PSPD in English Archive 2003-07-15   1005

Editor’s Note: The North Korean Nuclear Crisis and Search for Peace

Clouds are hanging over the prospect of lasting peace on the Korean peninsula once again. In an apparent repeat of the Nuclear Crisis in 1994, the current crisis arose out of Pyongyang’s admission of having developed nuclear weapons programs. Its refusal to dismantle the nuclear development project is further damaging the prospect of peace. While there is little disagreement in seeing that the nuclear crisis in North Korea is a serious threat to peace not only on the Korean peninsula but also the world, there are wide differences of opinion on how to deal with the crisis. The international community in general has been committed to dialogue, trying to persuade and pressure North Korea to return immediately to compliance with the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty and to allow inspections by the International Atomic Energy Agency. Some of the hawkish, conservative politicians in the U.S., on the other hand, are calling for swift military actions, using the state-of-the-art weaponry that quickly ended the war in Iraq, while more moderate politicians are demanding economic and political blockade of North Korea. North Korea has responded by insisting that it will bolster its nuclear ambitions to defend itself from the U.S., justifying its action by calling the recent U.S. efforts tantamount to a declaration of war. Pyongyang has also insisted that it holds exclusive direct talks with the U.S., instead of holding multilateral talks involving the two Koreas, the U.S., Japan, and China. It is apparent that the two sides will keep on insisting on their own strategic points of view, seemingly leaving little room for dialogue.

These differences in view manifest not only the magnitude of the problem but also the need to carefully examine the causes of the crisis and adopt balanced perspectives in contemplating a solution. South Korea, for one, should continue to press for dialogue and make greater efforts in persuading its neighboring countries, namely Japan, China, and Russia, to become more involved in this issue to conclude this nuclear crisis in a peaceful manner.

The need for a peaceful resolution to the crisis at hand has become ever more urgent following the conclusion of the Iraq war. This is because the victorious U.S., with its unchallenged military power, seems ready to strike at any state that was deemed as threatening peace or U.S. interests. In trying to help solve this problem, the civil society in South Korea is demanding for a peaceful resolution to the crisis through dialogue. It also believes that U.S. attempts to further isolate North Korea through economic and political blockade can bring about more grave consequences. This is in line with the growing consensus among political scientists that North Korea has a moral responsibility while the U.S. structural responsibility in causing as well as solving the current nuclear crisis (it is also agreed that the latter responsibility has greater causal/consequential weight).

As we all know, this is not the first time North Korea has admitted to pursuing nuclear weapons. It was in 1985 when the nuclear proliferation risk in North Korea first came to public attention. Although Pyongyang signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in 1985 under Soviet pressure, the regime put off its compliance with the nuclear safeguards of the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA) until 1992. However, the IAEA found in its subsequent inspections that North Korea had produced more plutonium than it had declared. In reaction to immense international pressure to discontinue its ambition to build nuclear weapons, North Korea threatened to withdraw from the NPT, leading to a nuclear crisis on the Korean peninsula. The nuclear crisis, complete with an attempted resolution through the October 1994 Framework Agreement between the United States and North Korean as well as the efforts to implement this agreement, almost brought the peninsula to the brink of war. The standoff ended in May 1995, when South Korea, the U.S., and Japan formed an international consortium, KEDO (Korean Peninsula Energy Development Organization), to provide the North with two light-water reactors. North Korea, in return, promised to remain in the NPT and accept IAEA inspections.

The nuclear crisis this time around has a similar ring to it, for North Korea seems to be using its nuclear arms development program as a bargaining tool to get more concessions from the outside. Whatever its aim may be, Pyongyang should realize that a peaceful resolution to the nuclear crisis is the most desirable outcome for everyone concerned. North Korea accordingly should commit itself to dialogue as soon as possible, without insisting on any particular format or condition. Unless North Korea shows good faith in this regard, it faces further isolation from the world and possibly military actions from the U.S.

Given the significance of the nuclear crisis, it is natural that the first two articles in this issue deal with the problem. Professor Rhee Young-hee expresses his concern that the U.S. may no longer feel the need to engage in diplomatic negotiations with North Korea. That is partly due to the fact that the U.S. is very confident of its military capabilities, replete with the state-of-the-art armaments. It is also due to the fact that North Korea does not figure prominently in the long-term global strategy of the U.S.; instead, the U.S. will focus on maintaining check on China because the latter has a potential to grow into a political, economic, and military superpower. Such a U.S. strategy, he argues, is the reason for rebuilding Japan as a military power.

Rhee also takes issues with the U.S. war against Iraq and explains the ramifications of the war in which the U.S. showcased its supremacy in weaponry. More importantly, he calls on the Korean government to reconsider its decision to dispatch troops to Iraq. In making his argument, he notes the fallacy of the government justification for the troop dispatch: the mutual defense treaty between South Korea and the U.S. does not require the former to support the latter in the absence of an “armed attack” on the latter. The treaty also urges the two countries to settle any international dispute by peaceful means. Furthermore, the dispatch of South Korean troops is in violation of the country’s Constitution, which specifically rules out a war of invasion and calls for contribution to world peace and common prosperity through peaceful international relations. Lastly, Rhee urges Koreans to reflect upon their long struggle for independence and democracy. From that reflection, Korea needs to show the world its high moral standard and integrity through a decision not to join the war of invasion.

Departing from Rhee’s contemplation on the U.S. policy toward North Korea, Peter Sylvestre actually offers policy options that are open to the two sides. More specifically, Sylvestre examines three basic options-continuity, conflict, and cooperation-open to the two countries in resolving the reemergence of a nuclear arms proliferation crisis on the Korean peninsula. The first option is maintaining the status quo, in which the parties do not seek a conclusive resolution. The second option is confrontation, which would most likely lead to the demise of the Kim Jong Il’s regime. The third option is cooperation that partially meets the needs of both parties. For each option, the author provides a four-step framework: description of option; prerequisites, such as perceptions, outlook, and calculations, that are necessary for the pursuit of that option; prospects in view of current events and trends; and implications. Through this framework, as the author argues, the difficulty in predicting whether one option is more likely to be pursued becomes clear. The paper concludes with the obvious conclusion that cooperation offers the highest return for all concerned but that significant obstacles, including the lack of fundamental prerequisites, may lead either the US or North Korea to pursue less optimal options.

Turning to other matters covered in this issue, the section on NGO Activity pertains to the Launch of the Civil Network for Political Reform (CNPR) and to the Third World Water Forum. CNPR was launched by politicians of both ruling and opposition parties, scholars, legal experts, and civic social organizations with the aim of bringing about political reform. More specifically, the agendas of CNPR stress the importance of reform in practically all aspects of Korean politics, including the election system, political fund, and party structure, to ultimately enhance people’s participation and facilitate openness, transparency, efficiency, and accountability in political processes. For example, it is argued that political parties should be operated by authentic party members (i.e., those who pay membership fees) only and that the decision-making and nominating authority should be given back to members and supporters of the party. Also stressed are the following: the need for detailed information on revenues such as the sum of money, the date and time received, and the name and address of the donor; the need for auditing to validate only the receipts designated by the tax law; and the need for implementation of the “exclusive public election management,” which will facilitate the voice of the people and shut the pipeline of black money.

As regards NGO activities at the Third World Water Forum, the article first describes the problems associated with the privatization of water supply. In particular, broken promises, abuses and exploitation of multinational water companies are highlighted: e.g., failure to provide service to promised areas and failure to provide full service as promised; provision of inferior quality service; and exorbitant price hikes. The article also cogently argues how the problem with water privatization is closely linked to such international finance institutes as the World Bank, the WTO and the IMF, all of which view privatization, commodification and profit maximization of water as an answer to the water crisis. Against the backdrop of the danger associated with the monopoly of water supply, the article discusses the first civilian forum held in Vancouver, Canada, where representatives from more than 40 countries gathered to declare that “water is a common resource” to protect. The launch of the Blue Planet Project at the forum is also discussed, particularly its aim of finding alternative ways to solve water problems.

The section under NGO in Asia covers the Japan Council against Atomic and Hydrogen Bombs (Japan Gensuikyo). Yayoi Tsuchida provides historical background that has inspired the establishment of the civic group, describing the atomic bomb attacks as well as a hydrogen bomb test that resulted in the deaths of some 200,000 Japanese. The author then describes the goals and activities of Gensuikyo, first of which is the prevention of nuclear war and abolition of nuclear weapons. For this purpose, Gensuikyo has held the World Conference against A- and H-Bombs annually since 1955. Second, the group holds National Peace March every year and it has done so since 1958. Third, Japan Gensuikyo has been working on signature drives under the campaign heading of “Don’t Use Nuclear Weapons, Abolish Them.” This signature campaign not only opposes the U.S. for its open willingness to resort to using nuclear arms in wars but also objects to wars of preemptive strike where nuclear weapons might be used.

News from PSPD (the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy) includes Han Jae-kak’s examination of the factors involved in the sudden failure of the Internet that practically halted the normal functioning of Korea for about a half day in January this year. The so-called “Internet catastrophe” caused all Internet services to malfunction, including on-line shopping malls, information accessing, banking transactions, ticket reservations, and online games. The author blames Internet service providers for their slow reaction to the Internet collapse and chastises the government for having dodged responsibility for being negligent of the Internet security issue. The author then focuses on the collective litigation undertaken against the government and Internet service providers by PSPD.

This issue closes with a discussion of PSPD’s newly launched Center for Peace and Disarmament (Peace Center). The article argues that recent events, such as the inter-Korean summit, improvements in north-south Korean relations, the 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup, anti-war movements against the war in Afghanistan, candlelight rallies in memory of the two middle school girls killed by a US military truck, and movements against the war in Iraq, all have highlighted the importance of and intensified public interest in the issue of peace. The article also argues that the peace movement in Korea should be a cultural movement for the establishment of a peaceful culture. What this means is that peace must be discussed as a lifestyle, highlighting the importance of coexistence, diversity of life, and tolerance. To this end, the Peace Center has three objectives: 1) evaluating government policies concerning peace in Korea and East Asia and proposing alternatives; 2) monitoring military defense and reforming the military; and 3) public education.

Together, all of these articles in this issue offer fresh insights into diverse topics ranging from the nuclear crisis in North Korea to NGO activities in Korea and Japan. The ideas and information presented in the issue, I believe, are invaluable in helping us better understand current events and civic groups?responses to those events.

Kim Eungi, Editor-in-Chief

정부지원금 0%, 회원의 회비로 운영됩니다

참여연대 후원/회원가입


참여연대 NOW

실시간 활동 SNS

텔레그램 채널에 가장 빠르게 게시되고,

더 많은 채널로 소통합니다. 지금 팔로우하세요!