Workers Daily Internet Edition Year 2003 No. 50

Year 2003 No. 50, June 9, 2003	ARCHIVE	HOME	SEARCH	SUBSCRIBE

Daily On Line Newspaper of the
Revolutionary Communist Party of Britain (Marxist-Leninist)
170, Wandsworth Road, London, SW8 2LA.
Phone: (Local Rate from outside London 0845 644 1979) 020 7627 0599
Web Site: http://www.rcpbml.org.uk
e-mail: office@rcpbml.org.uk
Subscription Rates (Cheques made payable to RCPB(ML)):
Workers' Weekly Printed Edition:
70p per issue, £2.70 for 4 issues, £17 for 26 issues, £32 for 52 issues (including postage)
Workers' Daily Internet Edition sent by e-mail daily (Text e-mail):
1 issue free, 6 months £5, Yearly £10

DPRK Counters Accusations in Declaration Adopted at G-8 Summit

A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea has countered the public declaration at the G8 Evian Summit faulting the DPRK under the manipulation of the US.

He said that the declaration charged that the DPRK has not complied with the safeguards accord (SA) of the International Atomic Energy Agency, back-pedalling its international commitment.

As already declared, the DPRK pulled out of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT) after going through necessary procedures according to international law and it is, accordingly, no longer bound to the SA.

As far as the issue of nuclear deterrent force is concerned, the DPRK has the same legal status as the US and other states possessing nuclear deterrent forces which are not bound to any international law.

Such being a stark fact, the US is working hard to groundlessly charge only the DPRK with the "violation of international law". The US seeks a very sinister political aim through this.

This indicates that the US, while paying lip-service to the "peaceful settlement" of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, is, in fact, seeking to bring the DPRK to its knees by putting pressure on it.

Participants in the summit accepted an article attacking the DPRK as dictated by the US, taking the DPRK for a member state of the NPT. This is either a vivid expression of their ignorance of international law or their misuse of the law for a political purpose.

The US wantonly violates international laws unfavourable for it but resorts to such arbitrary practices as justifying its preposterous charges by unreasonably invoking international law, when necessary.

It cannot but be an expression of mean flattery to favour the US arbitrary practices in pursuit of their immediate interests.

Participants in the summit can never flee from the responsibility for seriously debasing the independent status granted by international law through their indiscreet act.

KCNA denounces US arms build-up plan

The Korean Central News Agency pointed out that on May 31 the US forces command in South Korea released the so-called arms build-up plan of the US imperialist aggression forces which calls for spending 11 billion US dollars in three years to come. According to it, part of the rapid deployment brigade equipped with high performance light armoured cars, electronic commanding system and other ultra modern weapons are expected to be transferred to South Korea from the US mainland this summer.

It is said that the arms build-up plan includes more than 100 proposals calling for the deployment of unmanned aircraft designed to carry out spy and attack missions, and the latest type patriot missiles, the introduction of high precision guided bombs and the deployment of the latest type apache helicopters, etc.

The arms build-up plan was announced by the US at a time when it is calling for a military attack on the DPRK over its nuclear issue. What is arousing our indignation, KCNA wrires, is the fact that the US military bosses are openly disclosing their attempt at attacking the north by claiming that their arms build-up plan is to break through somebody's front in case of emergency on the Korean Peninsula and advance straight toward Pyongyang.

The prevailing situation goes to clearly prove that it was quite right for the DPRK to have declared in the message to all the Koreans its stand that its self-defensive war deterrent force provides a sure guarantee for peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula.

The KCNA vehemently denounces the US dangerous arms build-up plan on behalf of all Koreans who value the dignity of the country and the peace of the nation.

The US has kept South Korea under its military rule for nearly 60 years, KCNA points out, repressing its inhabitants at the point of bayonet and indiscriminately killing them. And it is now hell-bent on arms build-up, the largest-ever in the post-war period. Such moves are a prelude to the US moves to dampen the South Korean people's desire for independence against the US and war and ignite a war that may bring immeasurable disasters to the Korean Peninsula.

Now that what the US really seeks has become clear, the DPRK has the legitimate right to counter such moves, KCNA writes. The US will be seriously mistaken if it thinks its way of invading and controlling other nations as it pleases will work on the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK's physical deterrent force, an iron shield for the country and the nation, will serve as a merciless sledgehammer to any aggressors. Our army and people will answer the US arms build-up with a corresponding powerful deterrent force and its pre-emptive attack with a prompt retaliation to destroy it at the initial stage of war.

The KCNA expresses belief that the world people and solidarity organizations and international organizations desirous of peace and reunification on the Korean Peninsula will more dynamically conduct the international anti-war, anti-US struggle to frustrate the US imperialists' moves for a nuclear war on the peninsula.

US condemned for its reckless attempt at pre-emptive nuclear attack on DPRK

The US Defence Department dispatched survey teams to Japan and South Korea from the end of last year to early this year to study the geological structure of the DPRK. This was aimed to mount a pre-emptive nuclear attack on its underground military facilities. Recalling that the US has spent a fabulous amount of money to speed up the development of nuclear warheads of new types capable of striking underground facilities of the DPRK and the building of a plutonium fuse factory for nuclear warheads, the news analyst of Rodong Sinmun, newspaper of the Workers’ Party of Korea, observed on June 3:

The recently disclosed fact glaringly reveals the ulterior aim sought by the US in persistently refusing to conclude a non-aggression treaty with the DPRK. It is aimed to ignite a new war of aggression against the DPRK by mounting a pre-emptive nuclear attack on it.

A war would have broken out in Korea ten times but for the DPRK's powerful war deterrent force based on the self-reliant defence industry.

The DPRK is ready to cope with the US "precision strike," "surgical operation-style strike" and "pre-emptive nuclear attack".

Rodong Sinmun on DPRK's war deterrent force

The DPRK's war deterrent force serves as a powerful fortress and self-defence force to defend the beloved motherland and the whole Korean nation and a guarantee for peace on the Korean Peninsula as pointed out in the message to all the Koreans released by the Central Committee of the Democratic Front for the Reunification of the Fatherland and the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of the Fatherland. Rodong Sinmun made this declaration in a signed article on June 2.

US urged to accept DPRK-proposed format of talks

In a signed commentary, also on June 2, Rodong Sinmun said that it is not a proper approach toward dialogue for the United States to insist that it does not opt for other proposal but multilateral talks, while refusing to respond to the DPRK-US bilateral talks. It goes on:

As the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula is a product of the threat resulting from the US hostile policy towards the DPRK, there are pending issues between the DPRK and the US.

It is, therefore, necessary for the DPRK and the US to sit face to face to have a frank discussion on each other's policies.

Any format of talks will be meaningless unless the US has a will to make a switchover in its policy toward the DPRK. That was why the DPRK proposed this time the format of the DPRK-US talks first and multilateral talks next.

The US adamant insistence on the north's scrapping of "its nuclear programme" first and the multilateral talks is aimed to increase the international pressure on the DPRK by dubbing it a "nuclear criminal" in a bid to force it to disarm itself and conquer it like Iraq.

What the US seeks is the DPRK's unilateral disarmament, not a peaceful settlement of the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula, and the US loudmouthed multilateral talks are designed to internationalise its hostile policy towards the DPRK.

The US is seeking a way out in refusing the DPRK-US bilateral talks in a bid to evade its responsibility as a party directly concerned with the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula and cover up its true colours as the chief criminal who sparked the nuclear crisis.

G8 Declaration on "Non-proliferation of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

New US Plans for Aggression against DPRK

According to a June 4 despatch by the Sydney Morning Herald correspondent in Tokyo, Shane Green, the US has drawn up new plans for a war on the DPRK that would bypass the demilitarised zone and directly targets Pyongyang. The report coincided with a visit to south Korea and Japan by US Deputy Defence Secretary Paul Wolfowitz. He told reporters in Japan that the Pentagon wanted to update its "force posture" so it could counter a North Korean attack "more quickly and more effectively".

A $US11 billion upgrade of the capabilities of US forces in south Korea was recently announced. The US has 37,000 troops in south Korea, including 15,000 members of the Second Infantry Division deployed near the demilitarised zone. But it appears likely they will be moved as part of a realignment of US forces in the country.

Wolfowitz said this realignment should not be delayed. "It is not something that should wait until the nuclear problem is solved, as though somehow it's going to weaken our posture. To the contrary, it's part of an effort to strengthen our overall posture on the peninsula, including . . . a very substantial investment by the United States in some 150 systems that will enhance our ability to provide for early defence against a North Korean attack."

Wolfowitz acknowledged that north Korea now had "certain advantages over us which they continue to press". He did not specify what these were, but it is assumed he was referring to the DPRK’s military strength and combat readiness, resulting from its "army-first" policy in preparing itself to repulse any US aggression.

But Wolfowitz said the US also had "some considerable advantages", pointing to the "remarkable military capabilities" demonstrated in Afghanistan and Iraq. He said the US believed it was important to "update our force posture from where it was 10 years ago, to take advantage of those capabilities".

"The Crisis in North Korea"

Extracts from report by Rich Carlson, BASIC*, April 23, 2003

The Bush Administration’s Policy Towards North Korea

The Bush policy towards North Korea has been antagonistic from the start. The administration reversed the diplomatic advancements that had been made during the Clinton administration to re-establish normalised relations with Pyongyang and, in particular, refused to affirm the October 10, 2000, pledge from President Clinton that the United States and North Korea held "no hostile intent" towards each other.

Tensions mounted further on June 6, 2001, when President Bush issued a statement calling for North Korea to allow increased inspections of its nuclear facilities, to place further constraints on its missile programme and missile exports and, finally, to adopt a "less threatening military posture". The President stated that North Korean compliance would "demonstrate the seriousness of its desire for improved relations".[3] However, the US demands offered no concrete incentives for DPRK compliance. Thus, while the United States made no attempt to fulfil obligations to complete the LWR by 2003, the administration renewed demands for DPRK compliance with the Agreed Framework.

In response to President Bush’s demands, North Korea’s Foreign Minister issued a statement calling on the United States to supplement electricity and supply heavy fuel oil shipments as required by the Agreed Framework. On June 28, 2001, the DPRK added: "If no measure is taken for the compensation for the loss of electricity, the DPRK can no longer keep its nuclear activities in a state of freeze and implement the Agreed Framework."[4]

Following the terrorist attacks on the United States of September 11, 2001, North Korea offered expressions of condolence, as well as a statement of opposition to all forms of terrorism and a professed willingness to cooperate with the United States to combat terrorism. The US response came as a slap in the face to North Korea. President Bush included North Korea as part of an "axis of evil" in his January 2002 State of the Union Address. Compounding this was the administration’s Nuclear Posture Review: Classified portions of this document leaked in March 2002 identified North Korea as one of the target countries.[5] This stretched the limits of the Agreed Framework. Under Article III, item 1, the United States is to "provide formal assurances to the DPRK, against the threat or use of nuclear weapons".[6]

US policy towards North Korea has become further clouded with the administration’s doctrine of pre-emption. The National Security Strategy specifically mentions North Korea as "the world’s principal purveyor of ballistic missiles" and states: "We (the United States) cannot let our enemies strike first."[7]

Since the escalation of the DPRK nuclear programme and mounting criticism of the administration’s non-engagement, the Bush administration has changed its public response, stating that the United States is willing to talk to North Korea in a multilateral setting once the country’s nuclear programme has been halted. Despite this rhetorical change, until the recent intervening efforts of China, there was no direct contact with North Korea to set the terms for such a discussion, so the non-engagement policy has been maintained. Even as talks go forward now, the United States has made clear that these are only initial talks and that substantive negotiations will have to wait for the participation of other countries.

This confusion of rhetorical and practical strategies seems quite contrary to the policy articulated by National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice back in 2000 when she wrote: "One thing is clear: the United States must approach regimes like North Korea resolutely and decisively."[8]

Conclusions and Recommendations

[…]

The NPT PrepCom should also address the NPT obligations of the United States and nuclear weapon states parties. There are two main areas where nuclear weapons states, and the United States especially, are not living up to NPT commitments. First, Article VI of the NPT requires all NPT states parties to pursue effective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race and nuclear disarmament. This represents the fundamental bargain of the NPT – nuclear weapons states would disarm if non-nuclear states agreed not to pursue nuclear weapons development. Non-nuclear weapons states have demanded progress on this at the recent NPT Review Conferences. The United States has made little progress in this regard, and in fact with the pursuit of new nuclear weapons capabilities as per the Nuclear Posture Review, the United States is arguably moving in the opposite direction.

Second, nuclear weapons states agreed in 1978 and again in 1995 that they would not use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear NPT states. The US policy – like the policies of other countries including the UK – has been one of strategic ambiguity with regard to nuclear use in response to "weapons of mass destruction", particularly chemical or biological weapons, attack. This ambiguous policy has meant that the United States has signed on to NSA’s but has simultaneous kept open or ambiguous the possibility of nuclear weapons response to chemical or biological weapons. Recently, however, with the issuance of National Security Presidential Directive 17,[31] US policy now explicitly articulates nuclear weapons as a possible response. Without question this further undermines NSA’s – yet another fundamental part of NPT obligations of the United States. This policy directive on nuclear weapons use is likely to also influence the use policies of other nuclear weapons states and NATO.

A focus on both nuclear and non-nuclear weapons states and reiterating mutual obligations to adhere to the NPT and pursue further measures towards disarmament is critical to put the issue of nuclear proliferation and the North Korean crisis in a truly international context.[32]

Footnotes

[3] Statement Issued by President Bush, (White House, Washington, D.C., June 13, 2001.) URL <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2001/06/20010611-4.html >, version current on April 22, 2003.

[4] Statements by DPRK Foreign Ministry. Reprinted Arms Control Today, Vol. 32, No. 10, p.10, Dec. 2002.

[5] US Department of Defence, Nuclear Posture Review [excerpts] URL <http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/policy/dod/npr.htm>, version current April 22, 2003.

[6] Agreed Framework Between the United States of America and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Article III, Item 1, Signed in Geneva, October 21, 1994.

[7] The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, Chapter V, September 17, 2002. URL < http://www.whitehouse.gov/nsc/nss5.html>, version current on April 22, 2003.

[8] Rice, C., "Promoting National Interest," Foreign Affairs, January/February 2000.

[31] National Security Policy Directive 17 is the classified version of the National Strategy to Combat Weapons of Mass Destruction, White House, December 2002. URL <http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/12/WMDStrategy.pdf>, version current on April 22, 2003. Excerpts from NSPD 17 were reported in Kralev, N. "Bush Approves Nuclear Response," Washington Times, Jan. 31, 2003.

[32] For more on the NPT Prepcom see BASIC's website focus at URL http://www.basicint.org/nuclear/NPT/2003prepcom/main.htm, version current on April 22, 2003.

Rich Carlson is an intern with BASIC [British American Security Information Council] working on nuclear and transatlantic security issues. He is a graduate of Marist College in New York. BASIC is funded by Carnegie Corporation of New York, Compton Foundation, The Ford Foundation, Polden-Puckham Foundation, Ploughshares Fund, Rockefeller Family Associates, and Joseph Rowntree Charitable Trust

US Is Escalating Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons

Letter from Dr David Lowry in Ft.com letters, June 6, 2003.

Sir, Your report from the Group of Eight summit in Evian ("Summit leaders draw together over weapons of mass destruction", June 3) reported that the final declaration "said the world community had to use weapons inspections, export controls 'and, if necessary, other measures' to tackle the threat posed by these weapons".

This is all very well, but the existing nuclear weapons powers – above all the US – are already paying lip service to their own commitments to nuclear control and disarmament under their membership of the 198-member state nuclear non-proliferation treaty.

In his May 1 statement in Geneva to the Second Session of the Preparatory Committee for the 2005 NPT Review Conference, J. Sherwood McGinnis, the Deputy US Representative to the United Nations Conference on Disarmament, said: "The treaty does not require the destruction of nuclear warheads, but then no arms control treaty ever has." This is perverse, as the only way to achieve nuclear disarmament which is an NPT commitment, is ultimately destruction of nuclear explosive warheads (called "pits").

A second issue worth clarifying, he said, was US nuclear policy, and he asserted that "we are not developing new nuclear weapons". This is untrue. Last week, the US Department of Energy's Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) on the massive new "Modern Pit Facility" to produce plutonium pits for nuclear weapons was finalised, and is now being circulated. The document analyses the construction of a new factory to produce from 125 to 450 (or more) plutonium pits a year, the key component of nuclear weapons.

The DoE document – entitled "Draft Supplemental Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement on Stockpile Stewardship and Management for a Modern Pit Facility" – is dated May 2003. The DoE is soliciting comments from June 6 to August 5.

The large-scale pit facility would have a 50-year life and would hold between 17,000kg and 33,000kg of plutonium during full-scale operation.

Other non-nuclear members of the G8 – Canada, Italy, Germany, led by Japan – should challenge the credibility of a G8 agreement on curbing nuclear proliferation when the lead signatory, the US, is escalating proliferation. They should certainly register their objections by responding before August 5, the day before the anniversary of the first-ever use of nuclear weapons in war, on August 6 1945, on Hiroshima; by, of course, the US.

David Lowry, Stoneleigh, Surrey KT17 2NH