[Peace-discuss] North Korea (fwd)

[patton paul]

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: 11 Dec 2002 08:13:59 -0000
From: "Susan Thompson, MoveOn.org" <moveon-help at list.moveon.org>
To: Dr. Paul Patton <ppatton at uiuc.edu>
Subject: North Korea

                               NORTH KOREA

MoveOn Peace Bulletin, International Edition
Wednesday, December 11, 2002
Susan V. Thompson, Editor
susan.thompson at moveon.org
Leah Appet, Editorial Assistant
leah at moveon.org

Read online or subscribe at:
http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub


CONTENTS
--------

 1. Introduction: A High Stakes Game
 2. One Link: North Korea Threat Part of US Regional Strategy
 3. Background
 4. Axis of Evil
 5. Nuclear Weapons Program
 6. Implications
 7. Credits
 8. About the Bulletin


INTRODUCTION: A HIGH STAKES GAME
--------------------------------
In 1994, the US and North Korea reached the brink of war when it was
discovered that North Korea was developing nuclear weapons. The crisis was
averted by the Agreed Framework negotiated by the Clinton administration,
which had North Korea promise to stop developing nuclear weapons in
exchange for two nuclear reactors, fuel oil aid, and improved relations.

Now North Korea has admitted to having a weapons program once again, after
being presented with evidence of North Korean nuclear activities by US
envoy James Kelly. The result has been global shock and confusion about
North Korea's motives. South Korean representatives have framed the
admission as part of North Korea's willingness to improve ties with the
outside world. Other analysts believe that it is part of a traditional
North Korean tactic of creating a crisis in order to force talks, and that
North Korea may be using its nuclear capacity as a bargaining chip--as
something to be exchanged for improved relations with the US or for aid.
For its part, the US has declared that the admission makes the 1994
agreement null and void, dismissing the North Korean perception that the
the US had already broken several of its own promises under the agreement,
including the building of two nuclear reactors in North Korea by 2003.

The UN's nuclear monitoring body, the International Atomic Energy Agency
(IAEA), has issued a call for North Korea to admit weapons inspectors as
soon as possible. However, the action cannot be enforced by the IAEA. It
must be enforced by the UN Security Council, which is currently focused
almost exclusively on Iraq. Even though the Bush administration and
several of its allies have opted to stop shipping fuel oil to North Korea
as a retaliation for the weapons program, there is still no talk of
forcing inspections; nor has the US said that it is considering military
retaliation if North Korea does not comply.

Considering the stance the US government is taking against Iraq, the
relative disregard of the North Korean threat is raising questions about
whether US foreign policy is inconsistent, or even hypocritical. The Bush
administration is considering taking pre-emptive military action against
Iraq based only on the unproven suspicion that Iraq has or could develop
chemical and nuclear weapons; yet it seems unwilling to threaten any
military action against North Korea even after North Korea has admitted to
having a weapons program. North Korea also has an "evil dictator" who
treats his people extremely poorly, and appears on the US list of
countries that support terrorism, yet there is little talk of "regime
change" for North Korea. Ari Fleischer, the White House spokesman, has
said that, "Not every policy needs to be put into a photocopier."

But what's the real reason that North Korea isn't high priority? It could
be because Iraq has oil, a resource which North Korea lacks. Or it could
simply be that the US has already committed so many diplomatic and
military resources to an attack on Iraq that it's virtually impossible to
back down and focus elsewhere at this point.

However, it's more likely that emphasizing North Korea's threat while not
aggressively pursuing military action against the country is serving US
strategic interests. How? According to several analysts, the US hopes to
use the threat from North Korea as a tactic to push through the building
of controversial missile defense systems in the area. Such missile
defenses would help contain the growing threat from China, the one country
that is developing enough economic and military strength to compete with
the US. This is a much more appealing strategy for the US than directly
attacking North Korea, which has its own army of 1.2 million and a strong
alliance with nuclear capable China.

By admitting that it has a uranium-enrichment program, it appears that
North Korea has quite literally called America's bluff. It remains to be
seen how the rest of the game will play out.


ONE LINK: NORTH KOREA THREAT PART OF US REGIONAL STRATEGY
---------------------------------------------------------
Journalists and pundits often complain that North Korea's motives are hard
to understand. We can guarantee that after reading this article, you will
have an excellent grasp on the current situation in North Korea. It
provides a clear and comprehensive explanation of the strategies being
played out in the region, including the relationship between North Korea,
Japan, China, and the US, specific US plans for missile defense systems in
the area, and why the broken promises of the 1994 Agreed Framework may
have prompted North Korea to admit to having a nuclear weapons program.

>From the article: "The Bush administration may not be interested in
removing North Korea from the threat list. A perceived North Korean threat
is necessary to justify building the Theater Missile Defense (TMD) system,
intended to counter China's growing military and political power. With
China's economy growing at seven percent, it is only a matter of time
before it dwarfs Japan in power and strategic influence. This worries
sectors of Japan's government, especially the military establishment, and
also concerns the Bush administration, who do not want to see U.S.
regional power and economic interests threatened by China. Since neither
the U.S. nor Japan are willing to admit to building the new missile system
to counteract a Beijing threat, North Korea is currently being used as the
primary reason for creating the TMD in Japan."

Includes a map.
http://www.yellowtimes.org/article.php?sid=920


BACKGROUND
----------
Basic information about North Korea (Note: North Korea is actually called
the Democratic People's Republic of Korea or DPRK.)
http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcnorthkorea.htm

Read this "letter from Pyongyang" for a look inside this secretive and
totalitarian country. According to the author, "The one thing that brings
foreign diplomats and international organizations to North Korea is
nuclear weapons, or at least the threat of nuclear weapons. Without a
nuclear program North Korea would be seen as nothing more than a tiny,
sparsely populated, hermit kingdom with a totalitarian regime. Although it
is starving, there would be little outcry and little attention would be
paid. But with a nuclear program in place, North Korea can command the
attention of the world, or at least those parts of it willing to trade aid
for nonproliferation." Although this letter was written in August, the
author accurately predicted that a resumption of the nuclear program would
come soon: "The nuclear deal's problem is that oil deliveries are far
behind, construction of the reactors is delayed, and the Bush
administration is unwilling to work constructively with Pyongyang, so
there is now a greater chance that Kim Jong Il will resurrect the nuclear
program for political purposes."
http://www.moveon.org/r?48

This is an excellent article which traces the military and diplomatic
maneuvers between North Korea and the US from 1950 until the last
presidential election. The main point of the article is that cooperative
threat-reduction works with North Korea. Apparently, North Korea has been
trying to reduce its enmity with the US since the '80s; it was a
misreading of North Korean strategy that almost led to war in 1994, since
the country actually only acts in response to US actions in a sort of
tit-for-tat diplomacy. If the US makes a concession, North Korea does so
as well. The author warns that although the advisors in the Bush
administration regard cooperation with disdain it is the only way to end
any threat from North Korea. As he says, "The way to eliminate the
nuclear, missile, and conventional threats from North Korea is to put an
end to enmity."
http://www.prospect.org/print/V12/15/sigal-l.html

"AXIS OF EVIL"
In his State of the Union address shortly after the events of Sept. 11,
President Bush named North Korea as part of his controversial "axis of
evil" along with Iraq and Iran.

According to Foreign Policy in Focus, the "axis of evil" remark was part
of a general tendency to ostracize North Korea despite the country's
attempts at cooperation. This may be part of the larger plan of using
North Korea as an excuse to develop the US military plans for the region,
which include building controversial missile defense systems in South
Korea. Even though this report was written in February 2002, before the
reported nuclear weapons admission, it predicted that 2003 would be the
breaking point for US-North Korea relations.
http://www.moveon.org/r?49

A month after calling North Korea part of the "axis of evil," President
Bush traveled to South Korea and laid the blame for lack of peace between
North and South Korea on North Korean leader Kim Jong Il. While Bush
supported South Korean President Kim Dae Jung's "sunshine policy" of
attempted reconciliation with North Korea, for which Kim received a Nobel
Peace Prize in 2000, he also said that the policy isn't working.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0221/p06s01-woap.html

North Korea is also listed as a supporter of terrorism by the US
government; this site explains why.
http://www.terrorismanswers.com/sponsors/northkorea2.html


NUCLEAR WEAPONS PROGRAM
-----------------------
In October, US Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly visited North
Korea on the first diplomatic US mission to the country since Bush's
infamous "axis of evil" speech. According to the US, when Kelly confronted
North Korea with evidence that it had been engaging in nuclear activities,
North Korean officials admitted that they had indeed been conducting a
uranium-enrichment program. The admission stunned the international
community.
http://www.moveon.org/r?50

The Federation of American Scientists (FAS) provides information on North
Korea's current weapons status, which includes an outline of the Agreed
Framework that North Korea has apparently broken, as well as a general
history of North Korea's weapons status.
http://www.fas.org/nuke/guide/dprk/nuke/index.html

In retaliation for North Korea's reported admission, in November the Bush
administration and its allies in the region announced their decision to
stop vital fuel oil aid to North Korea. President Bush demanded that North
Korea end its program but stated that there are no plans for military
action against North Korea. Unfortunately, the fuel oil aid will be cut
off just before the North Korean winter.
http://news.beststar.com/ll/english/1235486.shtml

Reportedly, during Kelly's visit, North Korea said it would end its
nuclear weapons program in exchange for a visit from President Bush, the
signing of a non-aggression treaty, a peace accord, and the lifting of all
economic sanctions (although this article focuses mainly on the visit from
President Bush.) According to Kelly, "If North Korea thinks that the
United States will agree to a new framework because it has broken the
Agreed Framework, then it is totally mistaken."
http://www.thestate.com/mld/thestate/news/world/4623390.htm

While North Korea has admitted to having a nuclear weapons program, no one
is sure whether the country has admitted to actually possessing nuclear
weapons. The difference in interpretation relies on one syllable of a
Korean news report. Amid international debate, a recent announcement from
North Korea claims that the original statement was that they are entitled
to have nuclear weapons, not that they already have them.
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=353576

There is a difference between having some enriched uranium and producing
an actual bomb, according to respected nuclear physicist Frank Barnaby.
According to Barnaby, "A programme could just be a few people thinking
about it."
http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99992938

The UN is already calling on the country to accept inspections. On
November 30th the International Atomic Energy Agency, the
nuclear-monitoring arm of the United Nations, called on North Korea to
abandon any nuclear weapons program it may have and accept a senior
inspecting team. The statement issued by the agency said that North
Korea's claim that it was entitled to nuclear weapons violated its
agreements under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty. However, no deadline
was issued, and the agency has no enforcing powers--any enforcement would
need to be done by the UN Security Council.
http://www.moveon.org/r?51

North Korea has rejected the call to admit inspections. The US continues
to emphasize that it will seek a diplomatic solution.
http://www.moveon.org/r?52

Interestingly, Pakistan may have aided North Korea with its nuclear
weapons program back in the '90s, by exchanging its enriched uranium
technology for North Korean missile technology. The Bush administration
may even have known this and kept quiet about it once Pakistan became its
ally in the "war on terrorism."
http://www.moveon.org/r?53


IMPLICATIONS
------------
In a very clear and useful article, CNN lists the "dramatic steps" that
North Korea has taken over the past year in an attempt to improve
relations with the rest of the world. According to the article, these
include:

  * Creating a capitalist-style "special administrative region" of
    Sinuijiu on the Chinese border.
  * Reconciling with neighbor South Korea through talks and the building
    of railway lines.
  * Admitting the abduction of Japanese citizens during the 1970s and
    early 80s, which has helped create trust between the two countries as
    Japan has worked on normalizing relations with North Korea.

According to CNN, the final goal of North Korea is to end tensions with
the US, by using its nuclear weapons program as a bargaining chip--i.e.,
North Korea will end its nuclear weapons program if the US will normalize
relations.
http://www.moveon.org/r?54

The reported admission of nuclear weapons capability by North Korea could
potentially cause two problems for the US. First, "that a new crisis might
erupt on the divided and heavily armed Korean peninsula, where 35,000 US
troops are stationed. It has been described as 'the most dangerous place
on Earth.' " Second, "that the restrained US reaction will lead to
accusations that America operates double standards in its dealings with
Iraq and North Korea, making the search for a tough United Nations
resolution against Saddam Hussein even trickier." The difficulty in
pursuing a direct policy in this case is compounded by the difficulty that
analysts are having understanding North Korea's motives.
http://www.independent.co.uk/story.jsp?story=343666

This great article makes the valuable point that the general
double-standard of the US is at play in the situation with Korea; namely,
that the US is allowed to have weapons of mass destruction, and its allies
are as well, but countries that do not support the US are not allowed to
have such weapons.

"President Kim Jong Il of North Korea has obviously failed to comprehend
that only those countries sanctioned by America and its close allies are
permitted to develop nuclear weapons in this unipolar world. Other nuclear
powers, such as India and Pakistan, are tolerated as long as they keep
their policies in line with those of Washington.

Still, all is not lost as North Korea is not Iraq, does not have oil and
further, does not have its sights on Washington's de facto protectorate,
Israel. It may, therefore, manage to escape the Bush administration's list
of potential targets for enforced regime change."
http://www.alternet.org/story.html?StoryID=14421


CREDITS
-------
Research team:
Dean Bellerby, Joanne Comito, Anna Gavula, Keiko Hatch, Russ Juskalian,
Maha Mikhail, Vicki Nikolaidis, Kim Plofker, Ben Spencer, Ora Szekely, and
Sharon Winn.

Proofreading team:
David Taub Bancroft, Madlyn Bynum, Carol Brewster, Melinda Coyle, Nancy
Evans, Anne Haehl, Mary Kim, Dagmara Meijers-Troller, and Alfred K. Weber.

ABOUT THE MOVEON PEACE BULLETIN AND MOVEON.ORG
----------------------------------------------
The MoveOn Peace Bulletin is a free, biweekly email bulletin providing
information, resources, and news related to important peace and
international issues. The full text of the MoveOn Peace Bulletin is online
at: http://www.peace.moveon.org/bulletin.php3#sub ; users can subscribe to
the bulletin at that address also.

MoveOn.org does not necessarily endorse all of the views espoused on the
pages that we link to, nor do we vouch for their accuracy. Read them at
your own risk.

The MoveOn Peace Bulletin is a project of MoveOn.org. MoveOn.org is a
US-based issue-oriented, nonpartisan, nonprofit organization that gives
people a voice in shaping the laws and policies that affect their lives.
MoveOn.org engages people in the civic process, using the Internet to
democratically determine a non-partisan agenda, raising public awareness
of pressing issues, and coordinating grassroots advocacy campaigns to
encourage sound national and international policies.

You can help decide the direction of MoveOn.org by participating in the
discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=223

To be kept informed about actions and campaigns, many of which are related
to bulletin topics, you can sign up for MoveOn's action updates, at:
http://www.moveon.org/keepmeposted/

---------------------------------------------------------
You can help decide the direction of the 9-11Peace campaign by
participating in the discussion forum at:
http://www.actionforum.com/forum/index.html?forum_id=224

This is a message from the 9-11peace campaign of MoveOn.org. To
remove yourself from this list, please visit our subscription
management page at:
http://www.moveon.org/subscrip/i.html?id=939-483317-S8QKwqDLwwVaBMgjWn3rAg