pravda
By Murray Hunter
North Korea is being depicted as an
irrational provocateur and aggressor in the escalation of threats and
military maneuvers over the Korean Peninsula, and of course the regime's
rhetoric is being used as proof of the intention to wage war. However
the events occurring now can also be seen as a continuation of the Obama
Administration's "Asian Pivot" strategy, which started with the US
President's visit to Burma, Thailand, and Cambodia in November last
year, where he tried unsuccessfully to establish a greater US military
presence around the South China Sea over the issue of disputed
territories.
Since North Korea's firing of a three
stage rocket back in December last year, and the underground nuclear
test in February, threats, rhetoric, and military provocations have been
rapidly escalating. Early in March, the UN approved fresh sanctions on
Pyongyang, where North Korea retaliated through stating that it has the
right to stage a pre-emptive strike on the US, as reported by the
"western press",.
However , North Korea is not the only
country with its rhetoric, the newly elected President of South Korea
Park Geun-hye stated that it will strike hard and directly against the
North's top leadership if provoked.
Then only a couple of days after that,
US marines commenced military exercises with Japanese Self defense
forces in Hokkaido. Pyongyang very quickly deployed long range artillery
and multiple rocket launchers from bases just across from Baengnyeonydo
Island, where many clashes has previously occurred, and told South
Koreans in the area to evacuate. President Park loosened the rules of
engagement in the West Sea.
Very soon after, during the next couple
of days the annual US-South Korean Foal Eagle joint military exercises
which included 10,000 South Korean and over 3,000 US troops commenced on
the Peninsula. The Western media portrayed North Korean condemnations
of these military exercises as something unexpected, but in fact North
Korea had opposed such exercises as being unnecessarily provocative each
year. Only a few days later US Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel
announced an increase in missile deployment in Alaska to counter any
missile threat from North Korea.
Over the last 10 days escalation has
drastically increased with navel drills in seas around the peninsula,
B-52s flying over South Korea practicing bombing runs, and then on 28th
march a precision bombing run over the Peninsula of two B-2 bombers, the
most advanced nuclear carrying stealth aircraft in the US arsenal. This
was reinforced by Secretary Hagel's statement that North Korean
provocations should be taken very seriously.
In retaliation, North Korea cut military
hotlines with the South, and soon after said it was entering a "state
of war" with the South by cancelling the armistice agreement, where
incidentally North Korea has been long willing to sign a full peace
agreement, but to date the US has refused. However one must be careful
with what the North actually means in their statements, as real meanings
can be "lost in reckless translation".
Both sides are also claiming that they are the victims of cyber attacks, adding to the high tensions that now exist.
From the North Korean perspective, these
escalations are coming from a country that carpet bombed the North
almost out of existence during the 1950 Korean War. More than 5 million
lives were lost during this conflict, and the 1950 war started under the
pretext of military exercises, just like those that recently occurred.
It is reasonable to believe that in the North where the threat of
military incursion by the US and South Korea has been a real
possibility, current military movements are perceived as a real threat
to the security of the country. If one was sitting in Pyongyang, one
could very easily mistake the current provocations as being preparations
for an attack. Both history and Korean military scenarios would tend to
support this perception from the North's point of view.
The current "game" scenario playing out
on the peninsula through these escalating actions is increasing the
risks on both sides. What makes this game scenario even more risky is
that the players on both sides don't know each other, as no personal
relationships exist. There also looks like no immediate forum of
moderation acceptable to both sides is available to hold any talks to
decrease the tension. Both the Russians and Chinese are urging restraint
to both sides. This time round a number of political commentators are
taking the US to task for unnecessarily provoking North Korea.
One may also be perplexed over the
current US actions, wondering if their intelligence and understanding of
the consequences is fully understood. Any further contemplated
escalation could miscalculate the response by the other side and lead to
open military conflict, be it minor and localized, or wider over the
whole boarder region. In the past, during the Clinton Administration,
wisdom and restraint was shown when military exercises were actually
cancelled to appease Pyongyang's concerns. So far no such similar wisdom
is being shown by the current administration in this building crisis.
So the next question is whether the US
game plan is based on a misunderstanding of the consequences or whether
it is very deliberate?
If one looks at the events going on
within the Korean Peninsula within a regional perspective, the real
concern of the US might be China. The Korean escalation is a good excuse
to build up the US military presence in East Asia, at a time when
congressional budget cuts are restricting the deployment and operation
of military assets in the region, and some Governments like Japan are
even questioning the need to have US troops on their soil.
This escalation will encourage the South
to further militarize themselves and don't be surprised if Japan is
asked to play a much greater military role in the region, with pressure
put on the government to amend the constitution. The Korean escalation
will enable more US military assets to be placed closer to China, and
create a good excuse for the Obama Administration to cancel cutbacks in
military spending in order to take on the "new enemy" of the United
States.
This can be seen as a replay of the old
strategy of building up a caricature of evil, someone the US loves to
hate. With Muammar Gaddafi, Osama Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein all gone,
someone is desperately needed with all the abilities required to "wage
war on the United States". With the US moving their homeland policy
towards domestic terrorism, a new international threat is needed. And
Kim Jong-un fits the profile perfectly. Don't worry that the North
doesn't have the capacity to make a first strike on US soil. Just like
before in Iraq, the details can be glossed over. The 'evil empire' brand
was created by Reagan, carried on by Bush is now ready to be utilized
by this administration.
The escalation plays into the hands of
the Administration, It can ask for more funds to bolster military
capabilities in the time of a "threat to the United States". If granted,
this will enable the allocation of much needed resources to enhance the
effectiveness of Obama's Asian Pivot strategy.
One of the ironical things about the
Obama Asian Pivot strategy is that it is utilizing the same old tools of
past administrations. Obama who portrayed himself as the great peace
maker and communicator during the 2008 election campaign has turned out
to be a chameleon. All promises and restraint and even dialogue with US
"enemies" have been long forgotten. Obama had espoused himself as the
great liberal, but the actions haven't matched the words, and in foreign
policy he has done nothing more than continue on with the Bush-Cheney
doctrine of aggressive military action.
If one can see what the administration
has to gain through this escalation, it is difficult to find reason for
any back-down. This game is important to the broad foreign policy
objectives of the administration, particularly when the President failed
to secure any greater US presence within the ASEAN region during his
visit to the region last November.
President Obama would certainly have
many supporters today in the US military-industrial complex. One of
United States greatest war generals and Presidents, Dwight D. Eisenhower
warned the American people about the dangerous influence of this group
in his farewell address.
This US strategy maybe actually
counter-productive in bringing any chance of peace to the Korean
Peninsula. This military escalation is increasing the prestige of North
Korea's new leader and will no doubt increase his military and political
powerbase. In addition, the US provocation may strengthen resolve of
North Korea's few allies to affirm support, and even win sympathy from
others. Given that Kim Jong-un is also very young for a world leader,
one of the potential consequences of this escalation is that future US
Presidents will have difficulty in engaging in direct discussions with
the Korean leader, something absolutely necessary for any lasting peace
on the Peninsula to be achieved.
The events of the last few weeks on the
Korean Peninsula may be very telling of the style and objectives of this
second Obama Administration. The present 'game in play' by the US is
indeed full of risk and uncertainty. North Korea is running out of new
ways to make retaliatory threats to warn the US of the consequences of
playing this risky game. It will be interesting to see how many
objectives in the Asia-pacific region Obama will achieve through this
"sabre rattling".
The author hopes this piece shows that there are multiple perspective to every story.
