North
Korea's Rebellion
By Felix Englen
07 December, 2006
Countercurrents.org
The
recent testing of a nuclear device by the “communist” dictatorship
of North Korea sparked condemnation by the imperialist powers, with
the US envoy to North Korea, Christopher Hill, hypocritically declaring,
“North Korea needs to understand that the rules apply to everybody”.
This comes from a country that currently possesses around 10,000 nuclear
warheads, and expects this enormous military might to be kept beyond
challenge, particularly by a country they have singled out as an “outpost
of tyranny”, in a region where they, along with Japan and the
European powers, have important strategic and economic interests to
protect.
This act of rebellion will
now be met with UN sanctions, definitely including a ban on luxury goods,
trade, travel and financial transactions relating to the arms trade.
Beyond this, however, the scope of the sanctions and any further action
are still under debate. America’s aims may be tempered by the
varying interests of the other governments, who previously took part
in six-party negotiations with North Korea - Russia, China, Japan and
South Korea.
Of these, Japan is the most
willing to “get tough”. Previously North Korea’s third
largest trading partner, since the test, it has already banned all North
Korean exports and citizens from entering Japan. Vladimir Putin, on
the other hand, warned against pushing their government into a corner
and partially excused the nuclear test on the basis that the negotiations
adopted the wrong “tone”.
A greater hindrance to the
imperialists’ plan, however, is posed by China and South Korea,
both countries with expanding interests in North Korea. Since 1998,
South Korea has pursued a “sunshine strategy” to coax Kim
Jong Il’s regime into greater co-operation, the cost of which
has been high. According to the opposition party, $1.2 billion has been
given to projects such as the Mount Kumkang resort just north of the
border. Despite the US believing that this generates cash for the North’s
nuclear programme, the South Korean regime continues to defend its strategy.
South Korea is also cautious
about sanctions, to which they have only reluctantly agreed. This reflects
both short term priorities and long term goals. South Korea is directly
threatened by the North’s massive military presence. The South’s
strategy is to encourage gradual change, while maintaining stability
in the North: hence their massive food aid programme.
This stands in sharp contrast
to the US strategy to isolate the North. For the South, this raises
the prospect of the collapse of the regime, followed by unification,
which would impose unbearable economic costs. This conflict was highlighted
last month, when the Washington pressured Seoul to join its Proliferation
Security Initiative, an alliance directed against the North.
China’s co-operation
By contrast, China, expected
by some to be the biggest obstacle to US plans, has been much more open
to co-operation. Beijing is anxious to maintain its role as an intermediary
between the Bush administration and the North, but this only partly
explains calls on Kim Jong Il to stop the development of nuclear weapons.
Another factor is the fear that Japan and South Korea might decide to
follow suit, leaving China surrounded with potentially hostile states
possessing nuclear weapons.
Unlike the US, China is not
pushing for regime change in North Korea, where she currently has important
economic interests. For example, Chinese state-owned companies are proposing
to invest more than $880m in an iron-ore mine near the Chinese border.
While China will support the imposition of sanctions in principle, she
will not approve of the severity of US proposals. A collapse of the
already precarious North Korean economy would terrify the Chinese state,
particularly given the potential for mass migration across the 1,400km
border. There is already unrest China’s north eastern provinces,
caused by widespread lay-offs in state-owned industries.
A crisis in North Korea thus
poses an immense threat of destabilisation and crisis in the region.
Such fears extend beyond China, with Western analysts also worrying
that an isolated North Korea might “behave even more badly”
or that sanctions would trigger its collapse and unleash nuclear mayhem.
The conflicting viewpoints of the big players, far from representing
different moral stances on nuclear proliferation, are all closely tied
to economic and diplomatic interests.
For the Bush administration
the main fear is that the arming of North Korea will challenge US hegemony
across the region and give confidence to Iran to continue her development
of nuclear weapons. The US is therefore pushing for the harshest possible
measures, rediscovering rhetoric about the “axis of evil”
to encourage support for this stance. It is also seeking to use the
situation as a lever to bring China, a potentially rival state, under
its wing in a struggle against common enemies.
By acquiescing in the adoption
of sanctions, Beijing has maintained its decades-long policy of never
directly confronting Washington’s interests. This is essential
because of China’s economic dependency on the US. At the same
time, Beijing has been careful reassert its position as the key negotiator
with the North.
At the core of all this is
the America’s role as the world’s strongest imperialist
superpower, the self-appointed global policeman that is itself above
the law. This superpower uses its immense military might to push through
its neoliberal economic agenda: tearing down every barrier to trade,
enforcing privatisation, and attacking trade union and workers’
rights. Any regime that politically, militarily or economically challenges
this hegemony becomes a target.
http://www.fifthinternational.org/
http://www.workerspower.com
Leave
A Comment
&
Share Your Insights