Vol. 77/No. 16      April 29, 2013

The U.S. government in recent weeks has also backed off from earlier provocative public statements about the current military maneuvers and, for the first time, publicly outlined its military policy toward North Korea, promulgated as a “counterprovocation” plan built around “proportional” retaliation for any moves by Pyongyang.

The increased tensions between the U.S. and North Korean governments began earlier this year with one, then another round of economic sanctions by the U.N. Security Council, under prodding from Washington.

The first round of sanctions targeting North Korean financial institutions and other entities was imposed Jan. 22, following North Korea’s successful launching of a satellite into orbit. The operation, which Pyongyang said was for peaceful purposes, was done with a long-range ballistic missile — a technology Washington and its allies want to prevent North Korea from developing.

The second round of sanctions, co-authored by Beijing and adopted March 7, was imposed in response to Pyongyang’s third nuclear weapons test, conducted Feb. 12.

The government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea says it will continue to develop nuclear weapons in face of decades of unremitting aggression and threats — including nuclear threats — from Washington. In response to this year’s military maneuvers, Pyongyang issued statements saying it would respond to armed action from Washington or Seoul by launching a nuclear strike on populations in South Korean or U.S. territory.

The U.S. government is divided over aspects of its policy against the North Korean government and how to assess the DPRK’s nuclear weapons capabilities — or at least what to say about it publicly. A debate broke out after U.S. Rep. Doug Lamborn read a statement during a congressional hearing April 11 from a Defense Intelligence Agency report putting forward the DIA’s “moderate confidence” assessment that “the North currently has nuclear weapons capable of delivery by ballistic missiles,” albeit with low reliability.

The statement clashed with more skeptical views about the DPRK’s nuclear capacities publicly put forward by the Barack Obama administration’s State Department. The same day, Director of National Intelligence James Clapper issued a statement that the DIA’s view didn’t reflect the “consensus” of Washington’s intelligence agencies. The Wall Street Journal and Investor’s Business Daily responded by calling for a more aggressive U.S. policy aimed at overthrowing the DPRK.

Meanwhile, John Kerry in Tokyo said Washington would enter into talks with the DPRK if Pyongyang began dismantling its nuclear weapons program.

“The DPRK is not opposed to dialogue,” said a April 16 North Korean statement in response. But it “should be based on the principle of respecting sovereignty and equality — this is the DPRK’s consistent stand.”

Pyongyang has responded to the most recent round of provocations from Washington by declaring the 1953 cease-fire void, cutting off all military hot lines with South Korea and closing the only joint business venture between the two countries, the Kaesong industrial park.

In its April 16 statement, the DPRK government reiterated its intention to “bolster its nuclear deterrence both in quality and quantity” in face of military threats from Washington, which it pointed out include U.S. nuclear submarines, intercontinental ballistic nuclear missiles, strategic bombers and nuclear-powered carrier strike groups.

After a visit to China April 13, Kerry traveled to South Korea and Japan. His attempts to convince Beijing to mount greater pressure on North Korea appear to have gone nowhere for now. The Chinese rulers are steadfastly opposed to Washington’s military buildup in the Pacific and have no interest in anything that could lead to U.S. troops on its border or the replacement of the government of the DPRK with one subservient to Washington.

China’s state-run news agency Xinhua said April 13 that the U.S. “keeps sending more fighter bombers and missile defense ships to the waters of East Asia and carrying out massive military drills with Asian allies in a dramatic display of pre-emptive power.”
 
 
Related article:
‘US troops out! Lift the sanctions! Korea is one’
 
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home