In article <bip3co$mgc$1@pencil.math.missouri.edu>, map@economicdemocracy.org
says...
How Bush's policies make the U.S., both Koreas, and the world, less safe.
[Please google for Gregory Elich's 100+ footnote articles,
and do a little research for yourself,
before emailing for references. After you've honestly tried,
we welcome inquiries by email]
- - -
You don't have to like the leadership of any country, and
certainly not North Korea's to appreciate the following, just
to care about the lives of all peoples and world peace -- and
the truth -- facts too inconvenient to merit mention in our papers.
By hiding history and relevant background, the Bush clique
and the media make those North Koreans look "oh so inscrutable" and
"hard to understand" if not "irrational" but basic background
shows they are not at all hard to understand. Websites are given below.
#1 You would easily forget, or for younger viewers, you would almost
never know this seldom mentioned fact in articles about North Korea,
but the Korean War has never ended. There was an armistice signed on
July 27, 1953, but a peace treaty was never signed.
More than 5 million people were killed or wounded or disappeared
during the three year-war Korean War. Today 700,000 South
Korean troops, 1.1 million North Korean Troops, and 37,000 US
troops stand in the peninsula.
#2 Put that fact together with Bush calling your country part of the
"axis of evil" if you are in North Korea's shoes, and things
start to make more sense, but wait, there is more...
#3 The little-known event in Geneva. Professor Martin Hart-Landsberg
(see URL below) elaborates:
Q: What was the understanding 50 years ago?
A: Well, the understanding was that there would be a peace treaty
following a conference in Geneva, that would follow the armistice. The
US insisted on only formally ending the fighting and not in fact
signing a peace treaty with North Korea at the time. And one of the
little known facts of history, is that shortly -- about half a year
after the armistice was signed, there was a conference in Geneva that
was supposed to settle the issue of Korea, help promote a peaceful
reunification of Korea, and the U.S. single handedly undermined that
conference. If you read the memos of the representatives from England,
>from Canada, from Belgium, they're all quite clear. The North Koreans
proposed country-wide elections, North and South, to elect a new
Korean government. And the U.S. having just fought a war essentially
to hold onto [ie, control -ed.] the South,was not interested in that,
and basically brought the conference to a close, and has been content
really ever since, to maintain a state of hostilities in Korea.
* So the articles almost universally talk about North Korea
"starting" the crisis -- when in fact our "leaders" in Washington
have sabotaged the signing of a formal end of hostilities, have
kept a state of war with North Korea, and have not only in actions
but openly targeted North Korea as "axis of evil" for "regime change"
and "not ruling out" military "action" (that is, a unilateral
first-strike military assault) on North Korea. We haven't
mentioned the Embargo designed to destroy North Korea yet..in which
the gun to North Korea's head (as usual, the leadership isn't
suffering but it's people -- and the people of South Korea) have their
lives at risk due to Washington's threats...
#4 We are told Washington does not want to be "blackmailed" but just who
exactly is blackmailing whom?
Everyone in the world (except maybe US citizens kept in the dark by
our media) understands the lesson of Iraq: if you disarm, give in and
let us interview your scientists, give in and let us fly U2 overhead,
give in and dismantle Al Saud missiles, give in and allow inspectors so
you are mostly disarmed -- then you're helpless and you will be
demolished at will and "regime changed" (and thousands of your
innocent civilians women, men, children,and babies, slaughtered by
Washington's firepower)
A very ugly lesson Bush taught the world: "disarming is a
big, big mistake" And the world, including North Korea, but others,
>from many countries have pointed this out: only by having
a strong deterrent force can you protect yourself from unilateral
attack, invasion, and overthrow by Washington.
#5 North Korea is facing the Embargo and the non-WMD
defense it has is it's army of over 1 million plus conventional
missles...all of which are very expensive. A typical cartoon
seen on the internet shows starving North Koreans and the
leadership saying "hey, we need money for weapons to protect our
people" but this cartoon gets it exactly backwards: the North Korean
leadership (which, though like much of Asia, is not democratic
but is not stupid, and does enjoy much support from its people),
they want to cut military spending.
Now, given a strong economic embargo against the North, and given
Washington refusing to sign a non-aggression treaty and
to normalize relations with North Korea, and saber-rattling about
"Axis of evil"...and the conventional defense the North has being
very expensive..then a nuclear defense is the only cheaper option.
And the North has said loud and clear: please give us
non-aggression nd normalizing relations, so we can be secure
and cut our military spending, but if you refuse to end the threats
against our existence, and the costs of conventional defense are so
Phigh, we will be forced to look for cheaper, non-conventional defense"
Suddenly it's not so "inscrutable" to understand, if you put
yourself in the shows of North Korea.
MARTIN HART-LANDSBERG: I think one of the problems here is that the
U.S. has sort of successfully constructed this whole issue as the
problem of the North Korean nuclear weapons program. And the North
Koreans have been trying, not always successfully to I think more
accurately construct the issue as a problem of U.S.-North Korean
relations. And that is the fact that the U.S. has refused to normalize
relations with North Korea. The US has refused to sign a peace treaty
ending the Korean War, and the U.S. has refused to drop its embargo,
which has also -- the U.S. has also put pressure on Japan
essentially not to normalize relations, not to drop its economic
embargo. So the North has been trying very hard to say, look, this is
an unnatural state and given the situation in our economy, we need
investment, we need normalization. We need the U.S. to agree to sit
down with us and change this situation and the U.S. has basically
refused. So the North Koreans have been saying, look, we need to sit
down, U.S.-North Korea resolve these things. Everything is on the
table. As recently as April of this year they said, you have your
concerns, we have our concerns. Let's settle this and we're willing to
open up our whole nuclear program. We're willing to even halt
missile exports if you would do these few simple things: Normalize
relations, sign a peace treaty, drop your economic embargo. The
U.S. has refused...
# 6 REPEATED NUCLEAR THREATS -- BY WHOM? By Washington...
"..And I think it's very important when people talk about North Korea
having generated the nuclear crisis bringing nuclear threats to the
peninsula, to get some history. And that history is that the
U.S. during the Korean war, THREATENED TO DROP NUCLEAR WEAPONS ON
KOREA.
"THE U.S. IN 1957 VIOLATED THE TERMS OF THE ARMISTICE BY
BRINGING NUCLEAR WEAPONS TO SOUTH KOREA. CONTINUED OVER THE DECADE OF
THE 60'S AND '70S TO INCREASE THE NUCLEAR WEAPONRY, and through the
'80'S AND INTO THE early 90's..
".. through their Team Spirit War Games, THE U.S. PRACTICED SIMULATED
NUCLEAR AND BIOLOGICAL AND CHEMICAL ATTACKS ON NORTH KOREA. So the
North Koreans have a long history of having been forced to deal with
in fact the nuclear threat that the U.S. has brought. And North
Korea's reactions and responses have really all been conditioned by
the fact that they have been under threat of nuclear attack, ...[and]
are forced to put a tremendous amount of resources into the military
to try and maintain their independence...They want to resolve the
problem with direct talks. And this seems to me, while those talks may
be difficult it's a perfectly reasonable response. Let's normalize
relations, let's end the Korean war, let's create a context for peace
on the Korean peninsula. But the U.S. has refused to see that wider
historical context for reasons that we talk about in a minute if you
want.
Another Guest on Democracy Now: EUNG HYE SUH: And I would add to that
that in the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review which was released in
December 2001, that the U.S. IDENTIFIED NORTH KOREA AS A POSSIBLE
TARGET OF NUCLEAR *FIRST* *STRIKE*. [all emphasis added -ed.]
#7 Yes, but what about North Korea and the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty (NPT)?
Right now the world is also paying attention to the major meeting in
Nebraska this (Thursday August 7, 2003) by Washington, to push for
building even more, new types of nuclear weapons (just the US media,
and thus public isn't paying attention to it) When Washington pushes
for other countries to give up nuclear ambitions, the world will
respond in the predictable way, seeing Washington not only keep it's
nuclear weapons, but working to build even more new ones. The US
public, mostly in the dark about this, will wonder how strangely the
world reaction is -- yet again.
By the way, Washington is in violation of the non-proliferation treaty
(NPT) -- we only hear about the half that says non-nuclear states must
stay non-nuclear -- we almost never year about the other half, as you
may or may not be aware, that states those countries having nuclear
weapons must work to reduce and move towards eliminating
them. Needless to say, expanding one's nuclear capabilities and
building new types of nuclear weapons beyond even the already deadly
ones that exist, is a violation.
Again, the world sees this, and US public is kept in the dark, and so
it wonders what a strange irrational world out there is, that doesn't
want to obey the NPT, and wants to get nuclear weapons -- the actions
of our own government being not very well known to the US public.
[See: http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/05/1455235,
"U.S. Marks Hiroshima Anniversary By Holding Top Secret Summit to
Discuss Expanding Nation's Nuclear Arsenal"]
#8 "Ok, Bush/Washington is guilty too, and they should
stop threatening North Korea with nuclear weapons. They should
sit down and have a peace treaty, and then press the North. They are
handling it bad. But North Korea still started it, by leaving
the NPT, right?"
Answer: During his State of the Union address on January 29, 2002,
President Bush singled out North Korea as part of his so-called "Axis
of Evil" That came months *before* the supposed "admission" by North
Korea in October of 2002 that they would pursue or are pursuing a
nuclear program.
Thus, after the above history of threatening
North Korea by refusing to sign a peace treaty, after
threatening North Korea in the past with nuclear missiles, and after
threatening North Korea in December 2001 with Nuclear First Strike --
Bush yet again increased the saber-rattling rhetoric on January
2002, months before the alleged (and disputed) first sign
>from North Korea they may pursue a nuclear defense.
This doesn't make North Korea of a pure innocent virgin role. No, the
issue is simply that given this background, the media and political
portrayal of some kind of "irrational" or hard to understand nature on
the part of North Korea is pure bunk. It's very easy to understand how
and why they would react when they are under severe and repeated
threat by the most powerful (and recently, most interventionist) power
in world history.
#9 "I didn't know that. So again important history has been omitted
This repeated history of threats by Bush is not good for South Koreans
or American any more than for North Koreas citizens. But North Korea
did threaten to withdraw from the NPR in 1994, which pre-dates this"
In fact, the conflict in U.S.-North Korean relations over the nuclear
issue first arose on January 26, 1993, when President Clinton
announced that the U.S. military would conduct war games in South
Korea.
This was followed the next month by the news that some of the NUCLEAR
WEAPONS PREVIOUSLY TARGETED ON THE SOVIET UNION WOULD BE REDIRECTED AT
NORTH KOREA. By March, massive Team Spirit war games involving
bombers, cruise missiles and naval vessels were underway. Interpreting
this as a provocation (and serious, conventional *and* nuclear
threat), North Korea responded by signalling that it would withdraw
>from the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). However talks with
U.S. officials in June 1993 led to North Korea rescinding its
announcement. [See various articles by Gregory Elich, some
with over 100 footnotes]
So Clinton was also a saber-rattler to keep US troops and control
over the Korean Peninsula rather than allow peace treaty, reunification
of the Koreas, and an end to Washington's hegemony.
Additionally, BBC reports indicate that North Korea
had another reason since Bush coming to office to
re-think its rescinding its announcement to leave the NPT:
North Korea was promised the shipment of a lot
of oil (not as "donation" but as part of the agreement
to scrap parts of its nuclear program that could provide
energy to heat during the cold winters). This was delayed
and delayed and delayed. They had promised to freeze various
nuclear reactor areas in return for oil (and non-weapons
nuclear facilities) to help meet their energy needs. When
these didn't materialize, they said, wait a minute,
if you're not keeping your end of the deal, we're not
keeping ours -- we will re-start our Yongbyon facility.
All of this is on top of the economic embargo complicating
North Korea meeting its energy needs.
Various claims of "but they made us suspect they were not honoring
other parts, first" etc can be made but again, the above is not to
claim North Korea is of a pure innocent virgin nature, but the issue is
simply that given this background, the media and political portrayal
of some kind of "irrational" or hard to understand nature on the part
of North Korea is pure bunk.
Again, that it's very easy to understand how and why they would react
when they are under severe and repeated threat by the
Washington.
* * * *
Amy Goodman: Seung Hye Suh, talk about your own background. Where your
family is from?
SEUNG HYE SUH: Sure. Well I have family from both sides of the DMZ.--
my father was born in what's now the D.P.R.K. [North Korea] my mother
in, what's now the Republic of Korea [South Korea]. But for us,
there's really only one country. They were born prior to the
division of the country and so when people say well, which is your
home, I feel like the entire Korean peninsula is my home.
AMY GOODMAN: Though you were born here in the United States?
SEUNG HYE SUH: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: And the feeling of South Koreans right now. The U.S. has
ramped up the pressure on North Korea. Presumably the ones who would
feel most threatened are the South Koreans. Who do they feel most
threatened by?
SEUNG HYE SUH: The South Korean people recognize that any war that
breaks out is going to be disastrous for the entire peninsula. It's
about a 30 minute plane ride between Seoul and Pyongyung. About a 45
minute drive from Seoul to the DMZ. And anything that happens on the
Korean peninsula will result in millions of deaths. And right now it
looks like the United States is threatening the D.P.R.K. with a
nuclear first strike.
AMY GOODMAN: What's its interest in provoking that kind of conflict?
MARTIN HART-LANDSBERG: Well, I think the first thing is that the
U.S. has interest in maintaining hostilities on the Korean
peninsula. And that has been both to support conservative governments
in the South, to have a reason to maintain troops in the Asian
peninsula. After the Soviet Union collapsed, it was to maintain
military spending, support for a missile defense program...
AMY GOODMAN: And what does this mean for countries like China and
Japan? In Japan--I don't know if there is any relation to what
happened on Friday--a brawl on the floor of the Japanese parliament,
over the call by the leader in the parliament to support sending of
troops to Iraq.
MARTIN HART-LANDSBERG: Well, I think there's no doubt that a -- this
U.S. policy which has raised hostilities in the Korean peninsula, is
having very negative effects everywhere. It's definitely strengthening
militarism in Japan... It's definitely causing the Chinese and South
Koreans to think about, you know, militarizing. So in essence anything
that adds to this hostility has given an excuse and cover for
militarists in the United States, in Japan, China, everywhere. So the
costs are very high. What's important is that the American people need
to see the costs of this policy for us as well in the militarism, in
the war on terror and in the possible fact that we may well have a war.
AMY GOODMAN: And Seung Hye Suh, how are you organizing? As a
Korean-American here? This weekend you had the protests in Washington.
SEUNG HYE SUH: Right. The protest this weekend is just part of our
ongoing campaign to ask for an end to the Korean war. To say that we
need to bring peace to the Korean peninsula and unification to
Korea. We're also organizing within Korean communities across the
country, as well as educating and organizing in the broader American
society, and we're really trying to link this issue to things that are
going on around the world. If you look at what the United States has
done in Iraq and the message that that sends to the D.P.R.K. which is,
if you disarm we can attack you.
AMY GOODMAN: And finally, on the issue of organizing here, have you
made any links, bridges to Korean war veterans, U.S./Korean war
veterans?
SEUNG HYE SUH: Well, actually there are some U.S. Korean war veterans
who are entirely in support of our movement. And I don't think any of
them were at our demonstration yesterday. But we are in conversation
with Korean war veterans in South Korea, was well as in the U.S. armed
forces, who understand that what a horror war is and that we need to do
everything we can to avoid it.
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/07/28/1358225&mode=thread&tid=25
Martin Hart-Landsberg, author of Korea: Division, Reunification and
U.S. Foreign Policy. He teaches economics at Lewis and Clark College.
Seung Hye Suh, an organizer with Nodutdol.com for Korean Community
Development. They recently organized Commemoration for Change
[http://www.july27.org]: a weekend of action to stop war on the Korean
Peninsula.
******************************
PLEASE SIGN PETITION AT WWW.JULY27.ORG FOR AN END TO THE KOREAN WAR,
A VERY REASONABLE STATEMENT EVERY AMERICAN, KOREAN, AND THOSE
WHO CARE ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THIS WORLD, SHOULD SIGN
*******************************
For additional background, see interview with Professor Han S. Park,
Director of the Center for the Study of Global Issues at the
University of Georgia. [He avoids directly talking about
the history of nuclear threats by Washington against North
Korea, etc, but otherwise at least gives some of the
important background supplementing the above]:
http://www.radio4all.net/proginfo.php?id=7538
Press "play" or, due to slow server, best to let is download
in the background until done, then listen to the 10M file from your
disk.
VERY GOOD INTERVIEW
***********************
Daily Online 2 hour radio show reporting: www.DemocracyNow.org
= = = =
Sorry we cannot read/reply to most usenet posts but welcome email
For more information: http://EconomicDemocracy.org/wtc/ (peace)
And http://EconomicDemocracy.org/ (general)
ANTI-SPAM EMAIL NOTE: For email "info" and "map" don't work. Email instead
to m-a-i-l-m-a-i-l (without the dashes) at economicdemocracy.org