|
CounterPunch
October
30, 2002
North Korean
Nuke Admission Destroys US War Stance on Iraq
by LINDA S. HEARD
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.
Further, North Korea has a big brother,
China, which looks out for its interests, a detail that will
not have escaped the American president's hawkish advisers.
Last weekend, the U.S. President joined
with the leaders of Japan and South Korea in a bid to "persuade"
North Korea to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme, while
at the same time vowing to achieve a peaceful outcome to the
dispute.
Earlier, North Korea had offered to cooperate
with the U.S. on condition that America withdraws what the North
Korean leadership calls its "hostile policy". The unhesitating
U.S. response was that the future of North Korea's nuclear weapons
programme is non-negotiable.
President Kim promptly reacted by threatening
to toughen his country's policy towards the U.S., whatever that
implies.
Even so, Washington has refrained from
doing its usual war dance and National Security Adviser Condoleezza
Rice and others in the administration have played down the situation
speaking in terms of diplomatic solutions.
One can only speculate upon why such
a cosy diplomatic option is not being offered to Baghdad, which,
unlike North Korea asserts that it does not possess weapons of
mass destruction. And while Saddam Hussain has been making every
effort to rejoin the world community, the U.S. and the UK have
denied him this option time after time.
In fact, the American government visibly
shudders at the thought of Baghdad opening its doors to Hans
Blix and his team of weapons inspectors and has stated that if
Baghdad puts a foot wrong once those inspectors are in place,
it will not hesitate in acting unilaterally.
After all those years of U.S. demands
that weapons inspectors return to Iraq, when Saddam finally acquiesces,
the Bush administration shows its displeasure, throwing suspicion
on Saddam's motives for agreeing to cooperate. Isn't it possible
that Saddam just doesn't want a bloody conflagration?
Chairman of the Senate Committee Patrick
Leahy recently commented that Pyongyang is a far greater threat
to U.S. security than Baghdad. Secretary of State Colin Powell
disagreed and said: "Saddam Hussain is more of a clear and
present danger (than North Korea)."
His explanation focused around the Iraqi
regime's invasions of both Iran and Kuwait during the last decades
and its allegedly using chemical weapons on its Kurdish population.
But Saddam's questionable history still
does not explain Washington's determination to oust the Iraqi
leader at this particular moment in time, while glossing over
the threat from Pyongyang. The inherent dangers in launching
a major attack on Iraq are manifold while conclusive proof that
Iraq's leader is a "clear and present danger" is insufficient
at best, absent at worst.
Washington admits that Iraq possessed
chemical and biological weapons during the Gulf War in 1991,
yet the Iraqi leader was restrained enough not to use them.
In this case, what would be his motive
for preemptively unleashing them now? In any event, although
Iraq's missiles have improved capabilities and can travel longer
distances, the U.S. has stated that they are not capable of reaching
either America or Britain.
Saddam is also known for being a survivor
and would gain nothing at all from unleashing his weapons on
American interests when he knows that U.S. retaliation would
be swift and devastating.
On the other hand, President Kim is an
unknown quantity. He is known to be reclusive and eccentric with
a fear of flying, which led to him taking an epic 10-day train
journey to visit his Russian counterpart in July 2001.
Amid U.S. and British assertions that
the Iraqi people have little love for their leader, Saddam organised
a national referendum with the continuance of his presidency
at stake. The result, although not independently verified, appears
to be overwhelmingly in his favour.
In a show of gratitude for his "re-election
to office" Saddam issued a decree releasing most of the
prisoners in his jails, including political prisoners - the first
time this has ever happened during his long presidency.
While Saddam is doing his best to appear
as a benign figure - admittedly a tall order - Bush and the hawks
in the White House and the Pentagon are coming across as dictatorial
and self-interested.
Following the North Korean admission
and the comparatively calm reaction of the U.S., the Bush administration's
case for attacking Iraq has been weakened. It is now evident
that Saddam isn't the only leader to have unilaterally broken
agreements and far from being the only detractor of the U.S.
who is allegedly developing weapons of mass destruction.
The more jaundiced among us will be unable
to ignore the one main difference between Iraq and North Korea
- oil. Put simply, Iraq has vast reserves still untapped, while
North Korea is economically on its knees, without the benefit
of such prized black gold.
The other factor crucial to the Bush
administration is geographical. Korea's weapons delivery systems
do not have the range to do any harm to either the U.S. mainland
or Israel. The same cannot be said of Iraq, which launched its
Scud missiles in the direction of Tel Aviv in 1991.
Saddam may be a wild card, but then so
is President Kim, along with several leaders of ex-Soviet Union
countries who still have nuclear missiles along with stocks of
the plutonium and uranium to manufacture nuclear warheads.
Russia is currently assisting Iran with
its nuclear power reactor at Bushehr, which will enable Iran
to produce weapons-grade fissionable material, and has rejected
all American pressure to desist. In these days when the U.S.
is showing who's boss, it will not be surprising if other smaller
nations decide that it is in their interests to protect themselves
from America's new imperialism in any way they can.
North Korea has every reason to want
to hold on to its nuclear weapons, which provide a deterrent
against U.S. threats that in certain circumstances, America would
use its weapons of mass destruction against the North Koreans.
They also act as a buffer to South Korea's
conventional military supremacy, and substitute for the loss
of its once Communist ally Russia. Without serious military clout,
North Korea would have little choice but to toe a line dictated
by a White House, which has already labelled it as "evil".
America is fast becoming a quixotic figure
fighting windmills; its war on terror hasn't succeeded now that
Al Qaida is back up and running and its Middle East policy, if
it has one, is in a shambles. Worse, the world at large, and
especially the Arab world, views the once kindly Uncle Sam with
burgeoning suspicion.
Before any of us can really feel safe
again, and nuclear non-proliferation can get back on track, the
U.S. should analyse its international policies and attitudes
with a view to engaging once more with the rest of the world
instead of behaving as a megalomaniac headmaster.
The American people themselves are beginning
to question their government, as evidenced by the hundreds of
thousands who demonstrated against war last Saturday in Washington
and San Francisco, including thousands of veterans of the Vietnam
War.
For the sake of the Iraqi people, and
the region as a whole, let's hope that Bush and his administration
take note.
Linda Heard
is a writer, editor and Arabist, who has lived and worked for
most of her life in the Middle East.
She can be reached at: freenewsreport@yahoo.com
Yesterday's
Features
Steven Higgs
"They
Beat the Hell Out of Me"
Cops Target Green Politician
Carol Norris
Advertising Deregulated:
The Inalienable Right to Mislead Millions
Sam Bahour and Michael
Dahan
Roadmap
to Nowhere
Pierre Tristam
In Defense of Not Voting
Sunil Sharma
Mourn Wellstone, Don't Mythologize Him
Ida Audeh
Picking
Olives and Removing Roadblocks:
an Interview with Ghassan Adoni
Anthony Gancarski
From Russia with Gas
The Calmatives Before the Storm
New
Print Edition of CounterPunch Available Exclusively
to Subscribers:
- The Shafts of Death: Bush, Coal Mines, and Death
in the Tunnels;
- Speak Memory!: Carter and the Draft;
- Daniel Pipes' World: Smearing Pro-Arab Academics;
- Ashcroft's Gays: the War on Free Speech;
- Saddam's Amnesty: Could It Happen Here?
- Criminalizing Dissent: a history and preview;
- Iraq 1987: When the Going Was Good;
- Egypt in Turmoil: an Anthropologist's Account;
- Green and Grounded: Profiled at the Gate.
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
/
|