FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Rockets and Pyongyang

by BINOY KAMPMARK

There is a lot of noise at the moment on the Korean Peninsula.  One might argue that there always is, but on this occasion, interest is centred on whether the DPRK will test a new disguised ballistic missile, ostensibly to launch satellite into space sometime this month.  Officially, the test has been pushed back to December 29th. South Korean sources claim that the delay was occasioned by a faulty component in the Unha-3 rocket.

What a busy month this is proving to be.  The first anniversary of the death of Kim Jong Il, to be marked on December 17th; the South Korean presidential elections, slated for December 19th; and the Japanese elections on December 16th.  Add to this the arrival of China’s new leader Xi Jinping, and we have a considerable fruit salad of variables (The Economist, Dec 1).

Washington and its allies insist that the launch will violate UN resolutions connected with Pyongyang’s nuclear tests in 2006 and 2009.  The reason is not the interest in the satellite, but fears that putting such a rocket into space successfully suggests that the North Korean regime will be able to send the rocket to more terrestrial targets.

The Japanese government, precisely on this point, has threatened action against the rocket, should it be fired and veer its way through Japanese airspace.  Prime Minister Yoshihiko Noda, in early December, spoke of issuing orders on the part of his defence minister “to prepare for the interception and defence against ballistic missiles” (ABC, Dec 3).

The old line is bound to be pursued – more sanctions, more limitations on the DPRK.  Washington’s approach is tried and ineffective.  When the failed April test eventuated, the Obama administration wished to tighten the noose, abandoning discussions for a food-aid deal.  China baulked at the suggestion.  “China sets the maximum response level in the Security Council when it comes to North Korea, claimed a senior South Korean government official.  “So the existing list of UN sanctions on the North is essentially China’s list.”

Repeatedly, Chinese influence over the DPRK has been exaggerated.  One example stands out.  Models of economic reform have been suggested to Pyongyang – the Chinese “miracle” of Market Leninism, the sort of approach which, should it be deployed in North Korea, would probably precipitate a collapse.  While the Chinese refuse to entertain that toxic idea of “regime change”, they are content to encourage change by example. But such miracles have not enticed the North Koreans.

Wang Dong, director of the Centre for Northeast Asian Strategic Studies at Peking University, puts it bluntly.  “If you think that because I give you economic aid, and I give you energy, then I can bring you to your knees, I can pressure you to listen to me, you become my puppet, it would be an illusion.”

The problem here with Pyongyang is that speculation is the only thing that is certain.  Smokescreens are a permanent feature of the conversation, if it can even be called it that.  Since the foolish measures undertaken by the Bush administration in 2003 to embroil itself and its allies in a bloody conflict in Iraq, Pyongyang has been wary to tone down the rhetoric.  When in doubt, exaggerate the incinerating potential of one’s arsenal and hope for the best.  The nuclear option is a sovereign option.

More to the point, it has made the obtaining of a viable nuclear option critical.  It is no surprise that another country keen to acquire a nuclear option – Iran – has sent its own experts to Pyongyang to offer “technical assistance” for the rocket launch.  Japan’s Kyodo news agency, and an assortment of other sources suggest that Iranian defence staff have been stationed in North Korea since October (The Nation, Dec 11).

An entire literature of punditry and psycho-babble has grown up about the new “Hollywood” style leader and prospects of reform.  In truth, no one truly knows the mind of Kim Jong Un and what he might do next.  The indignant belligerence that spouts from the DPRK political structure is a reflex, and the various techniques of persuasion vary in terms of conviction and effectiveness.

It has been clear for a time now that the DPRK treasures one goal in its foreign policy above all else in the current climate: a negative security assurance from Washington that they will not be struck. Peace treaties are a secondary feature in the plan.  Till more concrete measures are undertaken in that direction, this pantomime of aggression and counter-aggression from the DPRK and its neighbours will continue. The only ones who will be profiting in this, as they always have been, will be the arms dealers and military cliques.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.com

More articles by:
May 30, 2016
Ron Jacobs
The State of the Left: Many Movements, Too Many Goals?
James Abourezk
The Intricacies of Language
Porfirio Quintano
Hillary, Honduras, and the Murder of My Friend Berta
Patrick Cockburn
Airstrikes on ISIS are Reducing Their Cities to Ruins
Uri Avnery
The Center Doesn’t Hold
Raouf Halaby
The Sailors of the USS Liberty: They, Too, Deserve to Be Honored
Rodrigue Tremblay
Barack Obama’s Legacy: What Happened?
Matt Peppe
Just the Facts: The Speech Obama Should Have Given at Hiroshima
Deborah James
Trade Pacts and Deregulation: Latest Leaks Reveal Core Problem with TISA
Michael Donnelly
Still Wavy After All These Years: Flower Geezer Turns 80
Ralph Nader
The Funny Business of Farm Credit
Paul Craig Roberts
Memorial Day and the Glorification of Past Wars
Colin Todhunter
From Albrecht to Monsanto: A System Not Run for the Public Good Can Never Serve the Public Good
Rivera Sun
White Rose Begins Leaflet Campaigns June 1942
Tom H. Hastings
Field Report from the Dick Cheney Hunting Instruction Manual
Weekend Edition
May 27, 2016
Friday - Sunday
John Pilger
Silencing America as It Prepares for War
Rob Urie
By the Numbers: Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump are Fringe Candidates
Paul Street
Feel the Hate
Daniel Raventós - Julie Wark
Basic Income Gathers Steam Across Europe
Andrew Levine
Hillary’s Gun Gambit
Jeffrey St. Clair
Hand Jobs: Heidegger, Hitler and Trump
S. Brian Willson
Remembering All the Deaths From All of Our Wars
Dave Lindorff
With Clinton’s Nixonian Email Scandal Deepening, Sanders Must Demand Answers
Pete Dolack
Millions for the Boss, Cuts for You!
Gunnar Westberg
Close Calls: We Were Much Closer to Nuclear Annihilation Than We Ever Knew
Peter Lee
To Hell and Back: Hiroshima and Nagasaki
Karl Grossman
Long Island as a Nuclear Park
Binoy Kampmark
Sweden’s Assange Problem: The District Court Ruling
Robert Fisk
Why the US Dropped Its Demand That Assad Must Go
Martha Rosenberg – Ronnie Cummins
Bayer and Monsanto: a Marriage Made in Hell
Brian Cloughley
Pivoting to War
Stavros Mavroudeas
Blatant Hypocrisy: the Latest Late-Night Bailout of Greece
Arun Gupta
A War of All Against All
Dan Kovalik
NPR, Yemen & the Downplaying of U.S. War Crimes
Randy Blazak
Thugs, Bullies, and Donald J. Trump: The Perils of Wounded Masculinity
Murray Dobbin
Are We Witnessing the Beginning of the End of Globalization?
Daniel Falcone
Urban Injustice: How Ghettos Happen, an Interview with David Hilfiker
Gloria Jimenez
In Honduras, USAID Was in Bed with Berta Cáceres’ Accused Killers
Kent Paterson
The Old Braceros Fight On
Lawrence Reichard
The Seemingly Endless Indignities of Air Travel: Report from the Losing Side of Class Warfare
Peter Berllios
Bernie and Utopia
Stan Cox – Paul Cox
Indonesia’s Unnatural Mud Disaster Turns Ten
Linda Pentz Gunter
Obama in Hiroshima: Time to Say “Sorry” and “Ban the Bomb”
George Souvlis
How the West Came to Rule: an Interview with Alexander Anievas
Julian Vigo
The Government and Your i-Phone: the Latest Threat to Privacy
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail