A beginner’s guide to creating a ‘crisis’

[bemildred]

“Each party shall in exercising its national sovereignty have the right to withdraw from the Treaty if it decides that extraordinary events, related to the subject matter of the Treaty, have jeopardized the supreme interests of its country.” — Article X of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

Poor old North Korea, the latest bogeyman, its leader variously described as a tyrant, psychopath etc, etc. is once more the focus of Western ire. Now in all likelyhood the reason is because things ain’t going too well in Iraq or Afghanistan and the Iranians have told the West to shove it, so isn’t it real convenient to have North Korea, waiting in the wings as it were, to frighten the kids with.

Now whether you’re keen on the kind of system North Korea (DPRK) has or not, an examination of history shows that it has threatened no one. Instead it has been blasted back into the proverbial stone age, blockaded, starved and demonised into its current predicament, and all because it refused to bow to the demands of the US that it abandon its autonomy and independence and open up its economy to the ravages of US capitalism.

With regard to the current ‘crisis’, it’s not at all clear whether they have actually exploded a nuke or whether it’s a giant bluff on the part of Kim Sung II. One thing is clear, the US has backed the DPRK into a corner, leaving them little choice but to act the way they do.

Wm Bowles on Lil' Kim

[teryang]

1. This is the point of view we'll never hear

It's particarly disturbing because I've heard democratic leaders say in the past that we need to go to the "brink of war" over this.

[bemildred]

2. A good piece, I thought.

It seems worthwhile to wonder why, exactly, we are and have been so concerned about N. Korea all this time? It is not large or rich or belligerent, it is far away and deep in the shadow of China and Russia. Why exactly are we so intent on picking a fight over it, against the advice of almost everyone that actually has a stake in the issue? If it isn't really about N. Korea, and I submit it is not, then what is it about?

[teryang]

3. Uranium

They have huge amounts of it. We've been blocking their exploitation of it for quite a while. Access to peaceful nuclear power (industrial capital) would result in political power. Also, the motives are politically complex as the US and Japan don't seem to know whether they want the peninusla divided or not. As their current drift is toward "regime change" what is their plan vis a vis a unified Korea and China on its border? I submit that they have never dealt openly with this. Clearly both are happy with US military presence in ROK but the basis for that and the military alliance evaporates with unification. Sometimes the Japanese seem happy with S.Korean convergence/sunshine policies but now they are drifting toward a military power block with the US. Clearly, this would leave the entire peninsula in its historic doormat to invasion status.

This article is excellent. I read something very similar published in English by a doctoral student at one of Korea's major universities. Erlich, who is the source for the article's quotes, is one of the few reliable reality based observers of this situation.