad some people believe them.

[Cthulhu]

A couple of years ago I was unhappy with Bush's aggressiveness towards North Korea as well as the whole Axis of Evil bit. I'm still not happy as it applies to Iran and Iraq. North Korea, on the other hand, are so far out in left field they'll never actually come to the table without these bizarre demands and complaints tagging along. I don't blame Bush for a hard line on North Korea because we've seen what the carrots will bring, aka the Sun-shite Policy of Kim Dae-jung. This is one case where Bush's rhetoric is nothing compared to the stuff coming from Pyongyang.

[mithridates]

Don't forget though that in spite of their pitiful human rights record and whacked-out rhetoric, all North Korea has ever asked for is two-party talks and a guarantee that the US won't invade, which they won't give.

[Cthulhu]

I honestly don't think the U.S. should give North Korea a guarantee not to attack simply because I can see a number of situations arising where it might because necessary--not now, but in the future. I hope it never happens and I wouldn't want to see Bush doing it in a similar manner to that in Iraq, but I consider Pyongyang to be far more unpredictable (and dangerous) than Bahgdad. By the way, did the U.S. not guarantee to invade or to attack? It's an important distinction for us if not for the North Koreans. Even the Chinese don't expect an invasion to happen and they are the ones who should care:

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/08/30/world/main570918.shtml

I thought the U.S. just wouldn't sign the nonaggression pact but maybe I missed something more recent.

Anyway, the armistice works both ways, and North Korea has constantly reiterated its threat to attack both South Korea and Japan, so why do this unilaterally?

As far as the one on one talks goes, North Korea already walked away from the six party talks so it's not as if they haven't agreed to talks before. On top of this I don't see why the U.S. should be shouldered with all the responsibility for dealing with North Korea. China, Japan, South Korea and even Russia have vested interests and their own issues in the matter--China in particular. China already entered the war once to ensure North Korea's survival. North Korea is as strategically important to them as it is to America; the only difference is that they can keep their troops in China and pretend that America is the only nation keeping the peninsula on high alert.

On top of this the U.S. keeps holding out the carrot as long as the North goes for talks. I just don't think the ball in in America's court here.

[Ya-ta Boy]

I agree with Cthulhu on this one.

The North insists on one-on-one talks. Why? I think it's because of something in the article:

[Kuros]

Asia Times Online also publishes articles regularly by an Iranian teaching in Tehran who habitually bashes the Bush administration. I treat this article (written by someone on the DPRK dole) as having the same dimensions for humor.

[Ya-ta Boy]