On
What Basis Can North Korea Trust The U.S.?
It wasn't the threat that worked, It was
reduction of fear
By Kristin Christman
December 11, 2017 "Information
Clearing House"
- Americans are instructed that North Korea
is an aggressor that violates international
agreements and doesn't negotiate. Until
North Korea denuclearizes, we are told, the
U.S. must continue rejecting its peace
proposals.
After all, North Korea withdrew in 2003 from
the 1968 Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of
Nuclear Weapons (NPT). Its subsequent
nuclear and missile testing violate the 1953
Korean War armistice agreement and 1994
Agreed Framework, by which North Korea
agreed to end its nuclear weapons program.
It all sounds so principled and practical
until you realize we're getting only half
the story. And if you paint a one-sided
story, you'll never get a two-sided
solution.
Let's talk about violations. Paragraph 13d
of the armistice prohibits introducing new
types of weaponry into the Korean peninsula.
By 1958, the U.S. had begun violating the
agreement by rolling in Honest John atomic
rockets and atomic cannons into South Korea.
Within a year, atomic demolition mines and
nuclear-armed Matador cruise missiles were
installed. U.S. helicopters routinely flew
nuclear weapons near the DMZ. By the 1960s,
the U.S. had deployed nearly 950 nuclear
weapons to South Korea.
In wild violation of the armistice and the
non-proliferation treaty, the U.S. made
early use of nuclear weapons in future
conflict the bedrock strategy against North
Korea. Why? Because North Korea didn't have
nukes to fight back. And because it was
cheaper to deploy nukes rather than troops.
How did U.S. nukes escape surveillance by
the international inspection teams charged
with enforcing weaponry limits laid out in
the armistice?
When the U.N. Command couldn't persuade
North Korea to mutually abrogate paragraph
13d, President Dwight Eisenhower had the
inspection teams evicted from the Koreas by
cooking up evidence against them. Then,
alleging that North Korea was violating
paragraph 13d, the U.S.-dominated U.N.
Command indicated it would no longer be
bound by it — and in poured U.S. nukes.
North Korea condemned 13d's abrogation as an
attempt to destroy the armistice and turn
South Korea into a U.S. nuclear warfare
base.
U.S. policymakers don't trust North Korea.
But on what basis can North Korea trust the
U.S.? What agreement with North Korea has
the U.S. ever not violated?
In 1991 President George W. Bush withdrew
nukes from South Korea because
precision-guided conventional weapons became
more useful. The U.S. nuclear umbrella
remained, and the U.S. further trampled the
armistice terms by supporting South Korea's
ballistic missiles, deploying Patriot
missiles and installing an anti-missile
defense system.
Whichever agreement is under discussion, the
same behavior is seen: the U.S. never sees
its own violations as wrong.
Those supporting the controversial
U.S./South Korea Key Resolve nuclear war
simulations insist that deterring a North
Korean invasion requires U.S./South Korea
forces to be able to rapidly destroy the
North Korean military before it inflicts
much damage. Yet such inequality in military
strength provokes fear, not peace.
Step into North Korea's shoes. Kim Jong Un
maintains that a U.S./South Korea invasion
can best be deterred if North Korea has a
strong military capacity that can bite back.
The U.S. has a history of invading and
deposing leaders in militarily weaker
nations, including Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran,
Congo, Chile, Guatemala, etc. So what's so
crazy about North Korea trying to deter
another U.S. invasion?
|
Never Miss Another Story |
And
how can North Korea be expected to disarm
when there's talk of toppling Kim and
U.S./South Korea war games may be cover for
an invasion? Yes, the Kim dynasty has
behaved abominably towards North Koreans,
but its cruelty doesn't prove that North
Korea's grievances are unjustified. To what
extent has North Korea's fear of invasion or
political assassination aggravated internal
tensions?
A cooperative negotiated agreement must
address not only U.S. grievances but North
Korea's needs for survival, sovereignty, a
Korean War peace treaty, mutual nuclear
disarmament, food, access to energy —
including the 23-years-delayed light water
reactors, economic development and
diplomatic relations.
Any agreement to "open up North Korea" must
ensure that North Koreans don't become a
cheap labor force for foreign profiteers,
that North Korea's natural resources aren't
appropriated by foreigners and that Korean
identity and values are not upended by
Western consumerism, individualism and
hectic living.
South Korean grievances against North Korea
and the U.S. should be addressed, including
fear that South Korea's government
represents the U.S. government more than
South Koreans, many of whom have protested
U.S. military bases, South Korea's troop
deployment to Iraq, weapons systems and
nuclear war simulations.
Lastly, the agreement must include training
and monitoring of human rights, for North
Korea's government must treat its people
with the kindness and truthfulness with
which it would like to be treated by the
world.
Experts know that cooperative negotiated
agreements endure, not power-based
negotiation in which one side forces a deal
upon the other using "diplomatic" pressure,
preconditions, and sanctions.
Consider the Cuban missile crisis. We're
taught to admire President Kennedy for his
brinkmanship and nuclear war threat that
allegedly cowed Soviet Premier Khrushchev
into scuttling back home with his missiles.
But actually, in a secret deal, Kennedy
agreed to remove U.S. Jupiter missiles in
Turkey and Italy in exchange for Soviet
removal of missiles in Cuba. Plus, the U.S.
promised not to invade Cuba.
It wasn't the threat that worked. It was the
reduction of both sides' fears.
Kristin Christman is author of "Taxonomy of
Peace."
This article was originally published by Albany Times Union -
====
Join the Discussion
It is not necessary for ICH readers to register before placing a comment. This website encourages readers to use the "Report" link found at the base of each comment. When a predetermined number of ICH readers click on the "Report" link, the comment will be automatically sent to "moderation". This would appear to be the most logical way to allow open comments, where you the reader/supporter, can determine what is acceptable speech. Please don't use the report feature simply because you disagree with the author point of view. Treat others with respect, remembering that "A man convinced against his will, is of the same opinion still."- Benjamin Franklin. Please read our Comment Policy before posting -
|
|
