North Korea

Mark Gallagher

The Korean peninsula probably felt the wrath of United States foreign policy before 1866, but rarely so infamously. That was the year that the U.S gunboat General Sherman fired its cannons into a crowd of unarmed civilians near Pyongyang. Metaphorically speaking this sums up over a century of globalisation/Americanisation with predictable reactions by those affected in this part of the world. Overall the region has one of if not the most dynamic and high-technology based economies on the planet and has been of particular U.S. concern particularly since the end of the Second World War.

Recent developments in North Korea cannot be viewed outside the context of the invasion of Iraq .The logic is clear to all except those blinded by ideology. The invasion of Iraq happened precisely because it was fundamentally defenceless to outside attack not because it presented a danger to the region far less beyond that. The goal of the US administration here is also one of regime change. There are also those in Washington who believe in the grandiose and poorly named concept of a missile defence shield, which in reality would be a licence for aggression against more defenceless countries, and this region is seen as a prime example of where such technology would be useful.

You don't have to go far back to find Kim Jong Il being described as 'practical and serious' by former US Secretary of State Madeleine Albright. When Bill Clinton wasn't trying too hard to appear tough his administration at least had periods of what was undeniably constructive engagement with a regime that is more complicated than the picture of unrepentant totalitarianism that is painted by many. It is not necessary to venture into apologetics for the abuse of human rights to recognise that history has played a part in shaping the nature of North Korean rule and foreign policy.

North Korea has been threatened on at least four occasions with nuclear attack by the United States. During the Korean War they had their irrigation dams bombed which had the predictable effect of destroying much of their supply of rice, an action similar to that which Nazi Germany was condemned for at the Nuremburg trials. When you add to this that the US still has operational control over the South Korean military then it becomes clear why they might be more than a little nervous. Add the fact that even the US State Department admits that North Korea is not known to have sponsored any act of terrorism since 1987 then the simple presentation of the regime as part of an 'axis of evil' intent on world domination starts to look seriously in doubt.

To concentrate on technical matters for a moment there are huge doubts over the reliability North Korean rocket technology and so even if a viable bomb is produced then it is unclear whether they would have the means of delivering it to a target any distance away. Politically let us not forget the value a bomb could have to Kim Jong Il domestically as a symbol of prosperity and power.

To those who would say we are making apologies for a state developing nuclear weapons the answer should be simple. First of all like many peace organisations and activists the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has made clear it opposes all nuclear weapons and its specific opposition to the North Korean nuclear test. Secondly we should say as taxpayers and citizens of democracies with nuclear weapons and aggressive foreign policies it is first and foremost our moral responsibility to do something about what we can have the most impact on, namely the policies of our own government and its allies.

All that the stance of Bush and his ally Blair have taken in foreign policy and indeed over the replacement of Trident has done is increase the risk of nuclear proliferation worldwide. Through a combination of military aggression and economic isolation the regime in Pyongyang has been forced to play the nuclear hand. Gordon Brown has taken it upon himself to say that he supports new nuclear weapons so this gives us one more reason not to support him as the next leader of our party