Does she or doesn’t she?

Does she or doesn’t she what?

Have nuclear weapons in Korea.

Oh, you mean does north Korea have nuclear weapons?

No, the United States.

Well, that depends on who you ask, and how you ask the question.

According to north Korea, the Americans do have nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula, covertly deployed on the territory of its neo-colony, the Republic of Korea, in the south. [1]

And Pyongyang says those weapons need to be eliminated as part of a comprehensive deal to denuclearize the Korean peninsula. After all, denuclearization means getting rid of all nukes, not just one side’s. Otherwise, denuclearizing means nothing more than one side disarming. Unilaterally.

But according to US officials, the US doesn’t have nuclear weapons on the Korean peninsula. It once did, but withdrew them long ago.

Really?

US officials say yes, but then, they swore up and down that Saddam was sitting on a stash of nasty weapons, and the decision to invade Iraq was made long after the date it was really made.

And if you put the question another way, it’s not so clear the US isn’t sitting on its own stash of nasty weapons, hidden somewhere below the 38^th parallel.

In the latest round of the six party talks, north Korea has argued for what the New York Times calls “a broader definition” of denuclearization, one that “would require the removal of all nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula.” [2]

Sounds reasonable.

But what of the other definition, the one Pyongyang’s definition is “broader” than? Is it reasonable, too?

It’s the American definition, and if the north Korean definition is broad, this one is ridiculously narrow. In fact, it’s so narrow, it’s not a definition of denuclearization at all.

What it is, is a definition of north Korean unilateral disarmament – the DPRK junking all that stands between peace on the peninsula and the sound of Anglo-American jackboots marching on a bombed out Pyongyang.

Trust the New York Times to brilliantly play its role as unofficial propaganda ministry for the US state, turning this meaningless, self-serving piece of drivel into the definition all others must be measured against, so that Pyongyang’s bilateral definition becomes the broader definition to Washington’s unilateral one.

It’s like saying the unprovoked bombing and invasion of Iraq comprise the broader definition of a criminal war of aggression – too broad, and too all-encompassing compared to the correct American definition. Criminal wars of aggression are what the Nazis did. Americans liberate.

Arising from this goop, like a demented jack-in-the-box mocking the readers of the newspaper of record for their stolidity, is an absurdity of Olympian proportions.

“The United States, which denies having nuclear weapons in South Korea, has rejected (the demand that it withdraw its nuclear weapons from the south) and has insisted that the talks focus solely on North Korea’s nuclear program.” [3]

Come again. The US says it doesn’t have any nuclear weapons to withdraw, but all the same, rejects the demand that it withdraw them?

Yes, that’s right. Of course, the New York Times prettied it up, so it didn’t sound so ridiculous, but that’s the gist of it.

And if there’s any mistake, withdrawal of US nuclear weapons from the Korean peninsula is “unacceptable to the Bush administration,” according to a US official. [4]

So does she or doesn’t she?

Even if we allow that the US doesn’t, there’s still the matter of the Pentagon being perfectly capable of targeting north Korea with nuclear weapons from abroad. Indeed it has, putting the DPRK on a list of countries it will rain nuclear fire upon, for misdeeds that rank well below a strike attack against the US (in north Korea’s case, invading the south.)

True denuclearization amounts to more than disarming north Korea -- it must also include the US pledging not to use nuclear weapons to threaten or attack the DPRK. Without this, denuclearization is a one-sided farce.

But all Washington wants to talk about is north Korea trashing its nuclear program. Anything else, it says, is unacceptable.

So, what is acceptable?

Submission.

Weak countries that are not now part of the American economic and political orbit, that aren’t acting as appendages subservient to the needs of US investors and corporations, must submit.

And if they don’t, they must be denied both the advantages of nuclear power for peaceful use and for preserving the peace in defending themselves against US predation and nuclear blackmail.

Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula?

No way. What Washington wants is the denuclearization of north Korea, so it can do what it’s now doing to Iraq, what the Nazis did to half of Europe, what the Italian fascists did to Ethiopia, and what the Japanese militarists did to China and Korea – fold their conquests into greater economic zones to be plundered and exploited for the aggrandizement of financiers and industrialists at home.

Call it forced globalization by means of guns and bombs.

Or just call it capitalism in the age of imperialism.

1. Pyongyang Times, May 21, 2005, cited in “DPRK’s nuclear weapons are the only guarantee of peace on the Korean peninsula” LALKAR ONLINE, July, 2005; KCNA, June 7, 2005.

2. New York Times, July 28, 2005.

3. Ibid.

4. Washington Post, July 28, 2005.

To be notified of updates, send an email to sr.gowans@sympatico.ca and write "subscribe" in the subject line.