Seminar on North Korea at Westminster

Workers' Daily Internet Edition: Article Index :

Seminar on North Korea at Westminster

A seminar entitled North Korea: Is There a Threat? was held in the Houses of Parliament on July 14. It was the third in a series Iraq: the Aftermath organised by Labour CND and was hosted by Jeremy Corbyn MP. The main speaker was Keith Bennett. Some 70 people attended.

Keith Bennett began by posing the question: who is threatening whom? He said he would concentrate his remarks on why North Korea feels threatened by the USA, both historically and at present. The USA, Britain and Australia, he said, were intensifying their provocations against those countries that were not under their thumb such as Syria, Iran, Cuba and North Korea. The case of North Korea, he said, was considerably less well understood than that of Iraq, and so there was a special responsibility to bring out the facts. The same issues were now being raised regarding North Korea as were raised on Iraq, despite the fact that it was becoming so clear that the case against Iraq was based on lies and deceit to such an extent that it is now undermining the credibility of the government. Once again it was being claimed that North Korea was pressing ahead to produce nuclear weapons in order to threaten the world. George W Bush meanwhile is claiming he has no intention of invasion. But this is to turn truth on its head. Even while preparing to attack Iraq Donald Rumsfeld was saying that the USA was ready to wage two wars simultaneously, in the Gulf and on the Korean peninsula. In fact this has been US policy since 1990 in dealing with whatever is perceived to threaten US interests in the post-Cold War period. The USA would prefer, Keith Bennett said, to digest its meal course by course. But in the face of this the North Korean strategy and tactics were based on an unwillingness simply to wait to be George W Bush’s next target! This threat had been underlined in the House of Commons itself when Tony Blair had responded to Alice Mahon’s question of who next by stating "After Iraq, North Korea".

Keith Bennett then said that North Korea had in response withdrawn from the Non-Proliferation Treaty, expelled the IAEA inspectors and finally openly declared that it was developing a powerful nuclear deterrent force, although there was no verification of the progress in this. These moves cannot be understood, he said, without taking account both of Korea’s history and of the message given out by the US and British attack on Iraq. Korea had been occupied at one time or another by most of the 19^th century colonisers and then with particular brutality by the Japanese for the first part of the 20^th century. The theft of its resources had been breathtaking in its rapaciousness. Japan spoke of East Asian "co-prosperity" and said it was defending the Asian peoples from white imperialists. It was also clear now that Iraq’s non-possession of "weapons of mass destruction" was a weakness which made war more likely, so that unlike the wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, a war against North Korea would not be so one-sided.

Korea, he said, had a long history and a deep sense of nationhood. In 1945 it was divided North and South according to the arrangements of the 1943 Cairo Conference. This division was stipulated as temporary and to lead rapidly to a General Election in a unified Korea. The onset of the Cold War froze these arrangements. It led to the Korean War which ended with the Armistice of 1953. It had been a disaster, with millions killed, north and south divided, Pyongyang left with hardly a building standing and germ warfare used by the US forces – denied but recently corroborated. General MacArthur had asked the US President for permission to use nuclear bombs against both North Korea and China, a very real threat only a few years after Hiroshima and Nagasaki. It was a traumatic experience for the Korean people. The Armistice has now lasted 50 years and the division of the country remains the biggest issue for all Koreans.

In the late 50s, Keith Bennett explained, the USA stationed nuclear weapons in South Korea. The proposal of North Korea for a "nuclear-free zone" on the peninsula was ignored by the USA. Yet in the early 1990s the USA was to accuse North Korea of developing nuclear weapons when it began to develop nuclear energy with power stations provided by the USSR, having joined the IAEA and signed the NPT. The collapse of the USSR and the Gulf War, however, saw the emergence of a unipolar world and brought severe problems for North Korea in international trade and supply of raw materials. These problems were compounded by repeated natural disasters. In 1993 North Korea withdrew from the NPT in the "national interest". Clinton later admitted that the USA was making preparations for bombing at the time. But Jimmy Carter’s subsequent visit led to the signing of the Geneva Accord, the so-called Agreed Framework of 1994 between the USA and DPRK. This stipulated that the development of heavy-water reactors would be frozen; the USA would supply two light-water reactors; the USA would supply fuel oil to meet the energy shortfall; sanctions would be lifted and "interest sections" opened. However, in 2003, the stipulated completion date for the LWRs, only two holes exist in the ground! And the oil supply has generally been late and short. But there were bold initiatives at the end of the Clinton era. Following the visit of a North Korean envoy to Washington, Madeleine Albright, US Secretary of State, visited Pyongyang in late 2000, reportedly to pave the way for a Clinton visit, which was only frustrated by the Florida election scandals. Talks were held in Malaysia between North Korean and US officials on compensating the DPRK for curtailing international missile sales, a vital source of foreign currency. The DPRK meanwhile established diplomatic relations with Britain, other EU countries, Australia, New Zealand and others. Most importantly, subsequent to the adoption of the "Sunshine Policy" by President Kim Dae Jung of South Korea, the President attended a North-South Summit with Kim Jong Il in Pyongyang and the June 15 Joint Declaration was signed, agreeing to reunification independently and peacefully. Significant progress was made following the signing in such fields as economic cooperation, tourism, uniting divided families, re-establishing road and rail links and de-mining the DMZ.

Then came George W Bush, he said, and the whole process was suspended! So it was hard for the North Koreans, who prize consistency and do not expect one administration to completely overthrow the solemn agreements of its predecessor, to understand this 180 degree turn. The North Koreans, and especially the military, could only conclude that the USA was not to be trusted! Despite North Korea’s prompt declaration of sympathy regarding September 11 and signing of UN Resolutions on Terrorism, January 2002 saw George W Bush include North Korea in his "axis of evil" and the US Pentagon Nuclear Posture Review listed North Korea s liable to "nuclear first strike". In October US envoy Kelly accused North Korea in Pyongyang of developing a uranium enrichment programme, accusing North Korea of violating the Agreed Framework, and the US subsequently forced the ending of the agreed oil supplies, even in the conditions of harsh winter.

North Korea, Keith Bennett said, in such circumstances could only reassess their position. They concluded that the Agreed Framework was a dead letter and that they were next after Iraq! Still they offered a peaceful way forward, proposing a non-aggression pact between the USA and DPRK, the USA acknowledging the DPRK’s right to exist, and to trade, while the DPRK would address any US security concerns. George W Bush, however, has refused to negotiate. Some talks did take place between the USA, DPRK and China on April 23 in Beijing. North Korea says it will not insist on the format of talks, though the main focus must be bilateral.

Now some say, Keith Bennett pointed out, that the USA is now hoping that economic pressure will precipitate "regime change" in North Korea, a sort of "Cuba-lite". But neither the US or British administrations seem to have any sense of history, he said. On May 31 Bush spoke of intercepting ships on the high seas suspected of carrying "weapons of mass destruction". The G8 were bullied into signing a declaration in this spirit. The 11 powers meeting in Madrid recently spoke of stopping North Korean cargoes, while the same countries meeting in Brisbane discussed training to carry out such acts. US official John Bolton has spoken of there being authority to intercept ships in international waters while Geoff Hoon speaks darkly of "isolating North Korea". Even the Tories, Keith Bennett said, are expressing concern about MOD secrecy on this issue, on the possible flouting of international maritime law, and on the fact that such interdiction could be considered an act of war. The British government, he concluded, was indulging in a "dangerous fantasy", to cite the Brookings Institution, as quoted by the US Council on Foreign Relations. This assessment comes from the heart of the US establishment.

Keith Bennett made a number of further points in a broad and extensive question and answer session. Asked about North Korea’s nuclear programme, he said he was suspicious of US claims of "whispers in corridors" concerning nuclear enrichment. The Chinese have said they have heard no such assertions. All the North Koreans have said is that they are engaged in developing a "powerful nuclear deterrent force" to defend the country. On the issue of the NPT he pointed out that Israel, Pakistan and India were nuclear powers who had not signed. He thought that North Korea would re-enter the NPT only with security guarantees. On South Korea’s relations with the USA and the influence they could bring to bear he said that they were not treated as equals. The "Sunshine policy" had had its successes, notably in restoration of road and rail links, the inauguration of work on the Hyundai industrial park in Kaesong and family reunions, pointing out that some 10 million people had had no contact with relatives at all over the previous 45 years. On regional arrangements, he said that regionally North Korea was not isolated. It had strong contacts, especially with its direct neighbours Russia and China, who had never considered it a "rogue" state. Asked about any positive signs in the USA, he replied that 6 Congressmen headed by Senator Curt Weldon had visited North Korea recently and had made positive noises on return home. Regarding Britain, he said Tony Blair should be given credit for establishing diplomatic relations, but it was disturbing how readily he had followed Clinton’s policies, and then as readily followed the exact opposite from George W Bush. There seemed a lack of imagination, to say the least, but we would see more when Blair visited Seoul on July 20. Asked what North Korea could do to relieve the situation, he said that they were in a difficult position so long as the USA refused to talk. On China’s relations with the DPRK, he pointed out that China’s intervention in the Korean War had been decisive and that the two countries retained a mutual defence agreement. The USA must therefore be cautious. In addition China was wary of encirclement. On the activity of NGOs in North Korea, he said a number were very active, including the Quakers, UNICEF and Save the Children. On possible North Korean retaliation against US aggression, he said that North Korea clearly had the ability to inflict damage on US forces. It must be a restraining factor. Asked directly if North Korea posed a threat to peace he said it posed no threat. Its military deterrent force was an insurance, and for sound reasons. North Korea was if anything frustrated by this so-called "nuclear crisis" when it wanted to shift investments from military to economic fields. Asked why George W Bush should follow the policy he did, he said he thought he had an ideological commitment to get rid of any power which opposed his ideology. He wanted to impose his values on everyone. It had been some years ago that Bush’s team had unveiled the US Project for a New American Century, which spoke of "Full Spectrum Dominance" and openly stated that it could tolerate no power that opposed the USA. Among other things, this spelt long-term dangers for China. On Australia’s emergence as a partner to the US and Britain in these adventures, he commented that successive Australian Labour governments had attempted to redefine Australia’s role in its region. The Howard government, however, had reverted to maintaining Australia as an Anglo-American outpost. Finally, asked what advice he had for peace campaigners, Keith Bennett said it was to go all out to prevent war! Little was known about North Korea and the truth must be publicised. An alternative view must be given.