north korea - prospects for peace

North Korea - prospects for peace

Tim BealVictoria University of Wellington, New Zealand

United Nations Association, WellingtonThurs 12 July 2007

UNA Wellington 12 July 2007 2

Setting the scene

• Thanks

• Title– Why not US: Prospects for Peace?

• A brace of characters


This (real) gentleman


Met a fictitious one in 1757

• The occasion?

• Admiral John Byng’s execution

• Fictitious one: Voltaire’s Candide


John Byng and Candide

• Byng is executed – in this country, it is wise to kill an admiral from

time to time to encourage the others

• Byng was not close enough to the French fleet, but Candide asked– Weren’t the French as far from the English, as

the English from the French?


US - NK – US

• Just as NK is as far from US as US is from NK, so negotiation has two sides

• Media exclusively focuses on denuclearisation of NK

• What does NK think?

• Two aspects


NK on denuclearisation

• Not just NK but SK and other countries (i.e. US) in respect of Korean peninsula– US nuclear weapons in SK land and waters, and

long-range weapons elsewhere

• Nuclear programme to– Deter US from attack– Force US to drop ‘hostility’


Hostility

• NK wants US to accept peaceful coexistence• Lift sanctions

– Large responsibly for devastation of economy• Hundreds of thousands of deaths

• Malnutrition

• Barrier to rehabilitation and development

• In effect, adhere to UN charter• Let us ask Candidian awkward questions


The importance of questions

• Often it is the asking of questions that is important– The answer falls into place

• Similar to the little boy observing that the emperor was naked

• Power does not like questions


The portrayal of things

• Events and issues are often portrayed as if the received interpretation is unquestionable

• Vital to ask ‘naive’ questions

• Such as?


Examples

• Which country threatens peace, NK or US?

• Which country threatens the other, NK or US?

• Does US have a moral right to nuclear weapons denied to NK?

• If we are concerned about nuclear weapons, should we not look at the country which has 10,000 rather than the country which has none?


In this spirit let us examine some issues

• NK, US and the UN– NK Missile tests July 2006– NK Nuclear test October 2006– US allegations about UNDP in NK January

2007

• BDA affair• Agreement of 13 February 2007• Prospects for peace


Forthcoming article

• December issue of NZ Journal of Asian Studies


Tests >resolutions

• Both sets of tests led to ‘unanimous’ condemnatory resolutions, imposing sanctions

• Unanimous is misleading

• Opposition from China and Russia but veto is out of fashion

• Water down and then often ignore


South Korea

• Also opposed but– Does not have a veto– Cannot openly defy US

• Caught in dilemma and does contradictory things

• Eg suspends aid but continues Kaesong Industrial Complex


Missile tests

• July 2006 >>Japanese sponsored resolution 1695


Candide would be bemused

• Reaffirming that proliferation of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, as well as their means of delivery, constitutes a threat to international peace and security,

• Why ‘proliferation’ rather than ‘possession’– Once you ask the question you know the

answer– US possesses, US enemies proliferate


Why concern at NK ballistic missiles?

• Expressing grave concern at the launch of ballistic missiles by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), given the potential of such systems to be used as a means to deliver nuclear, chemical or biological payloads,


Candide’s questions

• Don’t all missiles (even US ones) have this potential?

• Why specify ‘ballistic missiles’ rather than missiles?– NK missiles are ballistic, US tends to employ

non-ballistic (i.e. cruise) missiles– Britain alone has up to 2000 Storm Shadow and

unknown number of Tomahawks


Moratorium

• Registering profound concern at the DPRK’s breaking of its pledge to maintain its moratorium on missile launching,

• Wasn’t this moratorium (Clinton 1999) self-imposed and contingent on US negotiations on issue continuing?– Bush had broken off negotiations


Missile tests

• Not illegal

• Very common

• For instance in period June-November 2006 many countries conducted tests of long range missiles– Minor tests and exercises not reported

• Unless NK…


Tests

• France• India• Pakistan• Russia• US

– 3 tests of Minuteman missiles across Pacific

• UK– No major tests but decided to replace Trident


October nuclear test

• UN condemnation replicated double standards of July

• US currently does not conduct physical tests but may return to it

• Developing new generation of nuclear weapons and delivery systems– Policy of first use

• And the track record…


Fig 1: Nuclear tests 1945-2006

1

2

4

45

45

210

715

1030

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

North Korea

Pakistan

India

China

UK

France

Russia

US


Purpose of NK tests

• Force US back into negotiations– In abeyance because of BDA affair

• Combined with other factors was successful– Middle East– Mid-term elections

• Negotiations were resumed and this led to Agreement of 13 February 2007


BDA and UNDP affairs

• This agreement was to implement the initial stages of the Joint Statement of 19 September 2005

• JS had been suspended by the Banco Delta Asia (BDA) affair

• In Sept 2005 US Treasury designated BDA as a ‘primary money laundering concern’ under Section 311 of the USA Patriot Act


BDA charges

• Treasury claimed that BDA was laundering ‘hundreds of millions of dollars’ for NK– Drugs, counterfeit cigarettes, counterfeit

currency

• Produced no evidence, even in private to SK or China

• Audit by Ernst & Young cleared BDA


Reasons for BDA action

• Derail Joint Statement/ Six Party Talks

• Warning or test against China– Exercise of extraterritoriality against Chinese

bank on Chinese territory

• Practice at using Patriot Act against other enemies eg Iran


Effect of BDA

• Froze $25m NK money in BDA accounts

• More important, expelled NK from international banking system– ‘financial sanctions’


Treasury/State conflict

• From late 2006 to date there has been a battle between Treasury and State

• Rice apparently got Bush’s agreement to negotiate with NK and lift financial sanctions

• Talks in Berlin January 2007>>Agreement of 13 February– Financial sanctions to be lifted in 30 days


Treasury down but not out

• Treasury forced to unfreeze accounts but barred BDA from US banking system– Ensuring sanctions remained

• Four months struggle by State to lift sanctions so Agreement could go ahead

• Successful?– For the moment yes…


Meanwhile, UNDP affair

• January 2007 Deputy U.S. Ambassador to UN Mark Wallace alleged that NK was diverting hundreds of millions of dollars from UNDP operations there– Also complained that UNDP was paying local

staff in hard currency

• Wallace– Protégé of John Bolton


UNDP rebuts charges

• If it paid in won it would need to buy that with hard currency, so effect would be the same

• It was only spending a few million in NK each year


Ban Ki-moon

• Ban widely seen as ”America’s man” immediately order external audits on UN operation in NK

• 1 June Ban announces audit clears UNDP

• US returns to attack with fresh charges


Charges flimsy

• One was NK had spent money on embassy property abroad at same time as UNDP had been spending money in NK– But currency is fungible

• ‘To Mr. Wallace’s charge that the program had transferred $7 million to its counterpart agency in the North Korean government, the program said that the amount actually had been $175,000 and that most of it had gone for workshops on vegetable growing and seed processing ‘


Even ridiculous

• Most risible was complaint that UNDP had funded a project on arms control and disarmament, and supplied books

• The one the Americans singled out was…


End of Western civilization?

• Jacques E. C. Hymans– Smith College, Massachusetts

• Cambridge University Press– £17.99


Prospects for peace

• Positions of governments

• Power of governments– Rogue elements


Japan

• Wants crisis to continue in order to facilitate remilitarisation (and perhaps nuclearisation)

• Uses ‘abduction issue’– NK wants Japan out of Six Party Talks– SK, (Russia, China) and even Rice have

expressed annoyance at Japanese


China and Russia

• Want peaceful resolution

• Want NK to survive and thrive


SK

• Wants peaceful resolution

• Wants NK to survive, develop and eventually unify with SK

• Even opposition GNP softening its line on NK


NK

• Peaceful coexistence with US– Removal of US military threat

• Lifting of sanctions and barriers to economic development


US

• Much more difficult to pin down

• Ambivalent, incoherent, fluctuating– Depends on who has bush’s ear at any

particular time


Power of governments

• Unlikely that there are ‘rogue elements’ to disrupt policy– China, Russia (for war)– Japan (for peace)

• However Abe unpopular and Upper House election 29 July

• The Koreas?


NK

• No doubt some/many in military would prefer present situation to continue or are worried about danger of détente– Giving up nuclear deterrent is no easy thing

• Cf discussion in Britain

• No sign of effective opposition to Kim Jong Il


Kim Jong Il

• How long will he continue?

• 65

• Reports of bad health - diabetes, heart disease, operations

• However, photo of meeting with Chinese FM on 3 July indicates he is well, and has lost weight


Kim and Chinese FM Yang Jiechi


South Korea

• Military is strong but western observers discount possibility of coup– Incidents may be another matter

• Defusing of tension will disadvantage right in forthcoming Presidential elections

• Roh keep to have a summit with Kim– Rumour that Kim will soon visit Kaesong


United States

• Bush and ‘Strategic incoherence’

• Who speaks for US government• State or Treasury?

• Bush, Cheney, Rice….?


‘ mixed signals’ on Terrorism List

• In Feb Agreement US agreed to remove NK from terrorism list

• 27 April press conference with Abe Shinzo Bush said that dependent on Japanese satisfaction on abductee issue– Ie never

• However Rice told Abe that abductions ‘no bar to delisting’


Prospects for peace

• Mainly depends on US

• Washington is unpredictable

• Depends on who has the ear of the president

• There are also two landmines– Financial sanctions– Heavy enriched uranium


Financial sanctions

• No certain that they have really been removed

• Treasury is still powerful

• NK has hinted that it is watching progress, but is for the moment giving Hill the benefit of the doubt


HEU

• Ostensible reason for Bush tearing up Agreed Framework that Clinton had signed

• Claimed NK had clandestine uranium weapons programme

• Hill has backtracked somewhat but difficult to see how NK (or Hill) can satisfy US right– Kumchangri solution?


Process is underway

• Six Party Talks due to reconvene in Beijing on 18 July

• NK has reacted quickly to the ‘settlement of BDA issue’– IAEA visited Pyongyang following day

• Considering accelerating suspension of nuclear programme– NK has issued a warning

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2007/200707/news07/07.htm#North%20Korea%20-%20prospects%20for%20peace


Prospects

• Bush - Unstable, lame duck administration, beset with difficulties

• Washington full of important people, in and out of office, who oppose settlement with NK

• And then there are the landmines…

• Prospects are problematic

north korea - prospects for peace

Documents

aspectsuna wellington

hostilityuna wellington

questionsuna wellington

ignoreuna wellington

peaceuna wellington

us nk usjust

attackforce us

us allegations