HAQUE'S TALKING

Priority of Politics and Policy Planning

Monday, February 2, 2009

US attitude vis-a-vis North Korea




“I’m the next” was never the feeling of the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK), commonly known as North Korea even either after the invasion on Afghanistan or aggression on Iraq by the USA in the name of ‘War on terror’ though she along with Iran was branded as ‘axis of evil’ by the same country, America, based on a common floor of accuse. On the contrary to the set-up of US policy of preemptive attack against any of the parties involved in seeking WMDs, whoever knows what does it mean and whether there really is any country or not, Iran is always under the menace of a possible USA’s front of raid. Why this discriminatory behavior between Iran and North Korea exists though both of them are categorized under the same umbrella of so called ‘rogue state’ or ‘axis of evil’? The answer of this question will probably offer you the principle of USA’s policy and attitude towards North Korea vis-a-vis other discolored states.

The American policy towards North Korea includes neither a complete release of threat nor a panic of assail. This hammer-pillow tricky play is handled concerning two hidden grounds e.g. to eye wash the people that war on terror is not a war on Islam and Muslims and to make a perpetual pressure on North Korea to refrain her from being a nuclear power. It’s as true as the day comes after night that no document, no mater whoever it makes including Mr. Bush himself, can prove any connection of North Korea with any terrorist group, organization and country. But in the same time North Korea is only one country from the list who has a capability to make a physical attack on USA through Taepo-dong-2 missile which covers South Korea, Japan, or perhaps even Hawaii, Alaska, or San Francisco. In this context we have to revisit the American and North Korean objectives towards each other.

America has never considered North Korea as a patron of terrorists either religious or any other forms but, at the time, is always concerned about her aspiration for nuclear weapons, advanced missile technology covering her physical frontier, other conventional and nonconventional weapons. But how much headache does America have regarding North Korea? Perhaps it suffers less annoyance than Iraq, Iran and even Libya. Because of some strategic points of view she always over focuses North Korea as a source of intimidation. The most important reason is, as I’ve already mentioned, to bring a flavor of non Islamic identity on the term ‘war on terror’. With the exception of this eye-puzzling argument there are also real grounds for overwhelming North Korea as an adverse party. The Pentagon has inflated the North Korean threat in order to rationalize its desire for a missile defense system in Asia really for containing China and, if need, Russia; to justify a capacity to fight another war simultaneously, and to explain the need to maintain 37,000 troops in South Korea. The question of legitimization and legalization of the presence of American troops in South Korea comes first for building an image of devastating North Korea in the world or at least in the South Asian region. Moreover since Clinton administration America is trying to over emphasis the necessity for implementing national missile defense system (NMD). Without showing a common, visible and proclaimed enemy how can you employ such a balance of power dismissing military logistics? In a true sense, who bothers you like or not, in this USA guided unipolar world there is no sway to dare her in both economic and military fields, two mutually interdependent elementary sources of muscle and political power. Having no threat at present the USA is planning game for the possible upcoming shadow enemy, some suggest, China. But the problem lies on the matter that it’s not possible for socio-politico-economic rationales to label China as a declared concerned state. In such an odd and mystifying situation the USA is fervent to slaughter China keeping gun on the shoulder of North Korea in the course of making a blame game over her. If a destructive image of North Korea let you an opening to exterminate three birds in one stone i.e. legalization of the deployment of 37,000 troops, implementation of NMD and containing future contender party; why would you not ensure it done?

One may ask if there is no probability of aggression on North Korea why she worked in full swing to acquire nuclear weapon. The answer goes straight forward within two points as increasing bargaining power and, secondly, protecting regime interest. Being an acutely poverty injured country North Korea needs international assistance in energy, food, agriculture and other economic sectors as well as a direct relations with America. She knows if she is not aware of gaining nuclear weapon America will never pay any heed towards her needs and as a result dirty blame game will get the worst point and at last nothing is possible to be obtained. Thus bargaining capability turns into another interpretation of nuclear capability. From the second point of view, described as regime interest, the present government of DPRK, like Saddam Husain of Iraq, is more antagonists to USA rather than state itself. Who does not know the real true that Saddam Hussein would not be dug up and finally Iraq would not be attacked accused of nuclear weapons and WMDs if he really had those things in hand? So the real fault of Saddam was not ‘to try for nuclear weapons’ but ‘not to try for nuclear weapons’. The present government of DPRK did not craft the same slip though it promised four times not to seek for nuclear weapons i.e. through Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1985, Inter-Korean agreement on denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula in 1992, The 1994 Agreed Framework with the United States and Six Party Joint Statement 2005 about not to attain nuclear weapon.

In the coming days America may retake a policy of not to follow hard attitude of implementing fully the UN sanctions to penalize and isolate the regime; but a soft attitude of keeping the door open to discussions through the Six Party Talks. Basically Clinton administration started that policy and ran a long race and at last reached a solution named ‘The 1994 Agreed Framework’. But the step did not get a continuing shape because of Bush’s aggressive attitude. The American presidential election along with economic disruption may insist her to return the old policy but under some conditions. First of all America wants to assure not to develop any nuclear weapons and arrest the programme on the foundation of touch-the-switch-off immediately and trustfully. In return it may recognize the running ruling elite of the DPRK and economic as well as energy aid. In this context you can’t forget the other parties of the table specially Japan and South Korea. The peaceful rapprochement between two Koreas is the fundamental policy of South Korea through “Sunshine policy". On the contrary Japan is willing to contain North Korea in its full meaning by her all means. In this multi dimensional interests of different countries related to the problem will make an awkward state for the USA. Neither the policy of rapprochement nor the policy of full containment is USA’s interest today. So America, in this region, will develop the policy of blame game against North Korea in a soft tune and in the same time will furnish Japan with a better military position obviously under the USA’s management with slight touch of India. Thus in the name of North Korea, which is not the real concern of America, China will be contained. Who does not recognize that this is the genuine diagram of USA in this area?

3 Comments:

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home