By Nile Bowie
As China declares fresh warnings of retaliation
against any strike on Iran [1], the regime in Pyongyang shows no signs of
aborting its upcoming controversial satellite launch, scheduled to take place
on April 12th through to April 16th. The Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite will be launched southward
from the Sohae satellite launch station in Cholsan County, North Phyongan
Province, using a long-range Unha-3 rocket; North Korean officials assured the
international community that it would "strictly abide by relevant
international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and
technological satellites for peaceful purposes." [2] As Barack Obama and
South Korean President Lee Myung-bak insinuate that Pyongyang’s upcoming satellite
launch is a pretext to expand a program of nuclear terrorism [3], North Korea
has invited the space agencies of eight countries, including
Japan, the United States, China and Russia, and the European Space Agency to
observe the launch [4].
While North
Korea attempts to assure the transparency of its space program to the
international community, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration
and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency have both declined the invitation from
Pyongyang [5]. Additionally, Japan
has announced the extension of unilateral sanctions on North Korea for another
year [6], including a trade freeze and visa ban, while the US has announced a suspension
of 240,000 tones of food aid to North Korea, reportedly allocated for children
and pregnant women [7]. While the feasibility of the proposed $850 million
satellite launch is questionable given North Korea’s economic instability in
recent times [8], the Washington consensus has used UN Resolution 1874 to
impede what may rightfully be a peaceful technological investment to monitor
the country's crops and natural resources, in a move to prevent further food
insecurity.
UN Resolution 1874 was
passed unanimously following the
underground detonation of a nuclear device conducted on May 25th,
2009 in North Korea, imposing further economic sanctions on the country and
authorizing UN member states to inspect North Korean cargo and destroy any
materials suspected to be involved with the Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program
[9]. While the 2009 test produced seismic activity measured at magnitude 4.7
[10], the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s (CTBTO)
announcement that no radionuclides
had been detected following Pyongyang’s test makes it difficult to prove that
nuclear technology was in fact used at all [11]. Following a 2004 visit to
North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear facility, US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker
testified before US Congress that he saw no evidence of a nuclear bomb [12];
after visiting the facility again in November 2010, Hecker acknowledged the
system’s increased capability, however noting that the experimental light-water
reactor he was shown was still in the early stages of construction [13].
The accusations of North
Korea’s ill-intentioned nuclear program appear highly suspect when tracing back
the routes of technology it is accused of possessing. In 1994, the Swiss
multinational giant Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) was awarded a $200 million contract
with the North Korean government to install two light water nuclear power
stations on the nation’s east coast following a deal with the US to freeze
Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program [14]. Donald Rumsfeld, one of the Bush
administration's most vocal opponents to North Korea, presided over the
contract with Pyongyang when he was an executive director of ABB [15]. Although
the US State Department claimed that the light water reactors could not be used
to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Henry Sokolski, head of the
Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington disputed the claims of
the US Government, offering, “These reactors are like all reactors, they have
the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear
violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we’re trying to prevent it
acquiring.” [16] In 2002, the Bush Administration released $95 million US
taxpayer dollars to begin construction of Pyongyang’s light water reactors, as
part of the Agreed Framework [17].
The upcoming satellite test
follows the failed launch of the Kwangmyongsong-2, which had fallen
into the Pacific Ocean in April 2009 [18]. Mirroring the present day scenario,
the United States, South Korea and Japan then accused the launch of being an
opportunity to test technology that could be used in the future to launch an
intercontinental ballistic missile [19]. Following a Presidential Statement
issued by the United Nations Security Council condemning the launch [20], North
Korea withdrew from the Six Party Talks [21], claiming that the UNSC infringed its
right to peaceful space exploration embodied in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967
[22]. The upcoming launch of the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite coincides with the 100th anniversary of North Korea’s founding deity, Kim il-Sung. Both Japan [23] and
South Korea [24] have vowed to intercept the Unha-3 rocket using AEGIS warships
if it flies over the country’s territories. Pyongyang insists the launch does
not violate any UN resolutions, following a Foreign Ministry spokesman who
assured the international community that “North Korea will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes."
[25]
The double standards imposed on North Korea remain ever apparent, as the international community remains silent as South Korea expands its arsenal of advanced military technology in an effort to become the world’s seventh largest arm exporter [26]. South Korea intends to import 60 fighter jets from Boeing with an enormous budget of $7.3 billion [27] and has recently agreed to an American Bunker Buster explosives arms agreement valued at $71 million [28], while North Korean ballistic technology appears to be constructed from components of Soviet origin suspected to be largely obsolete; analysts such as David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists' point out that the engines on the North’s Unha-2 launcher are based on Soviet technology developed in 1964 [29]. Upon closer examination, the threat on the Korean Peninsula is not as one-sided as the Washington consensus claims.
The double standards imposed on North Korea remain ever apparent, as the international community remains silent as South Korea expands its arsenal of advanced military technology in an effort to become the world’s seventh largest arm exporter [26]. South Korea intends to import 60 fighter jets from Boeing with an enormous budget of $7.3 billion [27] and has recently agreed to an American Bunker Buster explosives arms agreement valued at $71 million [28], while North Korean ballistic technology appears to be constructed from components of Soviet origin suspected to be largely obsolete; analysts such as David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists' point out that the engines on the North’s Unha-2 launcher are based on Soviet technology developed in 1964 [29]. Upon closer examination, the threat on the Korean Peninsula is not as one-sided as the Washington consensus claims.
Following Pyongyang’s
announcement in February assuring its readiness for “total war” with South Korea and the United States
during joint war drills conducted near North Korea’s border and territorial
waters [30], the isolated nation has yet again warned against the interception
of its missile, “Nobody should dare encroach upon the sky above Pyongyang,
sacred capital of the DPRK, and they are gravely mistaken if they think they
can survive after attacking Pyongyang. Whoever intrudes into the territorial
air and seas even an inch under any pretext and intercepts the DPRK satellite
or collects its debris will meet immediate, resolute and merciless punishment
by the DPRK” [31]. Furthermore, Pyongyang has accused Obama of exploiting instability
on the Korean Peninsula to strengthen his re-election campaign, citing the Korean
threat as a pretext to allow the US Congress to mandate further executive
expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the Pentagon’s serious budget
shortage [32].
By allowing international
experts to observe the planned launch of the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite, Pyongyang’s attempt to legitimize its peaceful
intentions should be acknowledged. Although the Obama administration would like to
appear as if they are in command of the situation on the Korean Peninsula,
their actions indicate the limited leverage they have to affect the situation.
The threat of North Korea has proven itself to be a valuable pretext for the
continued presence of US military personnel in both South Korea and Japan. The
US has worked to further marginalize North Korea to contain China, as
construction begins for a controversial $970 million joint military base on South
Korea’s Jeju Island [33], which would host up to 20 American and South Korean
warships, including submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers once completed
in 2014.
Washington’s decision to suspend food aid to North
Korea ultimately works against its objectives of weakening the regime, as many
citizens would further rely on Pyongyang’s food distribution system –
irrespective to the moral argument of barring nutritional necessities to a
nation that has previously experienced famine and cases of cannibalism [34]. An
influx of foreign currency has ensured Pyongyang’s stability under its new leadership
as China secures contracts to extract North Korea’s vast natural resources such
as iron ore and coal, roughly valued at $6.1 trillion as of 2008 [35]. The US
will continue to exploit the new regime’s eagerness to prove itself to the
populace, as reports issued by the Council on Foreign Relations indicate its
long-term program. The 2009 document entitled “Preparing for Sudden Change in
North Korea” [36] advocates a military contingency plan involving the
stationing of up to 460,000 foreign soldiers into a post-regime North Korea to
its capture nuclear arms and ballistic missiles. The document also highlights
the need to form a compliant transitional government acquiescent to market
liberalization and privatization. As the potential for debilitating conflict on
the Korean Peninsula remains ever present, the international community must
approach Pyongyang with increased diplomacy and embrace its attempts at
transparency in whichever medium.
Notes
[1] China
steps up pressure to prevent any attack on Iran, Reuters, April 6, 2012
[2] Department of
Defense: Satellite Launch Would Be A Destabilizer (Launch), Satnews, March
19, 2012
[3] World leaders: Nuclear
terrorism a ‘grave threat’, BBC, March 27, 2012
[4] N.
Korea invites 8 nations, Europe to observe satellite launch, The Mainichi,
April 5, 2012
[5] Ibid
[6] Japan won’t send
observers to N. Korea rocket launch, Russia Today, April 3, 2012
[7] US confirms it has
suspended North Korea food aid plans, BBC, March 28, 2012
[8] Satellite shows $850
mln NK rocket launch imminent? Russia Today, April 2, 2012
[9] Resolution
1874 (2009), United Nations, June 12, 2009
[10] Earthquake
Details: Magnitude 4.7 - NORTH KOREA, United States Geological Survey, May
28, 2009
[11] Verification
Experts Puzzled Over North Korea's Nuclear Test, Science, June 19, 2009
[12] Visit to the
Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea, Los Alamos
National Laboratory, University of California, January 21, 2004
[13] North
Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: A Report by Siegfried S. Hecker, Center
for International Security and Cooperation, University of Stanford, November
20, 2010
[14] Rumsfeld
was on ABB board during deal with North Korea, Swissinfo, February 24, 2003
[15] Rummy's
North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build
nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?, CNN Money, May 12,
2003
[16] US grants N Korea
nuclear funds, BBC, April 23, 2012
[17] Ibid
[18] North Korea space
launch 'fails', BBC, April
5, 2009
[19] Obama
Condemns North Korea Launch, Calls for Nuclear Free World, Voice of
American News, April 5, 2009
[20] Statement
by the President of the Security Council, United Nations, April 13, 2009
[21] DPRK
Foreign Ministry Vehemently Refutes UNSC's "Presidential Statement",
Korean Central News Agency, April 14, 2009
[22] Treaty on
Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of
Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, United Nations
Office for Outer Space Affairs, October, 1967
[23] Japan issues
destroy order as NK rocket launch looms,
Russia Today, March 31, 2012
[24] S. Korea threatens
to gun down North’s rocket,
Russia Today, March 26, 2012
[25] N.
Korea: We will never give up satellite launch, Russia Today, March 27, 2012
[26] Drifting apart? The U.S.
- ROK alliance at risk, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Routledge
Taylor & Francis Group, March 2009
[27] Boeing
backtracks on stealthy jet offer, February 14, 2012
[28] US
Approves Sale of Earth Penetrator Bombs to South Korea, NTI, December 7,
2011
[29] A
post-launch examination of the Unha-2, Bulletin of the Atomic
Scientists, June 29, 2009
[30] N. Korea 'ready for war'
as South Korea, US stage war games, Russia Today, February 27, 2012
[31] Interception
of Satellite Would Be Regarded as Act of War: CPRK Spokesman, Korean
Central News Agency, April 5, 2012
[32] Voice
of Russia Snubs Reaction of U.S., Japan and S. Korea to DPRK's Projected
Satellite Launch, Korean Central News Agency, April 6, 2012
[33] Island’s
Naval Base Stirs Opposition in South Korea, The New York Times, August 18,
2011
[34] Alleged
N. Korean police document reports case of cannibalism, The Korea Herald, June 20, 2011
[35] South
losing race for the North’s resources, Korea JoongAng Daily, January 18,
2011
Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Tony Cartalucci's Land Destroyer Report and Professor Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research Twitter: @NileBowie
