The reasons for the crisis on the Korean Peninsula

[논둑길맨발로]

The reasons for the crisis on the Korean Peninsula

Alexander VORONTSOV | 12.04.2013 | 09:27

Tensions are rising on the Korean Peninsula. Pyongyang has decided to close the industrial complex in Kaesong, which is a joint enterprise zone with South Korea, and has suggested that foreign embassies evacuate the Democratic People's Republic of Korea for reasons of safety. Most significant in this series of steps has been the decision of the Plenum of the Central Committee of the Korean Workers' Party, held in March 2013, regarding legal confirmation of North Korea's nuclear status and the decision of the Supreme People's Assembly of North Korea «On further strengthening the status of a country in possession of nuclear weapons for the purposes of self-defence».

The majority of media, while painting a vivid picture of North Korea's militancy, is not trying to understand the reasons why the conflict on Korean soil is currently escalating so dramatically. When they do try, they usually name Pyongyang as the instigator of all the troubles, stressing that it was North Korea's third nuclear test that triggered the «nightmare». 

Consequently, a pressing need has arisen to examine the real, underlying causes of what is commonly referred to as «the Korean problem». 

In short, the initial cause is the unresolved outcome of the Korean War (1950-1953). This year marks 60 years since the end of the war and a peace agreement between its participants has still not been signed Only one Armistice Agreement exists (possibly on paper only these days), so a temporary cessation of hostilities, in other words. More importantly, there are no diplomatic relations between the main warring parties, the USA and North Korea.

The anomalous nature of a situation like this is obvious. Pyongyang has repeatedly suggested that this astonishing anachronism of the cold war be removed, but in vain: Washington stubbornly refuses to both normalise intergovernmental relations and replace the Armistice Agreement with a fundamental document that establishes lasting peace on the peninsula. Effectively, the US is proving that they have «hostile intentions» – as they are called in Pyongyang – not in words, but in deeds. A peaceful co-existence with the Democratic People's Republic of Korea does not figure in America's plans. Rather, they are looking to eliminate the state. 

This is why there is a predetermined state of permanent conflict on the Korean Peninsula, a cyclical development of the situation from acute crisis to relative «remission» and back again. The actions of the West with regard to North Korea result in a vicious catch-22. Calls to stop the nuclear programme, thereby stopping the violation of the principles of the non-proliferation regime of weapons of mass destruction, are often used to cover up the realisation of a hidden agenda – regime change in North Korea...

As a result, in instances where Pyongyang chooses the bargaining model of relations with the international community and is prepared to agree to mutual compromises with regard to its concerns (the non-proliferation dossier), the West does not see this as an independent decision by those in the north, but as a display of weakness, a triumph of its policy of pressure. Following such logic, Washington and its allies are not in a hurry to assess steps taken by Pyongyang according to their merit, using them in the interests of constructive cooperation and a way to advance the settlement of the Korean Peninsula's nuclear issue; rather they act the complete opposite. Based on the false understanding that North Korea began to make concessions under external pressure, the West considers it necessary to increase this pressure in order to put the final squeeze on its opponent. And now every time the policy with a false bottom fails. Convinced of the true intentions of its partners, Pyongyang, with a view to cooperating with them, but in no way capitulating, is stopping playing other people's games and is taking steps to strengthen its national defence capabilities. As a result, instead of the further concessions that were expected and the long-awaited collapse of North Korea, the West is being responded to with new missile and nuclear tests.

The chronology of the current crisis is well-known.

The successful launch of a North Korean satellite took place on 12 December 2012. The UN Security Council chose the harshest way to respond in the form of Resolution 2087 (22.01.2013), as opposed to a similar occasion in April 2012, when the Security Council confined itself to a statement by its chairman. North Korea strongly disagreed with this decision as well as America's logic, according to which «its own launches are satellites, while other people's are long range ballistic missiles», and announced that «the six-party talks and the Joint Statement of 19 September no longer exist». As a «sign of protest», Pyongyang carried out its third nuclear test on 12 February 2012, having pointed out in a statement by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that there have been «more than 2,000 nuclear tests and 9,000 satellite launches» in the world, «but the UN Security Council has never passed a resolution prohibiting nuclear tests or satellite launches». In response, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 2094 on 7 March 2013, placing the strictest sanctions on North Korea that the country has experienced in the past few decades.

What has been the reason for the rapid worsening of the confrontation in 2013? There are many reasons. Among the main ones, Pyongyang's opponents usually cite the following: the display of inexperience, immaturity and adventurism by North Korea's young leader, the desire to intimidate Seoul, by forcing them to believe that nuclear weapons are being acquired, North Korea has drastically altered the military balance on the peninsula in its favour, has gained immunity against the actions of the South and is now able to intimidate and carry out «military provocations» against the Republic of Korea unpunished. Such attitudes are now widespread and are consequently supported by South Korean public opinion.

In the USA's political and expert communities, voices have risen sharply demanding an immediate and decisive shift of policy emphasis in favour of adopting measures aimed at forcing regime change in North Korea by dramatically increasing external pressure, as well as isolation and the encouragement of internal opposition. At the official level, the issue of undermining the standard of living of the North Korean population, amongst other things, has been openly discussed.

Advocates of these kinds of actions prefer not to notice that North Korea's nuclear tests at the turn of 2012-2013 were, to a large extent, in response to the West's reluctance to open up a constructive dialogue with Pyongyang. You will recall that after North Korea announced its withdrawal from the six-party talks in April 2009, the five remaining members declared that finding a way to convince Pyongyang to return to the talks was a priority. And lo and behold, when this goal was almost achieved, in large part thanks to the diplomatic efforts of Russia and China, and the North Korean government during 2011-2012 repeatedly announced that it was prepared to continue its involvement in the six-party diplomatic process, Washington, Tokyo and Seoul, contrary to their own declarations, began to put forward preconditions and essentially did their best to delay the recommencement of negotiations for as long as possible. In so doing, they once again revealed their true aims: extending the policy of «strategic patience» which many American experts have called a variation on North Korea's «strategy of containment», so increasing its isolation with the ultimate aim of its regime change. Having received this perfectly clear signal from its opponents, and taking into account, including the examples of Libya and Syria, the West's growing inclination to use military force to overthrow undesirable regimes, Pyongyang considered itself free in its choice of means and undertook the necessary measures to strengthen its national defence capabilities.

This was not the only reason pushing Pyongyang to take such steps, of course. It is more than likely that the desire of the North Korean government to make up for the unpleasant aftertaste that arose in society following the failed launch of the satellite on 13 April and the reality of the space race between North and South Korea also played its part. By sending its first satellite into scheduled orbit on 12 December 2012, North Korea won the competition to breakthrough into space. This was taken rather badly in the South, where they carried out the successful launch of their own satellite one and a half months later.

At one and the same time, these actions built up the spiral of conflict which has now placed the Korean Peninsula on the brink of war.

In order to prevent the situation deteriorating further, all the parties involved need to have self-restraint, first and foremost, and the utmost concentration to search for ways to resume political contacts.

Tags: Asia-Pacific North Korea South Korea US

http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/04/12/the-reasons-for-the-crisis-on-the-korean-peninsula.html

The crisis on the Korean peninsula: background and issues

• Français
• Deutsch
• 한국어
• Español

01 Nov 2003 — warresisters

Sang Youl Sohn

Many people think that the crisis on the Korean peninsula started in the wake of North Korea's nuclear development. However, contrary to what is commonly known, it is right to think that the crisis initiated from the aggressive nuclear and military policies made by the US, and military approach to this by North Korea made the crisis more complicated.

It was around October 2002 when the nuclear issue came out in the Korean peninsular. At that time, the US special convoy to North Korea raised a suspicion about the nuclear development program when visiting the state. He announced that the north admitted the suspicion and the current crisis began. However, the US has never shown any solid proof about North Korea's nuclear development so far. Then, why, at this point of time, does the US want to create trouble with North Korea by raising the groundless suspicion?

Background

In order to understand the origin of the nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula, above all, a closer look has to be taken at US nuclear policy. The US had established plans to actually use nuclear weapons on the peninsular since the Korean War, and deployed nuclear weapons in and around the peninsula. According to an estimation, it is known that about 700 nuclear weapons were deployed in South Korea during the 1970-80's.

The end of the cold war in the 90's brought a change on the Korean peninsula. The US deployed nuclear weapons on the peninsula started to be taken away. In 1991, 'the Declaration of Nuclear-Free Korean Peninsula' was adopted by the agreement of the two Korean governments. In 1992, North Korea concluded the safeguard agreement with the International Atomic Energy Agency(IAEA), and as a following step, an IAEA's nuclear investigation to North Korea was launched. However, a serious tensions arose between North Korea and the US over the issue of the scope and level of the nuclear investigation in the Fall of 1992. Under these circumstances, the US carried out the Team Spirit exercise (a joint military operation exercise between South Korea and the US), which had been canceled in the 90's. In protesting the exercise, North Korea withdrew from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). After the withdrawal the situation became worse and aggravated into a war between the two states. The Agreed Framework (Geneva Agreement) was signed in 1994. There were three major agreements:

North Korea would freeze nuclear facilities, both parties would move toward full normalisation of relations, and the US would provide North Korea with two light water reactors to solve electricity problems.

However, the US violated the Geneva agreement. Light water reactors were to be completed by 2003, but the construction was intentionally delayed. The promise of normalisation of relations was not kept. Above all, the US was supposed to guarantee North Korea not to use nuclear weapon against Pyongyang, but instead it continued to give military threats to North Korea. After 9/11 the Bush administration took a stronger position on the small country. Bush named North Korea as part of the axis of evil and said a pre-emptive attack against North Korea could possibly be made. The Bush administration even openly mentioned a regime change in North Korea.

In conclusion, the reason that the US raise groundless suspicions to instigate friction with North Korea at this time is the following: by raising a new suspicion on North Korea's nuclear development, the US would not have to deal with the criticism that they put aside the responsibility of fulfilling the Geneva agreements and the US claims that North Korea is responsible for unfulfilled agreements. Another reason is to realise more US interests on the Korean peninsula and East Asia. Mention about nuclear development is on the way, the North Korean administration took strong steps toward the US due to this security threat. However, it is clear that the militaristic approach by North Korea is also very dangerous.

Latest situation

Recently, there are many people who say that the US foreign policy toward North Korea put more emphasis on compromise and multilateralism, than faceoff and unilateralism. What they probably have in mind is the 6-party talks (South Korea, North Korea, the US, China, Japan and Russia), which opened in Beijing in August.

However, the real reason that the US participates in a mulitilateral framework such as the 6-party talks is to bring about aid from surrounding countries and put pressure on North Korea. Simultaneous solutions of nuclear issues and a security assurance for the North Korean society - a new and sincere approach to the problem - was presented through the 6-party talks. However, the US made no concession about its position. North Korea must give up its nuclear program first, and then the US will promise security for North Korea. What makes the matter worse is that the US continues to put military pressure on North Korea, which might incite the county. As soon as the 6-party talks ended, the US held the Prolifersation Security Initiative (PSI) conference in France in early September. 11 participants in the conference decided to have a joint military practice in mid-September. The PSI is a plan to strengthen searching and seizing of boats of the countries labeled as 'Axis of Evil' by the US. It is a well-known fact that North Korea was the target. The US also had the Stryker Brigade field drill, an exercise for faster military deployment, in South Korea over the last few months. A operation plan called 'O-plan' 5030 was recently opened to the public. This is a plot to induce to dismantle the North Korean system by tiring its military power.

Moreover, the US is bolstering up militarism in northeast Asia, finding an excuse in suspicious nuclear development by North Korea. This materialises in the form of a strengthened military alliance among South Korea, Japan and the US. As a result of this, Japan is expanding the scope of its Defence Forces, and trying to amend the peace constitution. South Korea is increasing the military budget by a large margin. Recently it is confirmed through media reports that South Korea is the second biggest military weapon import country. The Missile Defence system in northeast Asia strengthens the status of military alliance among the 3 countries in the region.

People's security

The crisis in the Korean peninsula will intensify unless the US foreign policy toward northeast Asia changes. People in both North and South Korea live in pain because of the crisis. Even if this crisis gets solved through the framework of the 6-party talks, it does not mean that people's security and peace is assured. People's grassroots campaigns and international solidarity to oppose war is the most secure way of making peace in northeast Asia.

Sang Youl Sohn works with Solidarity for Peace & Human Rights in South Korea
Translated by Dopehead Zo (WRI Korea)

Published in The Broken Rifle, November 2003, No. 59

http://wri-irg.org/node/2572

Sick and tired of the power struggle between North and South Korea

12 Apr 2013 — javier

Interview with Jungmin Choi of World Without War in South Korea

• From the office
• Korea, South

• Add new comment
• Facebook
• Google
• identi.ca
• Reddit
• SlashDot
• Twitter

http://wri-irg.org/node/21556

About WRI

• Français
• Deutsch
• Español

Exploring the Handbook for Nonviolent Campaigns: meeting at Universidad Surcolombiana, Neiva, Colombia

War Resisters' International

24 Jul 2008 — warresisters

War Resisters' International was founded in 1921 under the name "Paco". It was and is based on the WRI declaration:

War is a crime against humanity. I am therefore determined not to support any kind of war, and to strive for the removal of all causes of war

War Resisters' International exists to promote nonviolent action against the causes of war, and to support and connect people around the world who refuse to take part in war or the preparation of war. On this basis, WRI works for a world without war.

Nonviolence

WRI embraces nonviolence. For some, nonviolence is a way of life. For all of us, it is a form of action that affirms life, speaks out against oppression, and acknowledges the value of each person.

Nonviolence can combine active resistance, including civil disobedience, with dialogue; it can combine non-cooperation - withdrawal of support from a system of oppression - with constructive work to build alternatives.

As a way of engaging in conflict, sometimes nonviolences attempts to bring reconciliation with it: strengthening the social fabric, empowering those at the bottom of society, and including people from different sides in seeking a solution.

No to war

WRI will never endorse any kind of war, whether it is waged by a state, by a "liberation army", or under the auspices of the United Nations, even if it is called a "humanitarian military intervention". Wars, however noble the rhetoric, invariably are used to serve some power-political or economic interest. We know where war leads - to suffering and destruction, to rape and organised crime, to betrayal of values and to new structures of domination.

WRI's programme

Nonviolence Programme

The Nonviolence Programme is one of the two main programme areas for the WRI office and network, and encompasses two projects: the global initiative against war profiteers and the nonviolence resources project. A full description of the project is available on this site in English, German, and Spanish.

The right to refuse to kill

WRI's project "The right to refuse to kill" aims to work on three levels:

• Political campaigning and support for conscientious objectors' movements and COs facing repression or imprisonment, including organising and sending delegations, visiting imprisoned COs, solidarity campaigns, lobbying the international human rights system, etc. The international email list <co-alert> is a powerful tool to organise support for conscientious objectors.
• Support for asylum seekers and their lawyers, in cases of draft evasion, desertion, conscientious objection and other cases related to military service.
• Research and documentation of material related to conscientious objection and military recruitment - the CONCODOC project.

Dealing with the past

Resources for this programme area -- active from 1998-2004 but presently unstaffed -- can be found on the Dealing with the Past homepage.

WRI publications

CO Update

This monthly digest of news on conscientious objection to military service is available in email and web editions.

War Profiteers' News

This new (2006) email newsletter provides information on the new developments on arms trade; the increasing role of private companies in the outsourcing of the military and private financial institutions as they profit from the arms trade.

The Broken Rifle

WRI's own magazine, published in four languages to give in-depth information on WRI's programme and campaigns.

WRI Women

The magazine of the WRI Women's Working Group provides information on women and militarism, and of women's activities all over the world.

wri-irg.org

WRI's four-language website with up-to-date information on WRI's work and links to most of its affiliates.

Mailing lists

WRI's email lists include both internal and external lists, some of which are available, reformatted for the web, on this site.

• wri-info is a general list on WRI events and press releases. It normally shadows information available on the website.
• co-alerts is a mailing list for urgent action on conscientious objection cases (archive page here).
• co-update is a monthly list for the CO-Update newsletter (web index here).
• warprofiteersnews is a bi-monthly list for the Global Initiative against War Profiteers (web index here).
• Private lists exist for some WRI working groups and project groups.

Books and reports

WRI has published several books, including online-only titles, print-only titles, and some in both formats. An index of WRI's online books, longer reports available on the web, and WRI's print and microform archives, is available here.

WRI events

WRI Seminars

International seminars are one important part of WRI's networking. Usually attached to WRI's yearly Council meeting, seminars focus on a theme of particular importance to War Resisters' International. Recent seminars include: "The Changing Face of the Military" (Germany, 1999) and "From Kosov@ to Seattle. What role for nonviolent action?" (Britain, 2000). WRI seminars are open for participation by everybody.

International Conferences

International ("Triennial") Conferences are WRI's regular grassroots meetings. They are organised at least once every four years, and bring together 200-300 activists from all parts of the world. The most recent Conferences were:

• To Live is to Resist: undoing the chain of violence (Brazil, in 1994).
• Choosing Peace Together (Croatia, in 1998).
• Stories and Strategies: nonviolent resistance and social change (Ireland, in 2002).
• Globalising Nonviolence (Germany, in 2006).
• Nonviolent Livelihood Struggle and Global Militarism: Links & Strategies (India 2010)

WRI actions

War Resisters' International coordinates two internatonal days of action, both in support of peace activists and conscientious objectors.

• 15 May - International Conscientious Objectors' Day
  15 May was first celebrated as a day of action in 1982. The day focusses on the struggle for the right to conscientious objection, and WRI usually highlights one particular struggle each year, while at the same time remembering those who served this cause in the past.
• 1 December - Prisoners for Peace Day
  Prisoners for Peace Day is a way to support those imprisoned for their stand against war and war preparations, by sending greeting cards to prisoners, and raising public awareness of prisoners for peace.
  Prisoners for Peace Day was introduced in the 1950s, but its roots go back to the 1920s, when WRI called for sending Christmas greetings to prisoners.

How to get involved?

War Resisters' International is a network of independent organisations, with member organisations in more than 35 countries. To get involved in WRI, join one of its affiliates in your country or form a new affiliate, if there is none. Check here for a list of member organisations, if you don't know whether there is one in your country.

You can also join WRI as an Individual Member, if there is no affiliate in your country or you don't want to join an existing affiliate for some reason.

This website also has information on

• the current WRI Council;
• WRI activists.

Make a donation!

WRI depends on donations to carry out its work. Send a donation to War Resisters' International, to support our work against war and militarism.

You can send your donation by sending a cheque made out in £ Sterling, or by giro transfer to WRI, account no 58 520 4004, sort code 72-00-00, Girobank, Merseyside, Britain.

In some countries, you can send your donation in your own currency to our local financial agent. Contact the WRI office for information.

Contact us

War Resisters' International
5 Caledonian Road
London N1 9DX
BRITAIN

tel: +44-20-7278 4040
fax: +44-20-7278 0444
email: info@wri-irg.org
http://wri-irg.org

• WRI Leaflet

Link to a list of WRI affiliates

War Resisters' International on Wikipedia
War Resisters' International archives at the Institute for Social History, Amsterdam) !function(d,s,id){var js,fjs=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0];if(!d.getElementById(id)){js=d.createElement(s);js.id=id;js.src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js";fjs.parentNode.insertBefore(js,fjs);}}(document,"script","twitter-wjs");

http://wri-irg.org/network/about_wri