Why Does US Avoid N. Korea Talks?By Finian Cunningham
February 17, 2016 "Information Clearing House" - "American Herald Tribune " - Tensions
on the Korean Peninsula have reignited yet again after the North’s
rocket launch earlier this month. An obvious solution to avoid recurring
war risk is to convene mutual talks. But that’s the last thing that
Washington appears to want.
It
was indomitable British wartime leader Winston Churchill (1874-1965)
who famously coined the phrase: “To jaw-jaw is always better than to
war-war”. Meaning dialogue with one’s enemy is always the preferred
option. That’s saying something coming from Churchill whose popular
image is one of a feisty pugilist.
The
admonition is apposite in the context of the latest bout of tensions on
the Korean Peninsula. China’s Foreign Ministry spokesman Hong Lei this
week urged the United States and North Korea to engage in earnest talks
over long-running security disputes.
Washington has given no indication of heeding China’s advice. Indeed, the latest move has seen US F-22 stealth warplanes make flyovers in South Korea this week in a show of military strength to the North.
“We
urge the US and North Korea to sit down and negotiate to explore ways
of resolving each other’s reasonable concerns, and to finally achieve
the goal we all want,”said Hong Lei during diplomatic talks with counterparts in South Korean capital Seoul.
China
is certainly not happy with its traditional North Korean ally’s recent
rash behavior. After the latest rocket launch, China made a rare rebuke
of Pyongyang, especially since its appeals to refrain from the launch
had been ignored. Nevertheless, Beijing sees the US policy of constantly
sanctioning and isolating North Korea as futile.
Surely,
“the goal we all want” must be normal, peaceful relations in the
region, not just between the two Koreas, but more generally.
In
this regard, Washington’s hidebound policy of isolating and sanctioning
North Korea is untenable. The persistent Cold War posture is a
dead-end. More ominously, such policy casts a dangerous shadow over
regional relations. Its logical conclusion is relentless conflict, and
ultimately all-out war.
Pyongyang’s
latest satellite launch using ballistic rocket power – coming only
weeks after an underground nuclear blast test – has once again reignited
tensions and recriminations.
South
Korea has responded by withdrawing economic links via the Kaesong
industrial complex, and this week President Park Geung-hye warned the North that it faces “regime collapse” if it pursues its nuclear weapons program.
There
are even calls among South Korean and Japanese politicians for their
states to acquire nuclear weapons as protective measures.
North Korea’s leader Kim Jung-Un has responded angrily that Seoul’s cutting off economic ties is “an act of war”.
There
is a depressing predictability to this spiral of belligerence. For more
than 50 years, since the Korean War ended in 1953, the divided states
have been convulsed by repetitive confrontations, which inevitably mar
wider regional relations.
Washington’s
response to North Korea’s latest rocket launch on February 7 is also
predictable. It has accused Pyongyang of threatening its allies in the
region and of secretly building intercontinental ballistic missiles
(ICBMs) aimed at striking the United States’ mainland.
Presidential
contenders in the US are vying with each other in condemning North
Korea as a “national security threat”. If any of the Republican party
contenders are elected as president later this year, based on their
fiery rhetoric, we can expect further deterioration in northeast Asian
relations.
In
claiming to defend its allies, the US is already moving ahead with the
installation of the anti-ballistic “missile shield” in South Korea and
Japan. The Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system has long
been opposed by China as a destabilizing shift in the balance of nuclear
power. Ostensibly, deployed to defend against future North Korea ICBMs,
the THAAD system also undermines China’s own nuclear forces because it
can be viewed as affording the US a “first-strike” nuclear potential.
There
is more than a sneaking suspicion that Washington is using the alleged
threat posed by North Korea as a pretext for its bigger strategic
ambitions of undermining China.
In
any case, what needs to be recognized is that five decades of hostility
must be averted. There must be a profound policy change. And China is
right. The only forward for a viable, sustainable future is through
genuine dialogue.
It
is no good just condemning North Korea over its behavior. Yes,
Pyongyang can be accused of violating United Nations sanctions and
provoking tensions.
But the question needs also to be asked: why has the United States steadfastly refused to engage in dialogue with North Korea?
The
last multi-lateral talks involving the US, the two Koreas, China, Japan
and Russia broke down in 2008 and have not been resumed, largely due to
Washington’s insistence on demonizing Pyongyang as a “rogue state”.
That’s amazing when you think about it. No substantive talks in nearly a
decade while the danger of a nuclear confrontation looms.
Those
talks broke down because North Korea accused Washington of not
delivering on promised sanctions relief and on technological assistance
to convert its nuclear program for civilian applications. Sensing that
Washington was not prepared to normalize relations, the North resumed
its nuclear weapons program. In 2009, it conducted its second atomic
blast test, in 2013 the third and in January this year, the fourth.
Clearly, at this rate, the impasse with North Korea will only lead to a grave confrontation some time in the future.
Given
the brutal history of war and destruction rained down on North Korea by
the US during the Korean War –in which millions died from massive
carpet bombing of cities –it is understandable that Pyongyang has deep
grievances and apprehensions about American intentions. Especially since
the US and its South Korean ally never signed an armistice to
definitely conclude the 1950-53 war with a peace treaty.
From
North Korea’s viewpoint, it remains on a war footing because Washington
in particular has not given a commitment to abide by peaceful
relations. What is Pyongyang to do given the decades of US-imposed
crippling economic sanctions, recurring “war games” and Washington’s
offensive Cold War-style rhetoric lampooning it as a rogue state?
Jaw-jaw
is better than war-war, but Washington’s refusal to engage in mutual
dialogue leaves little option other than perennial conflict.
Which tends to answer the bigger question of why the US avoids talk and normalizing relations.
Peace
in the region would remove America’s self-justification for maintaining
its inordinate military presence. That suggests that the real problem
here is not North Korea. It is the US and its destabilizing hegemonic
ambitions.
Finian
Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international
affairs, with articles published in several languages. For over 20
years, he worked as an editor and writer in major news media
organisations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. |
No comments:
Post a Comment