FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

What’s So Crazy About North Korea?

by

Certain adjectives are always used whenever western statesmen or the press talk about North Korea. It is “crazy” because it is developing a massive military while its people go hungry. But in which state in the world is the priority that people get enough to eat and then the state starts developing nuclear weapons? Nowhere.

“Reclusive” is another indispensable descriptor. Meaning: North Korea withdraws from the normal intercourse between nations – diplomatic, military, economic. It goes its own way. But why should that be a problem? Evidently, this violates the west’s interest in some fundamental way.

The hostility between North Korea and the USA is easy to see, but you never hear about its real substance. If a state decides to oppose the principle of opening its borders to the world market, this is a practical obstacle to the American economy. The basis of the American criticism of North Korea is that US business should have unlimited access to resources worldwide – whether it makes use of those resources or not. The North Korean state excludes its resources from capitalist exploitation, so its leader is a “madman.”

The media likes to say that North Korea is “a hermit kingdom out of the stone age.” Its a funny accusation. North Korea can see what happened when the USSR gave up its state program and the fate of all the former soviet republics who decided to take part in the world market. What became of them? The choice for North Korea is clear: starving under military mobilization or starving under the condition of being useless for the world market. Its a lose-lose situation.

Behind all the west’s anti-North Korea propaganda is the fact that it is not interested in being part of the world market. This draws the animosity of the USA. So North Korea must mobilize the means to exist to face that animosity. That means a total mobilization of the nation and its resources. That’s the political-economic reason for its military policy: an inordinately huge military in relation to its population; an entire country in arms, force-fed propaganda; people going hungry and advanced weapons being developed.

From the North Korean point of view, one thing is certain: if it is to continue pursuing its interests as a sovereign state, it needs nuclear weapons. So what is its national interest? The negative side is its refusal to be part of the capitalist world order; it doesn’t want to use the world market. According to its understanding, its sovereignty depends on being a communist state. It is not simply a planned economy, but a wartime economy. All war economies are about supporting the state with whatever resources it has.

Just to be clear: to say that North Korea has a defensive project it is not a defending North Korea. If a state defines itself as anti-imperialist, this is not saying anything positive about that state. If a state insists on its sovereignty in the face of aggression, then this is what a state defending itself looks like: total mobilization; miserable living conditions.

Another term for North Korea is “bellicose.” Everybody in the west knows that Kim is a bad guy, a dictator, a threat to his neighbors and to the world. It is taken for granted that North Korea is the provocateur, that it is threatening other countries with nukes. But is that really so clear? The USA has a massive military presence on the Korean peninsula and is maneuvering there. The US says to North Korea: if you attack us or our allies, we will wipe you out. Who is provoking who? The provocation is mutual. Of course, Kim’s a bad guy; he’s developing nuclear weapons. But who has the most nukes in the world?

The US always represents its demands ideologically as the world’s demands. The US won’t just say: they don’t accommodate us. It says: they violate universal norms; they want war. This is a strange criticism to level against another state. Do other states want peace? North Korea is the one that supposedly wants war.

How does the US come to the conclusion that North Korea wants war? The US would never describe itself as “bellicose.” If North Korea is bellicose, then what it perceives as necessary to protect its interests is perceived by the USA as aggression.

The US wants a world of independent states that rule their own territories and peoples. And at same time this independence should work out for America’s benefit. Yet this is never guaranteed by independence. That’s a contradiction. The US goes around world saying “yes” and “no” to states; it does this on the Korean peninsula too. North Korean sovereignty is outside the mission of the US. It is not an approved state. It may make agreements with the west, but it is a flawed state from the inception. First, it has decided not to be capitalist and is not going to be part of the world market, but makes its own demands. Second, it will not subordinate itself to American hegemony. The US only concedes sovereignty to another state when it is submissive to all its demands.

America is making this demand not only on North Korea, but to China in regards to North Korea: you need to make sure your junior partner cooperates; if it doesn’t, then we will be knocking on your front door with an increased military presence. Either help us take care of North Korea or you will have to face new military bases and the further militarization of Japan. China didn’t ask for this role, but it is one that America assigns to China: the status of America’s helper.

China doesn’t like this. China’s interest is that it doesn’t want America assisting South Korea in unifying the Korean peninsula under the American-led world order. China wants to secure its own interests on the Korean peninsula – all the more since the US “pivot” towards Asia.

So China is supporting North Korea as a buffer zone. But China is faced with a problem because North Korea insists on its sovereignty in its attempt to develop nukes. It may use Chinese sponsorship, but it is still sovereign. This is similar to the relation of the US and Israel. The other state is a bastion of its influence, its instrument, and to that end it equips the other state with the means of sovereignty (weapons) and gives it an economy. But on the other hand it is dealing with a state that uses that aid to insist on its own sovereignty. China is unhappy that North Korea is dragging China into a conflict with the US that is not of China’s own making.

Another descriptor is that Kim is said to be “suicidal.” If he makes good on his threats, he would instantly be wiped out. But suicide by definition is something done to yourself. In this case, he would be killed by others. For the US, any state that contradicts its demand for open markets, for open borders to capital, for allowing everything on its territory to be used in capitalist competition, for granting access to every sphere – that’s “suicidal.”

Geoffrey McDonald is an editor at Ruthless Criticism. He can be reached at: ruthless_criticism@yahoo.com

More articles by:
June 30, 2016
Richard Moser
Clinton and Trump, Fear and Fascism
Pepe Escobar
The Three Harpies are Back!
Ramzy Baroud
Searching for a ‘Responsible Adult’: ‘Is Brexit Good for Israel?’
Dave Lindorff
What is Bernie Up To?
Thomas Barker
Saving Labour From Blairism: the Dangers of Confining the Debate to Existing Members
Jan Oberg
Why is NATO So Irrational Today?
John Stauber
The Debate We Need: Gary Johnson vs Jill Stein
Steve Horn
Obama Administration Approved Over 1,500 Offshore Fracking Permits
Rob Hager
Supreme Court Legalizes Influence Peddling: McDonnell v. United States
Norman Pollack
Economic Nationalism vs. Globalization: Janus-Faced Monopoly Capital
Binoy Kampmark
Railroaded by the Supreme Court: the US Problem with Immigration
Howard Lisnoff
Of Kiddie Crusades and Disregarding the First Amendment in a Public Space
Vijay Prashad
Economic Liberalization Ignores India’s Rural Misery
Caroline Hurley
We Are All Syrians
June 29, 2016
Diana Johnstone
European Unification Divides Europeans: How Forcing People Together Tears Them Apart
Andrew Smolski
To My Less-Evilism Haters: A Rejoinder to Halle and Chomsky
Jeffrey St. Clair
Noam Chomsky, John Halle and a Confederacy of Lampreys: a Note on Lesser Evil Voting
David Rosen
Birth-Control Wars: Two Centuries of Struggle
Sheldon Richman
Brexit: What Kind of Dependence Now?
Yves Engler
“Canadian” Corporate Capitalism
Lawrence Davidson
Return to the Gilded Age: Paul Ryan’s Deregulated Dystopia
Priti Gulati Cox
All That Glitters is Feardom: Whatever Happens, Don’t Blame Jill Stein
Franklin Lamb
About the Accusation that Syrian and Russian Troops are Looting Palmyra
Binoy Kampmark
Texas, Abortion and the US Supreme Court
Anhvinh Doanvo
Justice Thomas’s Abortion Dissent Tolerates Discrimination
Victor Grossman
Brexit Pro and Con: the View From Germany
Manuel E. Yepe
Brazil: the Southern Giant Will Have to Fight
Rivera Sun
The Nonviolent History of American Independence
Adjoa Agyeiwaa
Is Western Aid Destroying Nigeria’s Future?
Jesse Jackson
What Clinton Should Learn From Brexit
Mel Gurtov
Is Brexit the End of the World?
June 28, 2016
Jonathan Cook
The Neoliberal Prison: Brexit Hysteria and the Liberal Mind
Paul Street
Bernie, Bakken, and Electoral Delusion: Letting Rich Guys Ruin Iowa and the World
Anthony DiMaggio
Fatally Flawed: the Bi-Partisan Travesty of American Health Care Reform
Mike King
The “Free State of Jones” in Trump’s America: Freedom Beyond White Imagination
Antonis Vradis
Stop Shedding Tears for the EU Monster: Brexit, the View From the Peloponnese
Omar Kassem
The End of the Atlantic Project: Slamming the Brakes on the Neoliberal Order
Binoy Kampmark
Brexit and the Neoliberal Revolt Against Jeremy Corbyn
Doug Johnson Hatlem
Alabama Democratic Primary Proves New York Times’ Nate Cohn Wrong about Exit Polling
Ruth Hopkins
Save Bear Butte: Mecca of the Lakota
Celestino Gusmao
Time to End Impunity for Suharto’’s Crimes in Indonesia and Timor-Leste
Thomas Knapp
SCOTUS: Amply Serving Law Enforcement’s Interests versus Society’s
Manuel E. Yepe
Capitalism is the Opposite of Democracy
Winslow Myers
Up Against the Wall
Chris Ernesto
Bernie’s “Political Revolution” = Vote for Clinton and the Neocons
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail