NORTH KOREA

Read online or subscribe at:
http://www.moveon.org/moveonbulletin/

 
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.thebulletin.org/issues/2002/ja02/ja02anonymous.html

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.foreignpolicy-infocus.org/papers/asia2002_body.html#korea

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://abcnews.go.com/sections/world/DailyNews/nkorea021017_nuclear.html

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.theage.com.au/articles/2002/11/30/1038386354809.html

North Korea has rejected the call to admit inspections. The US continues to emphasize that it will seek a diplomatic solution.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/news/archive/2002/12/10/international0859EST0511.DTL

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.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/4356687.htm?template=contentModules/printstory.jsp

 
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.

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.moveon.org/moveonbulletin; 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/