The belligerent response in Washington to a possible North Korean missile
test has provided another graphic example of the way in which militarism and
the manipulation of public fears play a central role in official American politics.
Although evidence that North Korea was preparing for a missile test was known
from satellite photographs for weeks, the Bush administration only chose to
leak the news to the press in mid-June. When the story finally hit the headlines
on June 15, American officials and the media claimed that the North Korean rocket
posed a new and dangerous threat to the US. The new Taepodong-2 ballistic missile,
it was alleged, would be capable of reaching US territory in Alaska and perhaps
Washington has accused North Korea of breaching a moratorium forced on it by
the Clinton administration in 1999 following the launching of a Taepodong-1
missile over Japan into Pacific Ocean. North Korea has not publicly confirmed
that a missile test is imminent but has insisted on its right to defend itself
in the face of the Bush administration’s persistent aggressive stance
toward the country.
The empty and rather reckless posturing of the North Korean regime, including
its claims to have built nuclear weapons, has played directly into the hands
of the Bush administration. But even if all of Pyongyang’s claims were
true, this small, economically backward country poses no genuine military threat
to the US, which is armed to the teeth with a massive nuclear arsenal.
Significantly, Washington made no comment on India’s launch on June 11
of a short-range Prithvi 1 ballistic missile, which is capable of carrying a
nuclear payload. India and Pakistan—US allies—have both tested medium
to long-range ballistic missiles in the past. None of these tests has provoked
condemnation, let alone a harsher reaction, from the US despite the obvious
danger of the continuing arms race between these two bitter regional rivals.
The possibility of a North Korean missile test, however, has led to immediate
threats by the US and Japan of diplomatic and economic reprisals. On June 19,
US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice publicly denounced Pyongyang, declaring
any missile test would be a “provocative act” and demanding that
it abide by the 1999 moratorium. Washington and Tokyo have threatened to refer
North Korea to the UN Security Council for the imposition of economic sanctions
if the missile is launched.
The same day the Bush administration deliberately heightened tensions by hinting
at an aggressive military response. US defence officials leaked to the right-wing
Washington Times that the Pentagon had for the first time activated its previously
experimental anti-ballistic missile system. Eleven US interceptor missiles based
in Alaska and California had been switched into operation mode and two US Aegis
warships with sophisticated sensors capable of tracking a missile flight had
been dispatched to waters near North Korea.
The Pentagon downplayed suggestions by unnamed officials that the US might
shoot down the North Korean missile. Nonetheless it did not rule out the possibility
that Washington would resort to what can only be described as a reckless act
of war in response to a missile test that breaches no international law. Once
again, the Bush administration’s response is a militarist one: to ratchet
up the crisis and threaten unilateral military aggression.
The North Korean “missile crisis” serves a number of purposes
for the Bush administration.
* First of all it again sends a menacing threat not only to its other targets,
such as Iran, but also to its European and Asian rivals, that it will not
hesitate to use military force to achieve its ambition of global supremacy.
The threat against North Korea comes in the aftermath of a diplomatic setback
for the US over Iran. Washington has been forced to reluctantly agree to European
proposals for negotiations with Iran, after Russia and China blocked a more
aggressive UN resolution.
* The missile test has also provided a convenient pretext for activating
the controversial anti-ballistic missile system. The Bush administration has
pursued this project in spite of international protests after unilaterally
withdrawing from the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty with Russia in December
2001. While Washington has always maintained that its ABM system is purely
defensive—part of its bogus “global war on terrorism”—the
construction of an effective missile defence would obviously enhance the Pentagon’s
ability to launch a preemptive nuclear strike without fear of reprisal.
* The missile crisis also serves obvious domestic political purposes. Whipping
up a climate of fear and panic over the alleged dangers of North Korea is
a useful distraction, in the lead up to mid-term Congressional elections in
November, to the deepening quagmire in Iraq and allows the Bush administration
to posture once again as the most determined prosecutor of the “war
The right-wing media immediately clambered on board the bandwagon. In an opinion
piece on June 21, the Wall Street Journal urged the Bush administration to respond
by “blowing the Korean provocation out of the sky” as a demonstration
to the world of US military might. “Knocking the missile out of the sky,
or even trying to, would tell the North that it can’t succeed with such
tactics. It would also reassure Japan and other US allies that we have the will
to protect them from rogue madmen. The demonstration effect would be useful
around the world, not least in Iran,” it declared.
The most significant article, however, came not from the right-wing supporters
of the Bush administration, but rather from its so-called critics aligned to
the Democratic Party. In an article in the Washington Post on June 22, William
Perry and Ashton Carter, former defence secretary and assistant defence secretary
under Clinton, went one step further, arguing that the US could not afford to
wait for the North Korean missile to be launched but should blow it up on the
launch pad. In an obvious attempt to outdo Bush on the “war on terror”,
Perry declared that a cruise missile from a US submarine would destroy the missile
with a “blast [that] would be similar to the one that killed terrorist
leader Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in Iraq”.
Perry is well aware of the implications of such an attack. As defence secretary
under Clinton, he was intimately involved in the preparations for US air strikes
on North Korea’s nuclear facilities in 1994 after Pyongyang refused to
accept US ultimatums to dismantle its nuclear programs. In the event, the Clinton
administration backed away from a full-scale war on and brokered a deal with
North Korea to end the crisis.
In October 2002, amid escalating tensions over North Korea’s nuclear
programs, Perry and Carter wrote a rather different article for the Washington
Post, encouraging the Bush administration to negotiate. They warned of the consequences
of war and cited the military estimates made in 1994. “Thousands of US
troops and tens of thousands of South Korean troops would be killed, and millions
of refugees would crowd the highways. North Korean losses would be even higher.
The intensity of combat would be greater than any the world has witnessed since
the last Korean War.”
Four years later, Perry and Carter are prepared to recklessly plunge North
East Asia into such a cauldron of war. In their article last week, they declared:
“North Korea could respond to US resolve by taking the drastic step of
threatening all-out war on the Korean Peninsula. But it is unlikely to act on
that threat... An invasion of South Korea would bring about the certain end
of Kim Jong Il’s regime within a few bloody weeks of war, as surely he
knows. Though war is unlikely, it would be prudent for the United States to
enhance deterrence by introducing US air and naval forces into the region at
the same time it made its threat to strike the Taepodong. If North Korea opted
for such a suicidal course, these extra forces would make its defeat swifter
and less costly in lives...”
The article demonstrates that “preemptive war” is not just the
policy of the Bush administration but of the entire US political establishment.
Perry, who was a foreign policy adviser for Democratic contender John Kerry
during 2004 presidential campaign, speaks for the leadership of the Democratic
Party, which is determined to take a more militaristic stance than the White
House in the lead up to the mid-term Congressional elections. On North Korea,
as on Iran, their criticism of Bush is that he has failed to take a more aggressive
The target of Washington’s sabre-rattling is not so much North Korea,
but China. Senior US officials have in recent months heightened the pressure
on Beijing over trade and currency issues as well as the alleged threat of its
military arsenal. The annual Pentagon report on China released in May took a
markedly more antagonistic position. Regardless of Perry’s assurances
that a war with North Korea is unlikely and would in any case be brief, any
conflict on the strategic Korean peninsula carries the obvious danger of a broader
Despite Beijing’s attempts to defuse the latest crisis and its broader
efforts to reach a negotiated deal over North Korea’s nuclear programs,
Washington continues to be highly provocative. In the midst of the current tensions,
the Pentagon has proceeded with its largest naval exercises since the end of
the Vietnam War. Three US aircraft carrier groups engaged in manoeuvres known
as “Valiant Shield” from June 19-23 near Guam in the West Pacific.
A Chinese delegation was invited for the first time to watch this massive display
of US military firepower, involving 30 warships, 280 aircraft and 22,000 troops.
While China and South Korea have sought to downplay the North Korean missile
test, the Japanese government has, like the Bush administration, deliberately
heightened tensions. Japanese foreign minister Taro Aso declared on Sunday that
“all options are on the table,” including the imposition of severe
economic sanctions against Pyongyang. Aso, who is notorious for his belligerent
comments on North Korea and China, has hinted at a military response. While
telling Asahi TV on June 18 that there would be no immediate “appeal to
arms”, he did not rule out the possibility.
Under Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, Japan, with US backing, has adopted
a far more aggressive role in the region and deliberately stirred up antagonism
to China and North Korea as a means for reviving Japanese militarism. The North
Korea missile is a useful pretext for furthering this agenda. Japan is already
involved in the joint development of an anti-ballistic missile system with the
US. And while Tokyo and Washington are both evasive on the issue of military
action, the US has indicated that it plans to speed up the deployment of advanced
Patriot interceptor missiles on US bases in Japan for the first time.
Whether or not North Korea actually fires its missile, the incident underscores
the explosive tensions in the region. The greatest threat of war in North East
Asia, as in other parts of the world, comes not from North Korea’s rudimentary
missile capacity, but from the strategy of the US ruling class as it seeks to
offset its declining global economic and political influence through the unilateral
use of its residual military might.
Read from Looking Glass News
Korea and the U.S.: Clash of Authoritarian Titans
Korea Says US Stealth Bomber Move Signals Nuclear War
calls Cheney a 'bloodthirsty beast'
Victim: Iran or North Korea?
Says US Impeded North Korea Arms Talks
Korea Says U.S. Tries to Brand It a 'Nuclear Criminal'
in Sweeping Plan to Strangle North Korea's Cash Flow