Two divergent paths have emerged as possibilities for the next step in the crisis with North Korea. One is the path that leads toward a new round of negotiations with the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, or North Korea, in its new capacity as the ninth acknowledged country that possesses nuclear weapons. The other path leads in the direction of confrontation and even war in the heavily militarized Korean peninsula.
The North Korean government had announced its intention to acquire nuclear weapons to defend itself from the United
|
Although neither side wants a full scale war, the progressive movement should understand that the situation could change dynamically if the United States begins interdicting, boarding or seizing North Korean vessels.
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice indicated in Seoul, South Korea on Oct. 19 that Washington’s public position is in the direction of diplomacy. The official U.S. position for the moment is that it seeks the resumption of six-party talks that last took place in November 2005. The six parties are the United States, China, Russia, Japan, South Korea and North Korea.
As she traveled to Japan, China and South Korea this week, Rice told reporters, “What I do think is very important is that everyone take stock of the leverage that we have to get North Korea to return to the six-party talks and to negotiate serious the dismantlement of its nuclear weapons program.” (NPR, Oct. 19)
Rice also said, “The U.S. has no desire to do anything to escalate the situation. We want to leave open the path of negotiation, we don’t want the crisis to escalate.” (The China Daily, Oct. 20)
While initially calling for bilateral negotiations with the United States, North Korean General Ri Chan Bok recently said that, as long as sanctions were lifted, North Korea would take part in either bilateral or six-party talks. (ABC News Good Morning America, Oct. 19)
The issue of financial sanctions imposed on North Korea by the U.S. government is critical.
Background to the six-party talks
The six-party talks began in August 2003, less than two years after President George W. Bush included North Korea as part of the “axis of evil” in his January 2002 State of the Union address.
This open threat of aggression was followed by an act of economic war in November 2002 when the United States, Japan and South Korea stopped delivering oil supplies to North Korea. The oil supplies were being delivered as part of the 1994 General Framework Agreement between the United States and North Korea.
Threats and action against North Korea continued. On April 9, 2003, John Bolton, then the under secretary of state for arms control, said that Iran, Syria and North Korea should “draw the appropriate lesson from Iraq.” Bolton said this on the day of the “fall of Baghdad.”
After its foreign oil supplies were cut off, North Korea did not simply wait to see what the imperialists had in store for them—they took decisive counter-measures.
North Korea removed International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors and monitoring equipment from the country in December 2002. The next month, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty.
In February 2003, North Korea announced the reactivation of its nuclear power facilities. The country then test fired two missiles into the Sea of Japan in February and March of 2003.
In August 2003, Six Party Talks involving North Korea, South Korea, the United States, Japan, China and Russia began. Although not without disruption and controversy, the talks continued in February and June 2004, and from July to November 2005.
At the September 2005 round, the parties agreed to issue a joint statement and to meet again in November. The statement included an agreement from North Korea to once again to freeze its nuclear weapons program in exchange for agreements on economic cooperation in energy, trade and investment.
Just days after the agreement was reached, however, the U.S. Treasury Department took new aggressive steps. It
|
Other banks suspended or limited their dealings with North Korea soon thereafter. These actions effectively curtailed the north’s ability to conduct international commerce. The moves amounted to an unofficial imposition of financial sanctions.
The November round of the six-party talks took place as scheduled. But no additional meetings have occurred. In April 2006, North Korea made clear that it would resume talks only if Washington lifted the financial sanctions. Top nuclear negotiator Kim Kye-gwan said, “The minute we have the funds. … I will be at the talks.” (BBC, April 13)
War by economic means
Washington still has not lifted the financial sanctions against North Korea.
Economic and financial sanctions are currently being tightened. This is happening despite Rice’s talk of continuing negotiations and a disinterest in escalation.
Just as Rice finished her tour of Asia, Assistant Secretary for East Asian and Pacific Affairs, Christopher R. Hill, arrived in Hong Kong. The purpose of Hill’s trip is to discuss the North Korean accounts frozen by Banco Delta Asia in Macau. There are reportedly also U.S.$2.6 million worth of North Korean funds frozen in Hong Kong.
Washington’s attempts to pressure international banks to cut off credit to North Korea and to freeze its accounts are not limited to Macau.
During the past twelve months, Stuart Levey, U.S. undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, has also visited banks throughout Europe and in Singapore, China, Hong Kong, Vietnam and South Korea. Levey’s message has been simple: If these banks want to do any business with the United States or with any international financial institutions, they have to shut down any operation or business with North Korea.
These financial sanctions are not limited to efforts by the U.S. Treasury and State Departments. They are also a part of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718, passed on Oct. 14.
The resolution includes, among other things, tough financial sanctions targeting North Korea. It calls for U.N. member states to immediately freeze funds, financial assets and economic resources if a designated U.N. overseeing committee determines they are nuclear related.
According to Selig Harrison, the director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy in Washington, this part of the UN Resolution 1718 could lead to tens of millions of dollars being cut off from North Korea. (NPR, Oct. 19)
China and South Korea essential to U.S. economic war
China’s and South Korea’s trade with North Korea has increased substantially in the past five years.
Since 2001, trade with China has doubled, from $737 million to $1.58 billion annually. China is North Korea’s top import and export partner. Trade with South Korea has increased about 20 percent annually, reaching over $1 billion in 2005. (Bloomberg, Oct. 20)
On Oct. 17, it was reported that China’s four major state-owned commercial banks announced that they were halting remittances of funds to North Korea.
“There’s increasing evidence that Beijing is sanctioning Pyongyang more than it will publicly admit. Two major Chinese banks on the North Korean border confirmed to NPR today that they’ve stopped all financial transactions between China and North Korea since the nuclear test,” said NPR reporter Anthony Kuhn, stationed in Beijing. (NPR, Oct 20.)
Washington is also pressuring China to cut off oil supplies. China now supplies 90 percent of North Korea’s oil imports.
South Korea is the other country key to cutting off North Korea’s international financial interactions.
A major point of contention between Washington and Seoul are north-south joint projects, namely the Kaesong Industrial Complex and the Mount Kumgang tourist resort. More than joint ventures, these projects are symbols of the hope that existed throughout the Korean peninsula regarding reunification following the June 15, 2000 Joint Declaration between North and South Korea’s leaders.
South Korea’s Foreign Ministry has maintained that these economic projects do not have to be suspended under the UN Resolution 1718, despite Washington’s demands. An Oct. 19 Wall Street Journal editor called for the U.S. government to pull out of Korea-U.S. Free Trade Agreement negotiations unless South Korea shuts down Kaesong.
“As for the South Koreans, they should understand that they can have Keasong trade with North Korea, or a free trade agreement with the U.S. They can’t have both,” the journal opined.
Sanctions could lead to military war
Former South Korean President Kim Dae Jung recently told the AP that sanctions could easily lead to war.
|
“North Korea is making preparations of how to counter economic sanctions and it could repel them with military force. … North Korea could resist with force if its ships are inspected. … We cannot know for sure now how this kind of small conflict could escalate in the future.”
Kim referred to the aspect of UN Resolution 1718 that requires cargo inspections of vessels reaching or leaving North Korea. Washington has been pressing China to strictly enforce this part of the resolution. China, however, is not rushing to comply. According to China’s U.N. ambassador, Wang Guangya, China will carry out some inspections, but not “interdiction or interception.”
Washington is very focused on both China and South Korea inspecting North Korean ships. The possibility that this may provoke a military response is not lost on them.
Rice was also in Asia to promote the Proliferation Security Initiative. First announced in May 2003 by President Bush, the PSI allows the United States and other signatory countries to search planes and ships that they allege are carrying suspect cargo. It also allows countries to seize any cargo deemed to be illegal weapons or missile technologies.
While about 75 countries are now signatories, China and South Korea are not among them.
The warning of a possible military escalation resulting from Washington’s actions is highly relevant given the source.
Former President Kim Dae Jung is known for the “Sunshine policy” toward North Korea. When announced in 1998, it announced a reorientation of South Korea’s policy toward relations with the north.
North Korea considered Kim’s policy as falling short of the true basis for reunification.
A month after his election, Rodong Sinmun, the paper of the Worker’s Party of Korea, explained that “Nothing will change in South Korea even if regimes or ‘presidents’ are changed. Only when a democratic regime representing the will and desire of the people is established and independent policies are pursued in South Korea can a radical change be made in South Korea. The South Korean authorities must rely upon the nation, not upon outsiders, enforce democratic politics, not fascist repressive politics.” (Reported by Korean Central News Agency, Jan. 10, 1998)
North Korea’s forecast proved correct. Throughout his presidency, Kim pursued a close relationship with Washington, continued to implement IMF and World Bank dictates that had been devastating for workers and farmers, and strictly enforced the repressive National Security Law. Even if he had wanted to go on a different path, the client nature of the South Korean government required Kim Dae Jung to follow the policy set in Washington.
When the Clinton administration opted for a thaw in U.S.-North Korean relations in the late 1990s, it allowed for the South Korean government to extend a diplomatic hand toward the North. The South Korean President traveled to Pyongyang in June 2000 and north-south relations suddenly entered a new period.
Throughout Korea, people became nearly euphoric that the diplomatic thaw indicated that the two Koreas could reunite over time. There are 10 million divided families who have been unable for more than 50 years to connect with family members living on the other side of the 38th parallel. In 2000 the two Koreas signed the Joint Declaration after a meeting in Pyongyang. Economic cooperation then expanded significantly for the first time since the peninsula was divided.
This all changed when Bush took office in January 2001. Kim Dae-Jung met with Bush in Washington, D.C., in March of that year. He was treated rudely in public and his “Sunshine policy” was thrown out the window as Bush openly called the Kim Jong Il a tyrant and other pejoratives. Bush then nearly declared war against North Korea labeling the country a member of the so-called axis of evil.
Two possible paths
While the Bush administration publicly speaks about negotiations and not wanting the “crisis to escalate,” it is crucial for all those who oppose a new war on Korea to recognize what is happening behind the scenes.
The imperialists in Washington are taking concrete measures that ratchet up their long-standing policy of using food, medicine and energy as a weapon in North Korea. At the same time, they are laying the basis for a possible military escalation.
North Korea has made it clear that its development of nuclear weapons is for self-defense. It is facing acute threats from the biggest military superpower in the world.
The North Korean government has said that the country is prepared for a confrontation, but it desires negotiations. The country and its people want to end the state of war that formally exists with the United States.
Click here to read about U.S. Korea relations from 1994 to the present.
