The Dangers of War: What is Behind the US-North Korea Conflict?
What’s happening between the U.S. and North Korea to produce such headlines this week as “Korean Tensions Escalate,” and “North Korea Threatens U.S.”?
The New York Times reported March 30:
“This week, North Korea’s young leader, Kim Jung-un, ordered his underlings to prepare for a missile attack on the United States. He appeared at a command center in front of a wall map with the bold, unlikely title, ‘Plans to Attack the Mainland U.S.’ Earlier in the month, his generals boasted of developing a ‘Korean-style’ nuclear warhead that could be fitted atop a long-range missile.”
The U.S. is well aware North Korea’s statements are not backed up by sufficient military power to implement its rhetorical threats, but appears to be escalating tensions all the same. What’s up? I’ll have to go back a bit to explain the situation.
Since the end of the Korean War 60 years ago, the government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) has repeatedly put forward virtually the same four proposals to the United States. They are:
1. A peace treaty to end the Korean War.
2. The reunification of Korea, which has been “temporarily” divided into North and South since 1945.
3. An end to the U.S. occupation of South Korea and a discontinuation of annual month-long U.S-South Korean war games.
4. Bilateral talks between Washington and Pyongyang to end tensions on the Korean peninsula.
The U.S. and its South Korean protectorate have rejected each proposal over the years. As a consequence, the peninsula has remained extremely unstable since the 1950s. It has now reached the point where Washington has used this year’s war games, which began in early March, as a vehicle for staging a mock nuclear attack on North Korea by flying two nuclear-capable B-2 Stealth bombers over the region March 28. Three days later, the White House ordered F-22 Raptor stealth fighter jets to South Korea, a further escalation of tensions.
Here is what is behind the four proposals.
1. The U.S. refuses to sign a peace treaty to end the Korean War. It has only agreed to an armistice. An armistice is a temporary cessation of fighting by mutual consent. The armistice signed July 27, 1953, was supposed to transform into a peace treaty when “a final peaceful settlement is achieved.” The lack of a treaty means war could resume at any moment. North Korea does not want a war with the U.S., history’s most powerful military state. It wants a peace treaty.
2. Two Koreas exist as the product of an agreement between the USSR (which borderd Korea and helped to liberate the northern part of country from Japan in World War II) and the U.S., which occupied the southern half. Although socialism prevailed in the north and capitalism in the south, it was not to be a permanent split. The two big powers were to withdraw after a couple of years, allowing the country to reunify. Russia did so; the U.S. didn’t. Then came the devastating three-year war in 1950. Since then, North Korea has made several different proposals to end the separation that has lasted since 1945. The most recent proposal, I believe, is “one country two systems.” This means that while both halves unify, the south remains capitalist and the north remains socialist. It will be difficult but not impossible. Washington does not want this. It seeks the whole peninsula, bringing its military apparatus directly to the border with China, and Russia as well.
3. Washington has kept between 25,000 and over 40,000 troops in South Korea since the end of the war. They remain — along with America’s fleets, nuclear bomber bases and troop installations in close proximity to the peninsula — a reminder of two things. One is that “We can crush the north.” The other is “We own South Korea.” Pyongyang sees it that way — all the more so since President Obama decided to “pivot” to Asia. While the pivot contains an economic and trade aspect, its primary purpose is to increase America’s already substantial military power in the region in order to intensify the threat to China and North Korea.
4. The Korean War was basically a conflict between the DPRK and the U.S. That is, while a number of UN countries fought in the war, the U.S. was in charge, dominated the fighting against North Korea and was responsible for the deaths of millions of Koreans north of the 38th parallel dividing line. It is entirely logical that Pyongyang seeks talks directly with Washington to resolve differences and reach a peaceful settlement leading toward a treaty. The U.S. has consistently refused.
These four points are not new. They were put forward in the 1950s. I visited the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea as a journalist for the (U.S.) Guardian newspaper three times during the 1970s for a total of eight weeks. Time after time, in discussions with officials, I was asked about a peace treaty, reunification, withdrawal of U.S. troops from the south, and face-to-face talks. The situation is the same today. The U.S. won’t budge.
Why not? Washington wants to get rid of the communist regime before allowing peace to prevail on the peninsula. No “one state, two systems” for Uncle Sam, by jingo! He wants one state that pledges allegiance to — guess who?
In the interim, the existence of a “bellicose” North Korea justifies Washington’s surrounding the north with a veritable ring of firepower in the northwest Pacific close enough to almost, but not quite, singe China. A “dangerous” DPRK is also useful in keeping Japan well within the U.S. orbit. It also is another excuse for once-pacifist Japan to boost its already formidable arsenal.
In this connection I’ll quote from a Feb. 15 article from Foreign Policy in Focus byChristine Hong and Hyun Le: “Framing of North Korea as the region’s foremost security threat obscures the disingenuous nature of U.S. President Barack Obama’s policy in the region, specifically the identity between what his advisers dub ‘strategic patience,’ on the one hand, and his forward-deployed military posture and alliance with regional hawks on the other. Examining Obama’s aggressive North Korea policy and its consequences is crucial to understanding why demonstrations of military might — of politics by other means, to borrow from Carl von Clausewitz — are the only avenues of communication North Korea appears to have with the United States at this juncture.”
Here’s another quote from ANSWER Coalition leader Brian Becker:
“The Pentagon and the South Korean military today —and throughout the past year — have been staging massive war games that simulate the invasion and bombing of North Korea. Few people in the United States know the real situation. The work of the war propaganda machine is designed to make sure that the American people do not join together to demand an end to the dangerous and threatening actions of the Pentagon on the Korean Peninsula.
“The propaganda campaign is in full swing now as the Pentagon climbs the escalation ladder in the most militarized part of the planet. North Korea is depicted as the provocateur and aggressor whenever it asserts that they have the right and capability to defend their country. Even as the Pentagon simulates the nuclear destruction of a country that it had already tried to bomb into the Stone Age, the corporate-owned media characterizes this extremely provocative act as a sign of resolve and a measure of self-defense.”
And from Stratfor, the private intelligence service that is often in the know:
“Much of North Korea’s behavior can be considered rhetorical, but it is nonetheless unclear how far Pyongyang is willing to go if it still cannot force negotiations through belligerence.”
The objective of initiating negotiations is here taken for granted.
Pyongyang’s “bellicosity” is almost entirely verbal — several decibels too loud for our ears, perhaps — but North Korea is a small country in difficult circumstances that well remembers the extraordinary brutality Washington visited up the territory in the 1950s. Millions of Koreans died. TheU.S. carpet bombings were criminal. North Korea is determined to go down fighting if it happens again, but hope their preparedness will avoid war and lead to talks and a treatry.
Their large and well-trained army is for defense. The purpose of the rockets they are building and their talk about nuclear weapons is principally to scare away the wolf at the door.
In the short run, the recent inflammatory rhetoric from Kim Jong-un is in direct response to this year’s month-long U.S.-South Korea war games, which he interprets as a possible prelude for another war. Kim’s longer run purpose is to create a sufficiently worrisome crisis that the U.S. finally agrees to bilateral talks and possibly a peace treaty and removal of foreign troops. Some form of reunification could come later in talks between north and south.
I suspect the present confrontations will simmer down after the war games end. The Obama Administration has no intention to create the conditions leading to a peace treaty — especially now that White House attention seems riveted on East Asia where it perceives an eventual risk to its global geopolitical supremacy.
Jack A. Smith, editor of Activist Newsletter
Washington’s lies exposed: Background to the Korean crisis
To listen to the U.S. government and the big business media talk about how the Pentagon is sending all its firepower to the north Pacific to protect Washington and its allies, you would think that the real threat in the world was the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea — north Korea — a country with 25 million people.
You would not know that the Pentagon colossus has 6,000 nuclear weapons and a war machine bigger and more powerful than the rest of the world’s militaries combined, with military bases in over 100 countries.
You might think that it was the DPRK that had 25 military bases in Mexico or Canada poised to invade the U.S., or that the DPRK has 1,000 nuclear missiles in the region capable of targeting every major city in the U.S. You might think the DPRK was carrying out war exercises on the U.S. border, with tens of thousands of troops practicing the invasion and occupation of Washington and the rest of the country.
Is Washington’s alarm caused by the DPRK air force flying nuclear-capable stealth bombers near the Canadian border, simulating nuclear bomb drops? Are the DPRK’s naval forces carrying out exercises with missile ships, amphibious landing vehicles, destroyers and anti-missile defense systems in the Chesapeake Bay, practicing for landing and occupation?
Nope. It’s just the other way around.
The Pentagon has sent its forces halfway around the world to waters and land surrounding the DPRK. They are doing all the above, “practicing” for the destruction of the DPRK and the overthrow of its socialist government.
In an article entitled “North Korea May Actually Think a War Is Coming,” cnbc.com, no friend of the DPRK, on Feb. 22 refuted the idea that the leadership of the DPRK is just drumming up war and/or imagining things.
U.S. escalated war exercises
The article pointed out that the DPRK’s military defensive activities have been driven by reality. For example:
“The first joint military exercises between the U.S. and South Korea since the death of Kim Jong-il suddenly changed their nature, with new war games including preemptive artillery attacks on North Korea.
“Another amphibious landing operation simulation took on vastly larger proportions following Kim Jong-il’s death.” The sheer amount of equipment deployed was amazing: 13 naval vessels, 52 armored vessels, 40 fighter jets and 9,000 U.S. troops.
“South Korean officials began talking of Kim Jong-il’s death as a prime opportunity to pursue a regime-change strategy.
“South Korea unveiled a new cruise missile that could launch a strike inside North Korea and is working fast to increase its full-battery range to strike anywhere inside North Korea.
“South Korea openly began discussing asymmetric warfare against North Korea.
“The U.S. military’s Key Resolve Foal Eagle computerized war simulation games suddenly changed, too, simulating the deployment of 100,000 South Korean troops on North Korean territory following a regime change.
“Japan was brought on board, allowing the U.S. to deploy a second advanced missile defense radar system on its territory and the two carried out unprecedented war games.
“It is also not lost on anyone that despite what on the surface appears to be the U.S.’ complete lack of interest in a new South Korean naval base that is in the works, this base will essentially serve as an integrated missile defense system run by the U.S. military and housing Aegis destroyers.”
Success of DPRK nuclear tests threw off imperialist war plans
So the plan to overthrow the government of the DPRK has been in the works since the death of the previous leader of the country, Kim Jong Il, in 2012. This was regarded as an opening by U.S. imperialism, its south Korean puppet regime and its imperialist allies in Tokyo to seize the DPRK by military force and reunify the country on a capitalist basis.
They have been actively planning this for months. But the DPRK’s successful tests of nuclear weapons and a missile delivery system in February of this year threw off the plans of the unholy Pentagon-created alliance of Washington, Tokyo and Seoul, which then drastically escalated the level of their menacing joint war “games.”
It is perfectly clear from these circumstances why the Workers’ Party of Korea in its March plenum of this year declared that the DPRK has “a new strategic line on carrying out economic construction and building nuclear armed forces simultaneously under the prevailing situation.” (www.kcna.co, March 31)
Nuclear deterrent not a ‘bargaining chip’
The KCNA release stressed that “the party’s new line is not a temporary countermeasure for coping with the rapidly changing situation but a strategic line. …
“The nuclear weapons of Songu Korea are not goods for getting U.S. dollars and they are neither a political bargaining chip nor a thing for economic dealings to put on the table of negotiations aimed at forcing the DPRK to disarm itself. …
“The DPRK’s nuclear armed forces represents the nation’s life, which can never be abandoned as long the imperialists and nuclear threats exist on earth.”
There were many very important resolutions passed at the Party’s plenary session on the economic development of the country, including developing light industry, agriculture and electrification. But the central resolution has served notice on Washington, the U.N. Security Council, Tokyo and Seoul that the DPRK is not willing to re-enter the U.S.-sponsored “negotiating process” of maneuver and deceit, whose guiding aim since 1994 has been to keep the DPRK from gaining any type of nuclear capability while Washington builds up its military forces in the region.
1994 Agreed Upon Framework and U.S. deception
Washington claims to be acting in “defense,” but it is because of actions by the Pentagon that the DPRK has had to develop a nuclear deterrent.
In 1994, after the Clinton administration went to the brink of war against the DPRK, Washington and Pyongyang signed the Agreed Upon Framework, under which the DPRK was to refrain from nuclear development and Washington would end economic sanctions, contribute financial aid, aid to agricultural development, would build light water nuclear reactors to provide electricity and would provide fuel oil until the reactors were completed and operating. Tokyo and Seoul were supposed to participate in the project.
The two countries were pledged to a nonhostile relationship and to the normalization of relations.
Clinton only agreed to the Framework because the USSR had collapsed, the DPRK’s legendary founder Kim Il Sung had just died in 1994, and Washington was expecting the government and the socialist system to collapse long before the agreement was to be carried out.
But the years passed and the DPRK survived under the leadership of Kim Jung Il, despite all the hardships caused by the collapse of the USSR and natural disasters that threatened the food supply. Neither the government nor the socialist system collapsed, due both to the leadership and to the determination of the masses to withstand all the difficulties they faced.
The U.S. sanctions were not ended; the fuel oil lagged far behind in delivery, through cold winters; no work was done on the light water reactors. Yet the DPRK kept its end of the bargain and refrained from nuclear development, both peaceful and military.
Meanwhile, Washington continued with “war games” in the south, reorganizing its forces in the region to be in a better defensive and offensive military position. The DPRK watched the U.S. nuclear monster getting more and more threatening.
‘Axis of Evil’ threats
In January 2002, President George W. Bush declared that the DPRK was part of an “axis of evil” along with Iraq and Iran. Members of this supposed “axis of evil” were subject to preemptive U.S. military attack. In its Nuclear Posture Review later that year revising U.S. nuclear policy, the Bush administration declared that the DPRK , among others, could be subject to a first strike nuclear attack.
So much for “nonhostile” relations.
The light water nuclear reactors that were fundamental to the agreement were supposed to have been operational by 2003. But they were not started until August 2002 and were abandoned at the end of the year, when the U.S. tried to frame up the DPRK with false charges that it was developing nuclear fuel.
Due to the betrayal of the U.S., the Agreed Upon Framework collapsed by 2003. The DPRK withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty and embarked upon its own nuclear development. But it had lost almost a decade of development of a nuclear military deterrent, while the military threats to its existence increased. Washington had bombed Iraq and overthrown its government. It was threatening Iran. Developing a deterrent became urgent.
Even after this record of betrayal, the DPRK agreed to six-party talks in 2003 that also involved China, the U.S., Japan, Russia and south Korea. Under pressure, the DPRK in 2005 once again agreed to suspend its nuclear development in retur
(Message over 64 KB, truncated)