North Korea

Who’s Provoking Whom in the Koreas?

By Joshua Snyder, LewRockwell.com
December 15, 2010

“Just let me know if I have to worry,” read my mother’s email.

With her son living in South Korea for close to fifteen years, we have been through this several times. Whenever North Korea is in the news, she naturally worries about my safety, and now that I’ve given her a lovely daughter-in-law and two beautiful children, her worries have quadrupled.

Since I’ve been here, there have been raids by commandoes, missile launches, alleged nuclear tests, threats of a “Sea of fire,” two sea battles, claiming six and forty-six South Korean sailors respectively, and, most recently the first artillery exchange since the 1953 armistice that lulled the Korean War, in which four South Koreans, including, most disturbingly, two civilians, were killed.

When I first got here, I, too was, spooked whenever North Korea was in the news, but I soon did what any resident of a foreign country should do; I learned from the locals. I saw that South Koreans didn’t care. They ignored the news coming from the North. They acted like the sibling of someone with Tourette’s Syndrome or severe Autism; while the behavior looked scary to outsiders, they were used to it. Those of us who’ve been “in country” a few years like to laugh at the “rookies” who get all jittery and start packing their bags whenever CNN finds it necessary to show scary pictures of menacing North Korean soldiers at Panmunjŏm.

So I wrote back to my mother, “You don’t have to worry, Mom.”

I lied.

This time is different. This year, South Koreans are talking about it. The naval battle on the eve of the 2002 Korea-Japan World Cup was ignored. (A traffic accident involving the US military at the same time, in which two middle school girls tragically died, was not ignored; there were anti-American demonstrations that brought hundreds of thousands to the streets, unreported by most mainstream media in America.) The sinking of the Ch’ŏnan earlier this year was not ignored, perhaps because the loss of life was so great. The 46 sailors were properly mourned, and, along with the anger directed northward, there seemed to be even more conspiracy analysis in the South regarding their government’s version of the story.

Things are really different with last month’s shelling of the disputed Yŏnpyŏngdo Island, perhaps because of the loss of civilian life and property. My students and colleagues are talking about this event, bringing it up freely, voicing their concerns and fears.

I, too, am a bit nervous, but I’m less nervous about what P’yŏngyang (and Beijing) might intentionally do than what Seoul (and Washington) might accidentally do.

A day after the November 23rd Yŏnpyŏngdo attack, Justin Raimondo rightly noted that “the South Koreans were conducting military ‘exercises’ near the disputed island, which North Korea claims as its territory, and South Korean ships had opened fire,” going on to suggest that “the military exercises, code-named ‘Hoguk,’ involving all four branches of the South Korean armed forces and some 70,000 troops, simulated an attack on North Korea, and were meant to provoke the North Koreans, who responded as might be expected” [Korean Conundrum: Is There a Way Out?]. He continued, “US troops were supposed to have participated in the exercises, but apparently the Americans thought better of it and pulled back at the last moment – perhaps because they knew a provocation was in the making” [ibid].

Mr. Raimondo went on to argue, even more pointedly, “For the South Koreans to conduct military exercises in this explosive region, never mind firing off rounds, is nothing but a naked provocation of the sort the West routinely ascribes to Pyongyang. In the context of North Korea’s recent revelation that it is increasing its nuclear capacity, the South Korean military maneuvers were meant to elicit a violent response – and succeeded in doing so” [ibid].

A few days later, South Korean President Lee Myung-bak said of the incident,

“Launching a military attack on civilians is a crime against humanity, even during wartime” [South Korean president takes responsibility for failing to protect country, signals hardened military stance toward North].

Of course, he is about right attacks on civilians being crimes against humanity, but he said nothing of the irresponsibility of holding war games so close to an inhabited and disputed island.

Speaking of President Lee, analyst Peter Lee has argued that:

“Significant North Asian takeaways from the WikiLeaks cables” clearly show that “South Korea, under President Lee Myung-bak, wants the North to collapse and to dominate the reunification process” (while “North Korea is desperate to establish relations with the United States”) and that “South Korean government officials are indefatigably, crudely and rather transparently ‘working the refs’ – selectively packaging and vociferously pushing their arguments – to persuade the United States to abandon mediation through the People’s Republic of China (PRC) and/or negotiation with North Korea and instead put South Korea and its reunification agenda in the diplomatic driver’s seat” [Dear Leader's designs on Uncle Sam].

Since the Yŏnpyŏngdo attack, there have been joint games with the United States, which sent the U.S.S. George Washington, against Chinese warnings (not to mention the warnings of George Washington against “foreign entanglements”). These were followed by joint war games between the United States and Japan, who has her own territorial dispute with Russia, leading South Korean journalist Yi Yong-in to warn that “a ‘three against three’ framework with South Korea, the United States and Japan on one side and North Korea, China, and Russia on the other is showing signs of taking shape once again” and to speak of a “New Cold War” [Cold War alliances reborn with regional tension].

If the danger of a “New Cold War” were not bad enough, there is the very real danger of a hot war, with South Korea launching its own live fire war games in dozens of areas around the peninsula and warning of responding to any North Korean reaction with air strikes:

“The extent of possible South Korean air strikes on the North is not clear, but anything other than an extremely limited and localized action is likely to trigger total war,” warned Koreanologist Gregory Elich, “a war that the U.S. will inevitably be drawn into” [Menacing North Korea].

The last total war on this peninsula resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans, hundreds of thousands of Chinese, and millions of Koreans. Even a cursory glance at world history shows how a minor incident can escalate to a total war.

(Of this possibility, fellow Korea resident Andray Abrahamian has reminded us,

“If through an overly aggressive deterrence posture war breaks out, millions on both sides could die [and] the two generations of sweat and tears that drove South Korea’s economic growth could be undone,” rightly concluding that “it is absolutely inappropriate for foreign Korea-watchers to call for greater aggression in confronting the North” [Pyongyang stretches deterrence limits].)

There are those who would argue that with the indisputably tyrannical nature of North Korea, total war would be “worth it.” Perhaps the best argument I’ve read recently against such interventionist arguments comes from James Church, pseudonymous Western intelligence officer turned mystery novelist, in the second of his great Inspector O series, Hidden Moon, which he put into the mouth of his North Korean detective hero in a retort to a Western spy caught attempting to destabilize his country:

“This isn’t about you, Inspector, it’s about something bigger. The future of your country. Your people’s future.”

“You have no idea what you are talking about, do you? You’re just reciting some crap they handed you at a briefing. My country’s future? Forgive me, Superintendent, I don’t know anything that flourishes when it’s washed in blood. Let’s not float away on visions of the future… What happens here is not yours to worry about. It’s for us, it’s our business, our future, our fate.”

Yes. Let the Koreans, South and North, decide their future. It’s not for us to worry about as it’s their business, their future, their fate. The last thing we Americans need is to get sucked into another war on this peninsula.

Iran-Russia-China-N.Korea Alliance

Wikileaks Reveals Plans for North Korean Collapse

Associated Press
November 30, 2010

Leaked U.S. diplomatic cables show China's frustration with communist ally North Korea and speculate Beijing would accept a future Korean peninsula unified under South Korean rule, according to the documents released by whistle-blowing website WikiLeaks.

The memos indicate the enormous import American and South Korean diplomats place on China's attitude toward the future survival of the isolated and impoverished hard-line communist regime in Pyongyang.

The release of the documents follows new tensions in the region with North Korea unleashing a fiery artillery barrage on a South Korean island that killed four people a week ago. The regime also warned that joint U.S.-South Korean naval drills this week had pushed the peninsula to the "brink of war."

China "would be comfortable with a reunified Korea controlled by Seoul and anchored to the US in a 'benign alliance' as long as Korea was not hostile towards China," then-South Korean vice foreign minister, Chun Yung-woo, is quoted as telling U.S. ambassador to South Korea, Kathleen Stephens, in February.

The diplomatic cables warn, however, that China would not accept the presence of U.S. troops north of the demilitarized zone that currently forms the border between the two Koreas.

Economic opportunities in a reunified Korea could further induce Chinese acquiescence, Chun says.

Chun predicts the government in Pyongyang would last no more than three years following the death of ailing leader Kim Jong Il, who is seeking to pass power to son Kim Jong Un, a political ingenue in his 20s.

While China favors maintaining the status quo, it has little ability to stop a collapse and less influence over the authorities in Pyongyang than is widely believed.

"Beijing had 'no will' to use its economic leverage to force a change in Pyongyang's policies," Chun says, adding the North Korean leadership would continue refusing to dismantle its nuclear program in the absence of a more forceful Chinese approach.

Chun also dismisses the possibility of Chinese military intervention if North Korea threatened to descend into chaos.

China is preparing to handle any outbreaks of unrest along the border that could follow a collapse of the regime. Chinese officials say they could deal with up to 300,000 refugees, but might have to seal the border to maintain order, the memos say, citing an unidentified representative of an international aid group.

Chinese officials are also quoted as using mocking language in reference to North Korea, pointing to tensions between the two neighbors in contrast to official statements underscoring strong historical ties.

Then-Deputy Foreign Minister He Yafei is quoted as telling a U.S. official in April 2009 that Pyongyang was acting like a "spoiled child" by staging a missile test in an attempt to achieve its demand of bilateral talks with Washington.

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton asserted Monday that WikiLeaks acted illegally in posting the material. Officials around the world have said the disclosure jeopardizes national security, diplomats, intelligence assets and relationships between foreign governments.

Five international media organizations, including The New York Times and Britain's the Guardian newspaper, were among those to receive the documents in advance.

Adding to heightened tensions on the peninsula, North Korea revealed two weeks ago the existence of a uranium enrichment facility that could provide the country with a second route for building a nuclear bomb.

China has largely rebuffed calls to use its influence to force Pyongyang to moderate its behavior, while opposing harsh economic sanctions or international censure. Beijing has responded to the latest crises by repeating calls for a return to long-stalled, six-nation denuclearization talks that the North has rejected.

Meanwhile, the chairman of North Korea's Supreme People's Assembly, Choe Thae Bok, arrived in Beijing on Tuesday for a five-day visit following a call last week from China for emergency consultations. Japan also says it will send an envoy for talks.

German-French Alliance

UK Bank Chief Fears Paris, Berlin Will Push for Eurozone Political Union

EUObserver.com
March 12, 2010

As trouble surrounding the Greek economy escalated earlier this year, Britain's top banker warned the US that France and Germany will push for political union inside the eurozone currency club and that this could damage London's influence within the EU.

The thoughts of Bank of England Governor Mervyn King were relayed to Washington by US Ambassador Louis Susman after the two men talked in February of this year, as revealed by a leaked cable from whistleblower site WikiLeaks.

"Germany and France will ultimately have no choice but to offer explicit guarantees of Greek debt, argued King," according to the cable.

"The eurozone could not risk a Greek default and euro devaluation would not be an acceptable political option for Germany or France. Germany and France will likely, as a condition of any guarantee, require the ability to scrutinize if not exercise some control over the Greek budget. Longer-term, the drive for greater political cohesion will accelerate."

In May, Greece was handed a €110 billion EU-IMF bail-out.

At the same time, the EU's statistics agency, Eurostat, was given greater powers to scrutinize member state economic data, and the subsequent setting up of a €750 billion eurozone rescue mechanism, only days later, further increased the determination of European leaders to better co-ordinate their economic policies.

A decade after warnings about monetary union being unstable without a parallel political union to co-ordinate economic policies were ignored, EU leaders appear to be coming round to the idea.

French President Nicolas Sarkozy has put forward plans for a European "economic government," while European economy commissioner Olli Rehn has repeatedly said it is time to finally put the 'E' in Economic and Monetary Union (EMU).

Already in February, Mr King worried that this drive for eurozone consolidation could sideline Britain's influence inside the EU.

"The eurozone's move to greater political cohesion could poise some disadvantages for the UK, King speculated," reads the US ambassador's cable.

As an example, the central banker apparently pointed to a meeting of EU finance ministers earlier in February, during which "eurozone governments politely listened to chancellor [Alistair] Darling when he commented on the situation in Greece, but he was not invited to attend internal discussions since the UK is not part of the eurozone."

Mr King went on to warn:

"It would be incumbent for the UK to demonstrate that it has something meaningful to say and to be constructively engaged in the EU, should this greater political cohesion among the eurozone governments occur."

Separately, former French President Valéry Giscard d'Estaing has insisted that the eurozone is not in danger of breaking apart, arguing that it would be impossible for any state to leave and reclaim its former currency.

"It is impossible. Imagine a country decides to return to a national currency. Its citizens do not want. What could they do well with a currency devalued by 40 percent? There is no space for a small change," he told Le Parisien on Thursday

The World from Berlin: 'The Greek Crisis Induces a Sense of Deja Vu'

Spiegel Online
March 4, 2010

Greece's drastic steps toward slashing its national debt have brought workers into the streets. German commentators are divided over whether the measures will help the debt-stricken country avoid default, with the predatory nature of speculators reminding some of the 2008 financial crisis.

Greek Prime Minister George Papandreou was cheered by political and financial leaders in Europe on Wednesday for a new package of budget cuts -- amounting to €4.8 billion ($6.6 million) -- to control the government's soaring deficit.

The austerity measures, which include drastic cuts in bonus payments to civil servants (on top of frozen wages and slashed benefits from earlier measures), have led Greek unions to call for strikes. The severe cuts aim to slash the Greek budget deficit to 8.7 percent of GDP from the current 12.7 percent. Euro-zone rules say national deficits can't exceed 3 percent.

Workers have poured into Athens streets, and on Thursday morning about 200 demonstrators took over the Finance Ministry building, preventing some staff from going to work. But they didn't prevent the Finance Ministry from announcing a new 10-year bond issue later in the day -- a sign of optimism that Greece will manage to avoid bankruptcy.

Demand for the crucial bond issue was high. The €5 billion issue was massively over-subscribed, with total offers amounting to around €15 billion. Greece reportedly had to offer a rate of about 6.47 percent on the bond -- around 0.40 percentage points above the previous rate -- in order to attract buyers. The rate is twice that offered on comparable German bonds.

Papandreou is plainly still hoping for a bailout from his fellow EU governments. According to the Bloomberg news agency, Papandreou told his ministers Wednesday:

"We have fulfilled to the utmost all that we must from our side; now it's Europe's turn. It is a historic moment for the European Union."

Papandreou is due in Berlin on Friday for a meeting with German Chancellor Angela Merkel. Merkel tried to dampen possible Greek hopes of a German bailout when she told German TV on Wednesday that the new cuts in Greece send a welcome "signal" toward restoring confidence in the euro.

"I expressly want to say that Friday isn't about aid commitments," she said, "but about good relations between Germany and Greece."

German papers on Thursday have their own opinions.

The conservative daily Die Welt writes:

"It's more than symbolism for both the European Commission and the European Central Bank to support Greece's new budget cuts. Statements from politicians aren't worth much on financial markets; statements from central bankers are another matter. By taking such a step, the defenders of the euro are risking their most valuable asset, their credibility. Central bankers offer such praise only when they truly mean it."

"Chancellor Merkel will also welcome the cuts. Until now, she's been under pressure to make concrete offers of aid to Papandreou during his visit to Berlin on Friday. Now she can pat her guest on the shoulder, praise his willingness to make economic reforms, and make soft assurances that the euro zone will hold."

"Other governments in Europe have been testing the limits of responsibility with their budget deficits. So far there's no firm plan for the European Commission to deal with such delinquent governments in the future. How can Europe hold the euro zone together without broad agreement on fiscal and economic policies? At the same time, though, the people of Europe are hardly prepared to grant more power to Brussels. As long as these key issues remain unresolved, it will be hard to label German euro-skepticism as hysteria."

The left-leaning daily Die Tageszeitung argues:

"The Greeks have done just what the EU has demanded: They've introduced radical savings measures. But who profits? The euro, the Greeks, or neighboring Europeans? This drama could show that no one benefits at all; in fact everyone, perhaps, will suffer."

"In the Greek case, it's evident that radical savings during an economic crisis will just make the crisis worse. Workers who receive 7 percent less in salary will have 7 percent less to spend in the economy -- in restaurants or in businesses that may then have to lay off employees. (These budget measures) will steer Greece into a depression at record speed."

"The crisis in Greece can't possibly leave the rest of Europe indifferent, because the Greeks have not borrowed the money from themselves, but from banks in France or Germany. Those banks' loans will only get less, not more, secure if Greece plunges deeper into crisis. The new austerity measures, meant to calm financial markets, will in the long run just increase the unrest."

The business daily Handelsblatt, however, writes:

"Papandreou has scored a coup with these new austerity measures. Now the Greeks will be saved from bankruptcy and the markets will come to their side. Papandreou has gambled and now stands to win, because he's now receiving verbal and political support from every corner."

"If the situation with Greek government bonds can stabilize in the next few weeks -- which is expected -- then we will see the right environment for the issuance of a new Greek bond. The sheer size of the bond issue will in this case not play a decisive role. If the Greeks successfully place an issue of €3 billion - €5 billion with institutional investors, then the spell will be broken. What's important for the Greeks is to show clearly to the outside world that they again have access to international capital markets -- to say, 'We have the means to refinance our own debt.'"

"If trust in the Greek government returns among certain core investors, all other large investors will take notice. In spite of such a success, of course, interest payments would remain high. Greek bonds would be worth buying again."

The Financial Times Deutschland argues:

"Karl Marx famously said that important historical events happen the first time as a tragedy, the second time as a farce. It's remarkable how financial markets these days are proving the prophet right. The Greek debt crisis certainly induces a sense of deja vu."

"The bank bailouts from the first year of the global financial crisis are lodged firmly in the minds of bankers and fund managers. Many big market players are currently betting on the bailout reflexes stemming from those first months of panic. People in banking circles have been saying for weeks that the euro zone would never let one of its poor relations default."

"It should come as no surprise that the markets would test the limits of EU governments. Investors want to know for certain if Germany, in the end, will always come to the rescue of Greece and other member states holding enormous domestic and foreign debts. So interest rates on Greek bonds have continued to rise to levels that even many bankers think are too high."

"If the governments in Paris and Berlin over the next few days step in with aid, the farce will be perfect: a bailout as promised, with uncertain results. Every new bond issue in southern Europe could bring a new emergency, and no one knows when the markets will be satisfied. Will €4 billion or €17 billion be enough? Or should Germans maybe set aside €40 billion to rescue Greece? Debt managers in Athens will have to borrow at least that amount this year."