North Korea: What’s really happening? Here's everything you need to know - by Tim Shorrock for salon

[Douglas Carpenter]

A very important article that must be read in full:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/north_korea_whats_really_happening/

Saturday, Apr 6, 2013 04:02 AM +1000

North Korea: What’s really happening

Are we primed for war? Here's everything you need to know about our current -- and past -- relationship with DPRK

By Tim Shorrock


North Korean army officers at a rally at Kim Il Sung Square in Pyongyang, North Korea, March 29, 2013. (AP Photo/Jon Chol Jin) (Credit: Jon Chol Jin)


It’s hard to believe today, but in 2000, Kim Jong-il, dispatched his second-in-command, Vice Marshal Jo Myong-rok, to Washington. There, Jo met in the White House with President Clinton as well as the secretaries of State and Defense. At that time, Clinton officials later said, the United States and the DPRK were on the verge of an agreement in which North Korea was going to end its missile production and testing program in return for guarantees from Washington that the United States would recognize the DPRK and respect its sovereignity. Those talks grew out of Clinton’s 1994 accord with Kim Il-sung – the current leader’s grandfather. North Korea shut down its Soviet-era nuclear power program and the United States, South Korea and Japan agreed to help build a light-water reactor for civilian use and supply fuel oil to fill the gap.

The 1994 agreement, in turn, set the stage for South Korean President Kim Dae-jung – at one point that country’s most famous dissident – to initiate a broad “Sunshine Policy” with the North designed to build political and military trust and lead eventually to normalization and a form of unification. During the sunshine era, Kim’s successor as president, Roh Moo-hyun, reached an agreement with Kim Jong-il to build the Kaesong industrial zone – now the only thread remaining of this brief period of glasnost on the Korean Peninsula. The warming was symbolized in late 2000, when Secretary of State Madeleine Albright flew to Pyongyang and met with Kim Jong-il in the highest-level meeting in U.S.-North Korean history.

But Clinton’s missile agreement was never completed, and in 2000 incoming President Bush declared that North Korea could not be trusted as a negotiating partner and stopped all talks with the DPRK. Then, after the 9/11 attacks, Bush decided to place North Korea in the company of Iran and Saddam Hussein’s Iraq as partners in the “Axis of Evil.” That ended any chance of rapprochment. The hostility only deepened when Bush invaded Iraq and installed a pro-U.S. government – a move that Pyongyang understood as a clear statement of Bush’s intentions in Korea. This was followed in 2002 by U.S. accusations, denied at the time by the DPRK, that it was running a secret uranium facility to build bombs. After that, the earlier Clinton agreement completely unraveled. In 2006, North Korea shocked the world by testing its first atomic bomb (for a detailed timeline of North Korea’s program, click here).

By 2007, however, Bush began to rethink his policies as the costs of the U.S. wars in Iraq and Afghanistan escalated. Prodded by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who was edging out Dick Cheney as Bush’s chief foreign policy guru, the administration participated in a series of negotiations involving China, Japan, Russia and North and South Korea. The so-called six-party talks ended in an accord that extended Clinton’s 1994 agreement, shut Yongbyon for good, and set a timeline for deepening U.S.-North Korean ties. That agreement ended what historian Bruce Cumings called at the time “the most asinine Korea policy in history.” The DPRK even broadcast video of the Yongbyon cooling tower being blown up (those images were replayed on U.S. television this week when the North threatened to restart that plant).

A year later, Barack Obama, running in part on a platform that promised U.S. talks with countries like North Korea and Iran, was elected president. Shortly into his administration, a new Korea policy began to evolve under the stewardship of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. It was called “strategic patience,” and was designed on the premise that Kim Jong-il was about to die and that the Kim dynasty, torn by internal power struggles, was bound to collapse. Clinton and Obama also made it clear that they would not reopen any talks with the North until it turned away from nuclear weapons and opened itself to change. That policy turned out to be a strategic miscalculation: Kim did die last year, but the transition to his third son, Kim Jong-un, has gone smoothly. The regime is still there, as strong as ever.

A very important article that must be read in full:

http://www.salon.com/2013/04/05/north_korea_whats_really_happening/

[Douglas Carpenter]

1. it goes without saying that North Korea's regime is crazy - but considering the cost even under the

best case scenario - of war with North Korea - With close to two million North Korean troops just north of Seoul - armed with some of the largest stockpiles of artillery and short range missiles on earth - it would be a matter of only minutes before there were several hundred thousands of dead South Koreans and much of South Korea's energy, transport and industrial infrastructure would almost certainly be destroyed. The situation for North Korea would doubtlessly be far worse - Even if total military victory came very quickly - millions of half-starved North Korean refugees will be struggling to make it south - just wrecking any viability for South Korea for a long, long time to come.

With all of this in mind and of course fully aware of the crazy nature of this isolated and paranoid regime - it only makes sense to examine what missteps have been made and to ask - Is there not an alternative to war? War with North Korea would truly be opening the gates to hell - and everyone will in the long run lose. Thus a little reflection on missteps while we try to find a way to avoid stumbling into a catastrophe is a sensible thing to do right now.

[nauthiz]

2. I'm tired of this word "crazy" being used in foreign policy

The North Korean government isn't crazy. That word makes us think that they just act irrationally. If they did, they would have already nuked Seoul and hastened their own demise. This is mostly theater. We need to look at what worked and what didn't. Namely, it's world view.

Clinton didn't think of Kim Il Sung as Satan. Yes, the man did painful and awful things to people, and I'm sure the mass graves in North Korea make other genocides look tame in comparison, but that isn't going to make their government stand down on their nuclear ambitions. You deal with them, logically, get an accord, be patient when they cheat on it (and they will), and eventually you'll get what you want. They are not crazy. Case in point, Kim Jong Il's death did NOTHING. Kim Jong Un is young, easily manipulated, and in a very precarious position. No reason to think the country would be in disarray, seeing as how it took more than one man to lead it.

Bush went in and did what most conservatives do: paint their opponent as a cartoon character. Everything is good and evil. No good person stands by and lets evil thrive. Jesus will bring his sword to cast Satan in the lake of fire. Anyone that negotiates with evil is evil themselves and immoral. Maybe even they're a...pacifist!

Well, let's see where that world view took us. 3% of Iraq's population is dead. They died in painful horrible ways. Tens of thousands of Pashtuns are dead, the northwestern region of Pakistan lives in terror, and the region is horribly unstable and not really all that advantageous for the U.S. But we showed strength! We weren't weak! We saw the mission through. We didn't stand idly by and let evil thrive, we showed them our strength and earned peace.

Not. It's not just looking at history, it's looking at the thinking that got us to where we are and changing it.

[John2]

3. I agree more with

you. I do not march in lock step with our Government and especially the propaganda put out by the corporate rightwing media. Our media is part of the propaganda which the Government officials use to mold our Foreign Policy. They need to get the American Public behind them to justify their Wars.

Hillary Clinton seems to be more Hawkish than her husband when it comes to Foreign Affairs. The media was part of the drive to attack Iraq. When Bush gave his address to Congress, it was all about nation building and changing regimes for democracies favorable to the United States. I see no difference in President Obama's current Policies of starting Wars and nation building. He has some of the same neocons and politicians within his Government prosecuting that American agenda. American Foreign Policy has not shifted and I see more Wars in the future from it for America. He has put more focus on the military buildup and the Domestic Policies, such as Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid takes the backseat. We are talking about North Korea today but tomorrow it could be Iran and who knows where else. Just before his second term, they were even talking about spreading this Policy to the continent of Africa. All in the name of fighting Terrorism and National Security or human rights. This slippery slope should be exposed for what it really is.

There should not be any conditions for talking directly to your enemies. It only provide for excuses not to. It is the same chess game the Republicans have been playing. It is one of the reasons, I have moved even further to the Left, because you can't trust those politicians claiming they are in the middle. They just as well be on the Right.