|
CounterPunch
January
3, 2003
Hidden Casualties
& Secret Diplomacy:
The History of US Relations with North Korea
by PATRICK CARKIN
For the past 50 years the US policy toward North
Korea has been proof that most conflicts and wars can be prevented.
In light of the last two years under the Bush administration,
this history also shows just how inept the Bush White House is
when it comes to formulating effective foreign policies that
will make the world more safe for all of us.
Although most people don't realize it,
the Korean War never officially ended. It has been a legal ceasefire
for the past 50 years. The public has been led to believe, however,
that the war was, for all practical purposes, over. The truth
is, the fighting has never stopped. Proving this fact and how
it illustrates how we can avoid full scale war if we truly desired
to do so is difficult because much of the evidence is classified.
For one year, from September of 1989
to September of 1990, I served in a high level intelligence unit
in South Korea called CSCT #1, or Combat Support Coordination
Team #1. Its mission was to act as a liaison unit between the
US 8th Army and the South Korean 1st Army. What I learned while
there, from both classified and private sources, helps illustrate
why a war with Iraq is clearly not about the threat of Saddam
Hussein and weapons of mass destruction.
Before I was sent to my unit I received
a classified briefing at Ft. Huachuca, Arizona that was attended
by all US Army personnel who had received similar orders. Everyone
there was informed of how grave the situation was in South Korea.
Riots, tear gas, and low level combat were all possible. We were
advised by one speaker to hope and pray that we didn't receive
orders for the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) because, on average,
about eight American soldiers were killed there every year by
North Korean forces by sniper fire or in small skirmishes.
Eight soldiers a year might sound like
a low number. But the important thing to note is that this information,
at least to my knowledge, has never been made public before.
The majority of soldiers who were killed by North Korean forces
were almost assuredly never recognized for their ultimate sacrifice.
In other words, there could be approximately 400 families out
there, and perhaps more, who were never told that their son or
daughter was killed in combat. Most likely, they were told that
they were swept away in a flooded river or died by accident when
a grenade or some other weapon malfunctioned.
Multiple incidents, some publicly known
and others never before revealed, validate the eight soldiers
a year estimate.
In 1968, for example, one US sailor from
the captured USS Pueblo died (and may have been killed) while
in custody of the North Koreans. In 1976 two soldiers were brutally
killed with axes when they attempted to remove a tree that was
obstructing the vision of UN soldiers on the DMZ. In another
incident in 1984, one South Korean and three North Korean soldiers
were killed in a gun battle when a Soviet translator attempted
to defect by crossing the DMZ into South Korea. All three of
these incidents, among numerous others, are widely known, including
the axe murders which were captured on film by the US Army.
Far more astonishing are the events about
which the public was never told. These incidents are particularly
revealing as to how much effort the US has put into avoiding
going to full scale war since 1953.
For example, it's estimated that North
Korea has dug approximately 20 tunnels under the DMZ into South
Korea. These are invasion routes, two for every North Korean
combat infantry division along the border. In the late winter
of 1990, the same year that Iraq invaded Kuwait, one of these
tunnels was discovered by the US Army. This was the fourth such
tunnel that had been found since the beginning of the 1953 ceasefire.
The official story offered by the US military at the time was
that only a few bomb sniffing dogs were killed by mines.
However, a soldier I knew who served
in the unit which went down into the tunnel told me a far different
story. According to this man, US and South Korean forces were
confronted by an entire North Korean company under the DMZ on
the South Korean side. What ensued was a firefight which resulted
in the deaths of more than 50 North Koreans as well as a half
dozen or so American soldiers. That same year, approximately
two months after this skirmish, it was announced that North Korea
was finally releasing the remains of several soldiers who had
been killed during the Korean War. According to my source, the
North Koreans did this in exchange for the bodies of all the
men who were killed in the invasion tunnel months earlier.
Another incident was recently revealed
to me at an anti-war presentation I was giving where I met a
man who served in the US Army in the early 1960s and was stationed
in South Korea on the DMZ. According to this man, one of his
buddies was killed by sniper fire while he was driving his Jeep.
The man's parents were told that he died when his vehicle overturned
on a slippery road. The casket, as is likely common in deaths
such as this, was sent home sealed according to my source.
These public and hidden events fit into
a long history of hostility between North Korea and the United
States. Despite what the White House has stated, under both Republican
and Democratic presidents, North Korea has always been militarily
a far greater threat than Iraq. They have had more soldiers under
arms, have been committed to using those soldiers in combat against
South Korean and US soldiers for the past 50 years, and have
been controlled by an extreme and brutal isolationist, Stalinist-style
Communist regime that is responsible for hundreds of thousands
of civilian deaths. If we added up the numbers, the North Korean
government is responsible for far more deaths than Saddam Hussein.
There has been much controversy about
the recent admission by North Korea that they have nuclear weapons.
However, in 1989 and 1990 US Army Intelligence believed that
they already had developed such weapons. Around mid-1990 I also
read an official ranking of military powers across the globe.
At that time President Bush Sr. stated that Iraq had the "fourth
largest" force in the world. However, classified US Army
analysis indicated that Iraq wasn't even in the top ten in terms
of strength - but North Korea was. The Army had concluded even
then, when Iraq had a far stronger military than it does now,
that North Korea was a more powerful enemy. In other words, North
Korea is, and has been for many years, the threat that the US
government has been making Iraq out to be. Furthermore, while
Saddam Hussein was our ally in the Middle East for many years,
North Korea has always been our enemy - an enemy that's been
killing our soldiers and threatening invasion of South Korea
for 50 years.
Despite this history of conflict, the
US has generally shown a pattern of reserved warnings to North
Korea that we will defend South Korea. In other words, we will
respond only if they act. This is in stark contrast to President
Bush's recent push to preemptively and unilaterally attack with
no provocation, very little if any evidence, and a host of hidden
agendas that have nothing to do with regime change, weapons of
mass destruction or even the brutality of Saddam Hussein. There
is in fact a mountain of evidence which clearly points to the
US replacing Saddam with a pro-US dictator who will simply give
us access to Iraqi oil.
None of this is to suggest that we should
go to war with North Korea. Such an argument would be ludicrous,
especially given the brutality of the Korean War in which over
four million people, including more than 33,000 American soldiers,
were killed in three years. This is a rate far greater than what
we saw in Vietnam. No one wants to fight this war all over again,
including most likely the vast majority of those with more hawkish
views. Diplomacy has been the logical preferred route under all
Presidents since Eisenhower.
Until now. The Bush administration, out
of sheer belligerence, ineptitude, or some foolish hidden agenda,
appears to be taking the approach to North Korea that it has
with Iraq. For example, Donald Rumsfeld recently warned that
the US could fight two wars simultaneously, one in Korea and
another in Iraq, and still win. These remarks not only exacerbated
tensions with North Korea, but also angered South Koreans who,
according to recent polls, now fear George Bush more than they
do a nuke-wielding North Korea.
The Bush administration has made some
effort at diplomacy. White House spokesman Sean McCormack recently
stated, "We've made very clear we want a peaceful resolution
to the situation North Korea has created by pursuing a covert
nuclear weapons program, and as the president has said before,
we have no intention of invading North Korea." However,
as McCormack's statement shows, the Bush administration's attempts
at diplomacy only go so far. Part of the problem is that they
have been refusing to dialogue with North Korea because they
seem to think that a conversation is an immediate concession.
Such an attitude can only make the situation worse, especially
since the common wisdom is that North Korea is aggressively posturing
because it so desperately needs outside aid and assistance or,
perhaps, truly feels threatened by the new US doctrine of preemptive
attack and believes that it must act in self defense. Either
way, Bush seems to be only interested in using the stick, not
the carrot.
Before George Bush came to office the
United States seemed committed to avoiding war with North Korea.
We've used a long list of tactics, from negotiation to threatening
force to exchanging prisoners and/or bodies. But never, not since
1953, an outright war. Why? Why exert all this effort to avoid
war with a brutal regime such as North Korea's? Could it be that
it would be senseless to fight a war which would result in hundreds
of thousands of casualties if not far worse? Yes, that's true.
But the answer probably lies closer to a resource that we Americans
have foolishly staked our future upon - oil. There is none in
North Korea.
So why the apparent change in tactics
toward North Korea? There seems to be no definite indication
as to what the Bush administration's intentions are. It's also
extremely troubling to note that we are now emphasizing North
Korea's "only recent" violations such as their illegal
use of machine guns into the Demilitarized Zone. Is this some
attempt to quietly shift American public opinion to view North
Korea as a threat without mentioning all the other horrible things
that have happened between our two nations? There's no way to
tell at this time.
The public needs to know about the events
of the past 50 years because they prove that the Bush administration's
lack of diplomacy and new tactics of aggression simply do not
work. The past 50 years also prove that if we committed ourselves
to a path of avoiding war, with North Korea, Iraq, or any other
nation for that matter, we would most likely succeed. But this
will never happen while we continue our addiction to oil, view
other nations as our resources to be used and manipulated, or
behave as if only our interests matter.
Patrick Carkin
is currently the Co-Director of NH
Peace Action and the owner/administrator of birddogger.org,
a web site tool to assist those who challenge US politicians.
He can be contacted at: info@nhpeaceaction.org.
Today's Features
Dr. Werther
Third
Reich Syndrome: George Will and the Collapse of Historical Knowledge
Kurt Nimmo
Bush's
Master Plan for the Internet
Robert Jensen
We
Won't Be Fighting for Freedom in Iraq
Krystal Kyer
Not
Another Draft!
M. Shahid Alam
Why
9-11 and Why Now?
Mark Weisbrot
Can the Courts Tackle Corporate Crime?
Alan Maass
Another Kick in the Teeth for the
Unemployed
Keep CounterPunch Alive:
Make
a Tax-Deductible Donation Today Online!
CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- CounterPunch Special:
The Persecution of Gershon Legman by Susan Davis: Smut, the Post Office, Commies
and the FBI;
- Reeling Democrats: Is Pelosi the Answer?
- Gandhi v. Hitler: the Secret Race for the Nobel
Prize;
- Sullying Mario Savio's
Memory;
- Lynching Then and Now;
- Earn While You Learn: Chris Whittle and Child Labor;
The Case of the Pompous
Professor;
- The Class Struggle in
Boston: All that
Effort, But What Did They Get?
Remember, the CounterPunch website is
supported exclusively by subscribers to our newsletter. Our worldwide
web audience is soaring , with about seven million hits a month
now. This is inspiring, but the work involved also compels us
to remind you more urgently than ever to subscribe and/or make
a (tax deductible) donation if you can afford it. If you find our site useful please: Subscribe
Now!
Or Call Toll Free 1 800 840 3683
home / subscribe
/ about us
/ books
/ archives
/ search
/ links
/
|
December 24,
2002
Joanne Mariner
Refusing
to Fight in Israel
Jeffrey St.
Clair
The Drug
War According to Dr. Mengele: Agent Green Over the Andes
Gavin Martin
Joe Strummer
is Dead: Long Live the Clash!
Daniel Wolff
From Gospel to the Birth of Soul: Sam
Cooke & the Soul Stirrers
David Vest
Stirred and Shaken
Ben Tripp
Yuletide
Saul Landau
The Quiet American Returns
Michael Wolff
X-mas in Zone One
Kevin Begley
Nestlé and a Nation in Famine
Francis Boyle
O Little Town of Bethlehem
Linda Heard
Where are the Wise Men?
Philip Farruggio
On the First Day of X-mas
Resources:
100s of Links
About 9/11
CounterPunch:
Complete
Coverage of 9/11 and Its Aftermath
Five
Days That
Shook The World:
Seattle and Beyond
By
Alexander Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
Photos by Allan Sekula
(Click Here to Order from CounterPunch
Online at 20% Off Amazon.com's price!)
Read
Whiteout and Find Out
How the CIA's Backing of the Mujahideen Created the World's Most
Robust Heroin Market and Helped to Finance the Rise of the Taliban
and Osama bin Laden
Whiteout:
CIA, Drugs & the
Press
by Alexander
Cockburn
and Jeffrey St. Clair
|