Click amount to donate direct to CounterPunch
  • $25
  • $50
  • $100
  • $500
  • $other
  • use PayPal
DOUBLE YOUR DONATION!
We don’t run corporate ads. We don’t shake our readers down for money every month or every quarter like some other sites out there. We provide our site for free to all, but the bandwidth we pay to do so doesn’t come cheap. A generous donor is matching all donations of $100 or more! So please donate now to double your punch!
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Bush, Nukes and North Korea

 

In recent weeks, the war of words between the U.S. and northern Korea has ratcheted upwards. Northern Korea has kicked out inspectors for the international nuclear watchdog agency IAEA, threatened war if the UN security council places sanctions on the country, and withdrawn from the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. In the meantime, the United States has moved more Weapons of mass destruction, troops, aircraft, and sailors into the region, contemplated a pre-emptive attack on the country, and pushed for sanctions against northern Korea. Japan and southern Korea are doing what they can to prevent events from getting out of hand between the two belligerents by encouraging conversations, making positive overtures to northern Korea’s government, and telling the Bush administration to shut up. So far, this strategy has worked. One wonders, though, for how long.

In fact, as I write this, the papers are running stories about North Korea’s threatened pullout from the 1953 armistice agreement signed by the U.S. and North Korean military commands that ended the shooting war fifty years ago. Their reason for doing this is the continued buildup of US forces in region. They fear a surprise attack and understandably want to be prepared. In the statement released by Pyongyang, the government press agency noted the continued violations by the United States of the armistice agreement’s limitations on troop strength and types of weapons. The United States, in its turn, considers Pyongyang’s recent nuclear moves as violations of various international treaties it had previously signed. Both governments are probably correct in these appraisals of their opponent’s actions and motives. The people of the region, meanwhile, are hoping that the tension can be resolved without war, as happened in the past, most recently in 1994. This hope is shared by the all of the world, especially the recently elected government of southern Korea, the governments of China and Russia, and the government of Japan. Most of these capitals are involved in efforts to de-escalate the tensions. It remains to be seen whether or not they will be successful.

I have often wondered (like any thinking individual), why isn’t there a peace treaty? Although some US government documents state that it is North Korea who does not want such a treaty, history tells us otherwise. It is Washington that does not want a peace agreement. Washington and its client regime sabotaged the political conference in 1954 that was to have been a forerunner to a peace conference and Washington has ignored most every other opportunity for such a conference since then. This is despite Pyongyang’s almost constant calls for this conference. The only exception to the US lack of interest in negotiating a permanent settlement that I can find occurred in 1994 when, after another near-war, the Clinton administration began talks that resulted in agreements that were designed to end Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons project and help that country overcome a drought-induced famine. Since Dubya took over in 2000, however, the relations between the two capitols has slipped to its worst state since 1968, when North Korea captured the U.S. Navy spy-ship, The Pueblo.

If one investigates the history books, s/he’ll discover that the U.S. foreign policy in the 1950s had one guiding principle: stop communism. The architects of this policy defined communism as any movement that threatened U.S. designs for empire. Oftentimes, this meant stopping democratic movements that opposed European colonialism and American support for that colonialism. This designation of national liberation movements as communist was self-fulfilling. Why? Primarily because the communist elements in these movements were the most committed and ended up making the most sense to the populations in the affected countries after less militant elements were co-opted or killed by colonial armies and U.S. intelligence operations.

Since the containment of communist regimes was the modus operandi of U.S. foreign policy during the period, the United States considered it absolutely necessary that the two largest communist nations-the Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China-were contained militarily and economically. Maintaining a military presence in Korea was essential to this plan, and any peace treaty would have required the withdrawal of all foreign troops from the Korean peninsula. Hence, a peace treaty was the last thing the United States wanted. The best solution for Washington would have been a total defeat and occupation of the northern half of Korea, but the Korean conflict of 1950 – 1953 had proven that the political and human cost of such an endeavor was more than the American population was willing to pay. So, the next best strategy was the situation that has existed on the Korean peninsula since June 1953. No war, but no peace.

Although the cold war has been over for more than a decade, the same strategy of containment exists in that region of the world. China, now communist in name only, is still the greatest long-term military threat to U.S. hegemony in the eyes of the Pentagon and Defense Department. If one looks at where recent U.S. military bases have been built, s/he will note that, when added to existing U.S. military presence in Asia, these bases form an almost complete circle around the Chinese nation. This is not an accident.

Of course, the Pentagon does not want a war with China. These days it prefers smaller battles that it has a good chance of winning-Iraq, Afghanistan, and perhaps Colombia-but not with an equal combatant like China. In addition, China has no desire for war. In today’s world, this would probably only occur if the argument over Taiwan became a military one, although occurrences like the spy plane incident of 2001 have sparked wars between other nations before. There are those in the U.S. establishment, however, who would relish seeing their fantasy of one Korea under the rule of the United States army. One imagines that they are secretly hoping for some kind of incident that could be used as a rationale for attacking Pyongyang’s army. It is these ultra-right elements that seem to have the ear of Dubya these days. One can assume that it is these men and women who are encouraging the bellicose statements towards Korea as they simultaneously push our nation towards a war with Iraq.

So, why doesn’t the United States want a peace treaty with North Korea? Why are they willing to risk another bloody war with that country’s military? The reason is simple: because any peace agreement would require that the United States remove all of its forces, weapons, including its weapons of mass destruction (which include nuclear weapons) from the southern half of the country. This action would limit Washington’s ability to bully other governments in the region. In addition, it would end one more rationalization Washington likes to use for its marriage to the defense industry and the accompanying transfer of public funds to that industry in the name of what passes for national security in the warfare state. It seems to me that if Washington were truly interested in national security, it would want peace with Pyongyang, not war. In that case, a peace treaty with Pyongyang is a no-brainer.

RON JACOBS can be reached at: rjacobs@zoo.uvm.edu

More articles by:

Ron Jacobs is the author of Daydream Sunset: Sixties Counterculture in the Seventies published by CounterPunch Books. His latest offering is a pamphlet titled Capitalism: Is the Problem.  He lives in Vermont. He can be reached at: ronj1955@gmail.com.

October 23, 2018
Patrick Cockburn
The Middle East, Not Russia, Will Prove Trump’s Downfall
Ipek S. Burnett
The Assault on The New Colossus: Trump’s Threat to Close the U.S.-Mexican Border
Mary Troy Johnston
The War on Terror is the Reign of Terror
Maximilian Werner
The Rhetoric and Reality of Death by Grizzly
David Macaray
Teamsters, Hells Angels, and Self-Determination
Jeffrey Sommers
“No People, Big Problem”: Democracy and Its Discontents In Latvia
Dean Baker
Looking for the Next Crisis: the Not Very Scary World of CLOs
Binoy Kampmark
Leaking for Change: ASIO, Jakarta, and Australia’s Jerusalem Problem
Chris Wright
The Necessity of “Lesser-Evil” Voting
Muhammad Othman
Daunting Challenge for Activists: The Cook Customer “Connection”
Don Fitz
A Debate for Auditor: What the Papers Wouldn’t Say
October 22, 2018
Henry Giroux
Neoliberalism in the Age of Pedagogical Terrorism
Melvin Goodman
Washington’s Latest Cold War Maneuver: Pulling Out of the INF
David Mattson
Basket of Deplorables Revisited: Grizzly Bears at the Mercy of Wyoming
Michelle Renee Matisons
Hurricane War Zone Further Immiserates Florida Panhandle, Panama City
Tom Gill
A Storm is Brewing in Europe: Italy and Its Public Finances Are at the Center of It
Suyapa Portillo Villeda
An Illegitimate, US-Backed Regime is Fueling the Honduran Refugee Crisis
Christopher Brauchli
The Liars’ Bench
Gary Leupp
Will Trump Split the World by Endorsing a Bold-Faced Lie?
Michael Howard
The New York Times’ Animal Cruelty Fetish
Alice Slater
Time Out for Nukes!
Geoff Dutton
Yes, Virginia, There are Conspiracies—I Think
Daniel Warner
Davos in the Desert: To Attend or Not, That is Not the Question
Priti Gulati Cox – Stan Cox
Mothers of Exiles: For Many, the Child-Separation Ordeal May Never End
Manuel E. Yepe
Pence v. China: Cold War 2.0 May Have Just Begun
Raouf Halaby
Of Pith Helmets and Sartorial Colonialism
Dan Carey
Aspirational Goals  
Wim Laven
Intentional or Incompetence—Voter Suppression Where We Live
Weekend Edition
October 19, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Jason Hirthler
The Pieties of the Liberal Class
Jeffrey St. Clair
A Day in My Life at CounterPunch
Paul Street
“Male Energy,” Authoritarian Whiteness and Creeping Fascism in the Age of Trump
Nick Pemberton
Reflections on Chomsky’s Voting Strategy: Why The Democratic Party Can’t Be Saved
John Davis
The Last History of the United States
Yigal Bronner
The Road to Khan al-Akhmar
Robert Hunziker
The Negan Syndrome
Andrew Levine
Democrats Ahead: Progressives Beware
Rannie Amiri
There is No “Proxy War” in Yemen
David Rosen
America’s Lost Souls: the 21st Century Lumpen-Proletariat?
Joseph Natoli
The Age of Misrepresentations
Ron Jacobs
History Is Not Kind
John Laforge
White House Radiation: Weakened Regulations Would Save Industry Billions
Ramzy Baroud
The UN ‘Sheriff’: Nikki Haley Elevated Israel, Damaged US Standing
Robert Fantina
Trump, Human Rights and the Middle East
Anthony Pahnke – Jim Goodman
NAFTA 2.0 Will Help Corporations More Than Farmers
Jill Richardson
Identity Crisis: Elizabeth Warren’s Claims Cherokee Heritage
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail