Interpreting Creatively North Korea’s Seven Missile Launches: July 4, 2006

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea missile launches can be blamed in part on the United States. The latter has refused to conduct bilateral negotiations with the D.P.R.K. despite repeated entreaties from North Korea. Yes there are six nation talks but these have not proven to be successful in either stemming the D.P.R.K.s nuclear ambitions or reducing tension on the Korean Peninsula.

I think it is comical that the U.S. should expend so much diplomatic energy in preventing a test that North Korea sees as purely defencive to prevent what it fears is an ultimate American attack, and the U.S. virtually abandoning any diplomatic effort to conduct talks with North Korea.

Taepodong 2 is purportedly a long-range, two-stage missile that might hit the western fringes of the U.S. The D.P.R.K. has clearly not weaponised this I.C.B.M. and obviously was not going to fire a single nuclear weapon against the U.S. The U.S. knew this and in trying to portray itself as vulnerable against a tiny, poor, reclusive nation is typical of an aggressor nation attempting to portray those who do not wish to be subject to its imperium as dangerous and destablilising.

Firing seven missiles on July 4 shortly after the U.S. military-space colonisation launch of Discovery is hardly coincidental. It was intended to send a message to the U.S. that it also has ballistic technology; that it should not be labeled an Axis of Evil; that is has legitimate security concerns that should be negotiated.

I do not approve of the D.P.R.K. leaving the Non-proliferation Treaty Regime nor the U.S. abrogating the A.B.M. treaty.

I do not approve of the D.P.R.K. breaking a 1999 self-imposed missile-test moratorium and yet the U.S. tests long-range missiles and so there is a certain hypocrisy.

I doubt if the D.P.R.K. has weaponised nuclear warheads on rockets. I also doubt if the D.P.R.K. has strategic aircraft that can carry gravity nuclear bombs more than a few thousand kilometers. I am also not convinced it has nuclear weapons, despite its claims of being a nuclear power. In any case, it clearly has nuclear fissile material in some stage of development which is even more of a reason for the U.S. to stop its campaign of isolation, sanctions-contemplation, and trying to suppress Korean weapon's modernisation. This has to be resolved through means other than coercive diplomacy.

The U.S. should without hesitation enter into bilateral talks with the following objectives:

1) A non-aggression treaty with North Korea.

2) Removal of all U.S. combat forces (37,000 or so) from south of the 38th parallel in South Korea.

3) A phased withdrawal over a ten year period of the roughly 45,000 troops in Japan.

4) D.P.R.K. would accept full safeguards from the I.A.E.A. (International Atomic Energy Agency) and rejoin the N.P.T. (Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty.)

5) D.P.R.K. would be given significant economic assistance and would also sign a non-aggression treaty with Japan, its erstwhile enemy from the late war (WWII).

6) A final peace treaty ending the Korean War with full diplomatic relations between the South and the North.

This entry was posted in External Affairs. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply