Korea Crisis and Sanctions Designed to Sabotage Transformation of DPRK Economy in 2013
2013 Korea CrisisDPRKTransformation of DPRK´s Economy
Christof Lehmann (nsnbc),- The ongoing crisis on the Korean peninsula, including the latest two rounds of sanctions are not, as both the USA, Russia and China will lead us to believe, caused by a satellite launch and a nuclear test.
Both the USA, Russia and China, permanent members of the UN Security Council, stand to gain from the crisis and the sanctions, which are likely to sabotage the transformation of the DPRK´s economy from plan to market economy in 2013.
While the USA is involved in a direct pivot, both Russia and China are hitching a “public opinion free ride”. Nevertheless, all of them abuse their privilege as permanent members of the UN Security Council.
To complicate matters even further, also the crisis in Syria and the Third EU Energy Package are closely related to the Korean issue.
Since 2004, the government and experts of the Democratic Peoples´Republic of Korea have been working in close cooperation with European, predominantly with German experts. The consultations and cooperation should, as the young North Korean leader Kim Yong-Un declared in his 2013 new years speech, result in the transformation of the North Korean economy from plan economy to market economy in 2013, transforming the DPRK into an Asian economic powerhouse that would cooperate with selected Asian and European Partners.
Kim Yong-Un´s promises during his new years speech can neither be described as empty words nor as rush decision, and emulating the Vietnamese blueprint for maintaining a socialist government while transforming the country´s economy should secure not only a successful economic transformation and development, but stability and continuity of government.
German advisers have been working, among other, based on the philosophy, that a transformation of the North Korean economy and a peaceful resolution to the division of Korea could only be successful if the government in Pyongyang was promised intensive support during the transitional periods, including support that helped to secure the continuity and stability of the government.
With China developing into the worlds economic and political center of gravity, Germany is seeing an important regional partner in the Democratic Peoples´Republic Korea. A partner who would provide access to important, growing, future markets for Germany and the European Union. The transformation of the North Korean economy in 2013 would provide immediate and tangible economical and political benefits for Germany and the EU.
Both Koreans and Germans share the experience and tragedy of having been divided by the victors of the second world war. The history and background for the division of Korea is very well described in an essay by Dr. Brian Willson, called A Brief History of US Sabotage of Korean Peace and Reunification. (1
Germany has since been reunited, but the German reunification is by many analysts described as “shotgun wedding”. Many mistakes were made on both sides and it would be more correct to speak about the one part of Germany sweeping up the other, rather than to speak about a unification. Both German sociologists, political scientists and economists have expertise in the field of reunification and insight into the problems with among other, the continuation and stability of the government during the unification process and during reform. The unique German experience is a valuable source of data with regard to a reunification of Korea.
One of the most important preconditions for a peaceful and successful reunification would be the development of a modern, open and solid North Korean economy. The economies of the North and the South would have to match each other as closely as possible to prevent a “Korean Shotgun Wedding”.
Kim Yong-Un and the DPRK. Unpredictability is not Irrational. Pyongyang´s seemingly erratic threats are not at all irrational, states Norbert Eschborn. Eschborn is the Director of the Konrad Adenauer Foundation´s office in Seoul, Republic of South Korea.
The foundation is associated to the conservative German party CDU, Christian Democratic Union. “Unpredictability”, so Eschborn, “is an important element of the North Korean stratey”. The defamatory description of Kim Yong-Un as a “baby face dictator” or even as a “lunatic” is according to Norbert Eschborn “grossly incorrect”. (2 The article will return to this point later on.
Master Plan to be implemented in 2013. In his 2013 new year speech, Kim Yong-Un pronounced, that 2013 was the year that the plan to transform the country´s economy would be implemented. Some of the most important points Kim Yong-Un made in his speech, which are relevant with regard to the current crisis, where that the country would be transformed into an Asian economic powerhouse, that the DPRK, rather than opening special economic zones, like China, would be cooperating with selected partners from Asia and Europe, including Germany, Japan and the Republic of South Korea.
The young North Korean head of state also pointed out, that there was a need for regulating trade relations between the DPRK and China. China could no longer merely perceive the DPRK as a provider of cheap natural resources and as a customer of Chinese manufactured goods. It is important to notice, that China, over the last two years has lost significantly with regard to profits from its trade with the DPRK, while the economy of the DPRK has grown with approximately 20 % in 2011 and approximately 30 % in 2012.
Also influential German media began reporting about the transformation of the North Korean economy in 2013. Lengthy articles were among other, published in Der Spiegel and Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. German papers made a point of stressing, that the government in Pyongyang is “being advised by German economists and jurists” concerning a possible “opening already this year”. One of the participating German scholars has been quoted for saying that a “master plan” already had been established, and the “Pyongyang is interested in the Vietnamese Blueprint, and therefore has a special need to modernize the country´s investment laws”.
Although statements, made by German experts and media contained far more reservations than the optimistic and energetic messages Kim Yong-Un gave to the people of the DPRK, it was clear that also German experts with close ties to the government of Chancellor Angela Merkel and experts from Liberal parties like the FDP were preparing for a change in North Korea in early 2013. The discourse was, generally speaking, optimistic in both countries until the onset of the current crisis which was provoked by the USA.
Satellite Launch and Sanctions.
When the DPRK launched a satellite into space in December 2012, it did so in the spirit of a nation that was about to transform the country´s economy. It did so in the spirit of anticipation of Kim Yong-Un´s new year speech, in which he would tell the people of the DPRK that the country would undergo economic reform which would turn the country into a regional economic powerhouse.
Moreover, it did so with peaceful intent, on the basis that a modernized North Korean economy would be one of the primary preconditions for a peaceful reunification of the divided country. In fact, the satellite launch was most of all a message of change, hope, aspirations and a message of peace.
The launch of the satellite was also perfectly legal, and not in violation of any international law. Objectively, the worst one could possibly accuse the DPRK of is, that it conducted a legitimate satellite launch while it was neglecting illegitimate sanctions and illegitimate restrictions which illegally had been imposed on the country by permanent members of the United Nations Security Council.
This point is not only important with regard to the DPRK. It is one of the most serious systemic problems with the UN System. That is, that the permanent members of the UN Security Council, whose role was defined as a consequence of the outcome of the second world war, on a regular basis adopt resolutions which are in violation of international law, while they are trying to use international law to enforce the illegitimate sanctions for their own benefit.
Financial Sanctions against the DPRC the direct cause for nuclear test.
The response of the United States, to introduce a new round of economic sanctions was the direct cause of the DPRK´s decision to perform its third nuclear test. The sanctions were rightfully perceived as a message which made it clear, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the USA would do all that was in its power to sabotage the transformation of the North Korean economy. Not many international analysts however, paid attention to the fact that both Russia and China were, so to speak, hitching a free ride by going along with the sanctions, while letting the USA play the role of public scapegoat.
A good example for this policy is the coverage of the sanctions by the Russian, state sponsored TV channel RT, which tries to brand itself as being “independent”. RT was featuring progressive US-American and European guests who all, rightfully would criticize the USA for the sanctions. RT however, failed to adequately report about the concurrent Russian and Chinese vote at the Security Council. Moreover, like all other mainstream media, RT failed to report about the actual motivation for sanctioning the DPRK. A vote for economic sanctions that would isolate the DPRK from making use of the international banking system. Sanctions, which were equivalent to a death sentence for the planned economic reform.
The award winning journalist and writer Ronda Hauben was one of the few who paid attention to the subtle details, or rather, the elephant in the room, which nobody cared to look at. Hauben wrote, “
What I have observed recently, is that in some areas, like the Syrian conflict, China continues to insist on its long standing principle to support negotiations and to work toward a political settlement of the conflict. But in other areas, particularly the situation with the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) China has seemed to be subordinating its emphasis on the peaceful settlement of conflicts to go along with the coercive actions proposed by the US government against the DPRK” . (3
In her article, Hauben refers to Professor Bruce Cummings, who noted at a talk at Colombia University, that a ballistic missile, as opposed to a missile used for a satellite launch, needs a reentry shield, a target which is being targeted at reentry and, it requires that the missile contains a warhead. (4 The rocket that carries the North Korean satellite into space did not fulfill any of these criteria.
In response to the sanctions, the DPRK submitted statements to both the UN Security Council and the General Assembly, in which it referred to the treaty that recognized all nations right to the peaceful use of space. Ronda Hauben continues the article, making a number of valid and important arguments for, why the sanctions were the “Godfather of the the DPRK´s third Nuclear Test”.
Ronda Hauben also stresses the importance of the fact, that the economic sanctions effectively denied the DPRK access to using the international banking system, but she failed to stress the all important role which access to the international banking system has for a nation, which is about to transform its economy from a plan economy to a market economy.
Finally, with regard to the third nuclear test, there are several factors which must be stressed before detailing the USA´s, Russia´s, and China´s reasons for sanctioning the DPRK.
First of all, as it was the case with the satellite launch, the DPRK did not violate international law when it conducted the underground nuclear test. The DPRK is not bound by treaty either. To the contrary, the permanent members of the UN Security Council have misused their special privileges as permanent UNSC members by adopting a resolution that violates international law and encourages other nations to violate international law with regard to their bilateral relations with the DPRK.
The Deterioration of International Law, the Complexity of Motivational Factors for the Sanctioning of the DPRK and for the Aggravation of the Crisis.
Over the last decades, beginning with the coining of the term “humanitarian intervention” under the former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, a construct, which was specifically adopted for the explicit purpose of justifying a war against the former Yugoslavia, which had been planned since 1974, more than a decade before the first “civil unrest in Yugoslavia”, the UN System has undergone a development which international lawyer Christopher Black, in a 2012 article, described as explosion of international law at its very foundations. (5
The fact that the USA, along with Russia and China, adopts two rounds of illegal sanctions against the DPRK, with each of the three permanent members of the UNSC having specific reasons for adopting the illegal sanctions, is a stark example for the fact that the UN Security Council has deteriorated and has been perverted into a club of despotic and tyrannical superpowers. The comparison with a council of racketeering families, who may have their differences and shoot-outs, but who basically agree that it is them who are heading organized crime is not at all far fetched.
A statement issued by a spokesperson of the DPRK´s Foreign Ministry in response to US calls for dialog elicits how the DPRK perceived the situation, when he said:
“The USA is sadly mistaken if it calculates that the DPRK will pay heed to such talk about dialog as a robber´s calling for a negotiated solution while brandishing his guns….. The DPRK is not opposed to dialog but has no idea of sitting at the humiliating negotiating table with the other party brandishing a nuclear stick”.
The US Benefits from Sabotaging the Transformation of the DPRK´s Economy.
The USA is gaining several direct advantages from the 2013 Kora crisis. The most obvious advantages are related to the general US strategy for the region, which is described as the US-Asia Pivot for the containment of China.
By aggravating the crisis, by eliciting strong defensive statements from the DPRK, the USA succeeded at manufacturing the pretext for the deployment of more anti-missile missile systems and other weapons systems in the region, including on Japan, which not too long ago demanded that the USA should withdraw from the naval bases it maintains on Japan.
By means of the latest rounds of economic sanctions and by forcing the government of the DPRK to assume a stron defensive posture, the USA has succeeded at preventing the transformation of the DPRK´s economy.
Ultimately, the USA has added one more stumbling block to the peaceful reunification of Korea, by creating both military and economic factors, which obstruct the development of North Korea´s economy to a degree, where it would be feasible to peacefully reunite Korea, to integrate the economies of the North and the South. In other words, the USA has successfully created one more obstacle for a Korean solution to Korean reunification.
The Chinese Benefits from Sabotaging the Transformation of the DPRK´s Economy.
The DPRK and China are important strategic partners. A defense treaty between the two countries makes it very unlikely that either the USA or the Republic of Korea would actually attack the DPRK militarily unless they were prepared to also engage China.
The annual joint US-South Korean command post and field military exercises with participation of allied forces, including Australia do of course have direct military utility. Their primary purpose for the USA however, at least for the time being and until the USA eventually would be prepared to risk a direct US-Chinese military adventure, is political. The annual exercises have been keeping relations between the governments of the two Korean states in a predictable cycle of increased and decreased tension, making it difficult to engage in long term conflict resolution and reunification efforts.
Besides being an important strategic partner, the DPRK is also an important economic partner for China, not least, because the DPRK has relatively large natural resources. Many of the North Korean resources are still untapped. The DPRK is a direct neighbor to China which reduces transport costs when comparing the DPRK with i.e. African countries. The geographic proximity of these resources is also a factor with regard to security. Finally, the DPRK has a large labor force which, even compared to Chinese standards, is working for very low wages.
During his 2013 new year speech however, Kim Yong-Un sent the message to China; that something had to be done about the trade balance between the two nations and the nature of their trade relations. China, so Kim Yong-Un, could no longer perceive the DPRK as merely a provider of cheap resources and low cost labor.
In the case that the DPRK developed a strong, modern industry, including high technology industry together with Germany, the consequences would be, that China would have to either pay more, export less to the DPRK or import more from the DPRK.
At a time where the Chinese government of President Xi Jinping is working hard to alleviate poverty in the poorest Chinese regions, like Hebei province, and where the Chinese government is working hard to create “moderate prosperity” for all Chines people; and, at a time where the USA and NATO members are doing all that is in their power to limit China´s access to resources and commerce in Asia and Africa, the words of Kim Yong-Un have surely not failed to attract Beijing´s attention.
The above mentioned factors however, are minor factors in comparison to the next two, namely the implications of the DPRK´s decision to emulate the Vietnamese blueprint together with Germany as a partner, and the prospect of a reunified, nuclear armed Korea as next door neighbor.
US-Vietnamese bilateral relations are slowly, but steadily growing stronger, as the Vietnamese government is attempting to walk a diplomatic tightrope. Falling off of the tightrope to one side provokes memories of painful experiences the country has had with the USA during the so-called Vietnam and implies the risk of becoming a pawn for US hegemony in Asia.
Falling off of the tightrope to the other side implies worries with regard to Vietnam´s independence and sovereignty, as well as the prospect of increasing Chinese economical, military and political influence in the region. Considering the medium- and especially the long-term implications of a DPRK with close ties to Germany and other EU/NATO members, the prospect of a transformation of the North Korean economy is not at all reassuring for Chinese economic, political and military strategists. The long-term prospect of a reunited, nuclear armed Korea with close economic, political and military ties to Europe and Japan is a prospect China would not consider as tolerable.
The concurrent Chinese vote for the US sponsored, illegal sanctions against the Democratic Peoples´Republic of Korea, particularly with regard to isolating the DPRK from access to the international banking system, while China, together with the other BRICS members is creating a BRICS Development Bank, can best be described as China hitching a free ride on a US initiative, letting the USA play the role of the scapegoat. The Chinese move, using the USA as catalyst for its own foreign policy, is as shrewd as it is illegal.
Russian Benefits from Sabotaging the Transformation of the DPRK´s Economy.
The Former Soviet Union has maintained close political, economic and military ties to the DPRK, and Russia has largely continued the Soviet Era relations. Russia had, like China or the USA, no objectively valid or legal basis for the sanctions against the DPRK.
Principally, Russia would not be opposed to the transformation of the DPRK´s economy based on a Vietnamese blueprint, and in close cooperation with Germany either, was it not for two factors, which are, the crisis in Syria and the third EU Energy Package, and the Kuril Islands.
At a first glance both may seem utterly detached from the North Korean governments plans to transform the country´s economy in 2013, but a closer look reveals strong motives for Russia to go along with the sanctions against the DPRK.
With regard to Syria it is important to understand, that “the EU” is far from as coherent an entity as it may appear at a first glance. In fact, one only has to scratch centimeters below the surface to discover, that there is a strong divide between Germany on one hand, and the UK and France, together with the USA on the other.
One of the primary motivating factors for the US-led attempted subversion of Syria is the prevention of the completion of the PARS gas pipeline from the Persian Gulf, through Iran, Iraq and Syria to the Eastern Mediterranean coast. The PARS gas fields were discovered in 2007 and contain sufficient gas to secure the energy requirements of the European Union for the coming 100 – 120 years.
The European Union currently receives approximately 22 % of the natural gas it consumes from Russia. In the case that the gas pipeline would be completed, the EU would be receiving an estimated 45 % of the natural gas it would consume over the coming 100 – 120 years from Russia and Iran. The Iran factor in this equation is important, because Israel and strong Israeli lobbies in the United States have a very difficult time accepting the potential political influence Iran would gain in the European Union if the pipeline was completed.
Moreover, the USA has for years used its influence in the Ukraine to drive a wedge between Russia and the EU, by using the Ukraine for threatening the EU´s energy security. The USA would have a very hard time accepting the further integration of the Russian and EU economies and energy sectors. The fact that the US economy is in shambles, that the USA most likely is not able to deliver back the German gold (6), the fact that the end to the Bretton Woods system and the militarily enforced Petro-Dollar is becoming an ever more obvious and unavoidable reality are aggravating the situation, especially with regard to Germany.
In December 2012 the situation deteriorated to the beginning of an absolute low point in the diplomatic relations between the EU and Russia. Grave concerns regarding the European Union´s energy security, caused by the US-led Syria campaign and the US´s use of the Ukraine had finally led to such a lack of convergence with regard to energy deliveries, distribution systems and energy security between Russia and the EU, that European politicians adopted measures in the EU´s Third Energy Package, which should weaken the Russian state´s influence over the gas distribution System. The decision led to outspoken protests from Russia which rightfully called the EU´s measures illegal, and a breach of existing contracts.(7
The situation deteriorated even further after the European Union decided that it would join the USA in beginning to overtly arm the insurgents in Syria, which so far had been more or less covertly armed by the USA, Turkey, Qatar, Saudi-Arabia, as well as EU member states. The situation led the Russian Ambassador to NATO state, that there were other than military means for solving energy security problems, and “that NATO, just because it perceived itself as a hammer, could not go on perceiving every problem as being a nail”.
With regard to German – Russian relations and the DPKR; The deterioration in Russian – German relations is bound to have an impact on German – Russian cooperation in research and development, high technology, electronics, and a range of other areas in which the two countries are cooperating. In the given situation, where Germanyis becoming increasingly aware of the fact the the USA, along with the UK and France, are pushing Russia and the EU ever closer to a conflict, this may especially be true in high-tech areas with potential defense applications.
Under the given circumstances, Germany could as well offer lucrative joint ventures and contracts to the DPRK. A number of key Russian corporations who are currently cooperating with Germany would stand to loose out to the DPRK.
It is also important to pay attention to the small details in the 2013 new year speech of Kim Yong-Un and subsequent North Korean statements who are mentioning cooperation with selected Asian and European partners. While the Republic of South Korea, Japan and Germany are being explicitly mentioned, Russia, a long standing partner to the DPRK is not. Everybody with at least some experience with diplomatic protocol or Asian cultures make of it what he will.
An economically strong DPRK, which develops friendly diplomatic and trade relations to Japan would not only impact Russian – North Korean trade, it would also strengthen Japanese claims to the Kuril Islands, which the Soviet Union confiscated from Japan at the end of the second world war. Given the fact, that Russia has been insisting on observing the letter of international law with regard to Syria, the concurrent vote for the US sponsored sanctions against the DPRK cannot be explained in other terms than an illegal attempt to sabotage the transformation of the DPRK´s economy in 2013.
The 2013 Korea Crisis has very little to do with the launch of the DPRK´s satellite in December 2012 or the nuclear test in early 2013, other than, that both have been abused by permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, to enforce illegal sanctions against the Democratic Peoples´Republic Korea. The US military posturing and brinkmanship, its staging of mock surprise nuclear attacks with B-2 strategic stealth bombers have very little to do with a possible, not even with a plausible military threat from the side of the DPRK.
The 2013 Korea Crisis has very much to do with three nuclear armed nations, all of them permanent members of the United Nations Security Council, abusing their role at the UN for sabotaging the planned transformation of the DPRK´s economy from a plan economy to a market economy in 2013. Neither the fact that the one may have more benefit from its criminal abuse of international law than the other, nor the fact that two of the perpetrators are hitching a free ride on the back of the third makes their actions less unlawful, less inhumane, less despicable, nor less dangerous.
Notes:
1)” Brief History US Sabotage of Korean Peace and Reunification“. Dr. Brian Willson. Published online at nsnbc international athttp://nsnbc.me/2013/04/09/brief-history-us-sabotage-of-korean-peace-and-reunification/
2) “Ich rechne nicht mit einer grossen Auseinandersetzung”. Interview with Norbert Eschborn. KAS Foreign Office, Korea, published online on KAS´s website at http://www.kas.de/korea/de/publications/33983/
3) “US Financial Sanctions Against DPRK as the Godfather of Nuclear Tests on Korea”. Ronda Hauben, published on nsnbc international, online at http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/05/us-financial-sanctions-against-dprk-as-the-godfather-of-nuclear-tests-on-korea/
4) “The Fruits of Engagement with North Korea, 1994—2008”, University of Chicago, talk given at Unify Korea Common Ground Conference, Korea Art Forum, Columbia University, March 2, 2013.
5) “South East China Sea; A Perfect Crisis for the International Crisis Group”. Ch. Black, J. Fetzer, A. Mezyaev, Ch. Lehmann, published on nsnbc international, online at http://nsnbc.me/2012/08/12/south-east-china-sea-a-perfect-crisis-for-the-international-crisis-group-3/
6) “Federal Reserve Refuses to Submit to an Audit of Germany’s Gold Held in U.S. Vaults”. Dr. Long Xinming, published on nsnbc internationa, online at http://nsnbc.me/2013/04/18/federal-reserve-refuses-to-submit-to-an-audit-of-germanys-gold-held-in-u-s-vaults-2/
7) Russia – E.U. Meeting in Bruxelles: Risk of Middle East and European War increased. Christof Lehmann, published on nsnbc international, online at http://nsnbc.me/2012/12/22/russia-e-u-meeting-in-bruxelles-risk-of-middle-east-and-european-war-increased/