|
|
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
News Search
|
|
28-12-2002 Scotsman Menace from missiles that span world By GETHIN CHAMBERLAIN WHEN George Bush lumped North Korea into his "axis of evil" alongside Iraq and Iran, the communist country seemed the least of his worries. With its economy in ruins, its people starving and dependent on foreign oil for their energy, the reclusive Stalinist regime even appeared to be pursuing a policy of detente with the West. But suddenly all that has changed. Whereas Iraq is desperately trying to persuade the world it has no nuclear weapons, North Korea is brazenly flaunting its nuclear capabilities for everyone to see. Already armed to the teeth with advanced missile technology, North Korea has restarted its nuclear programme and kicked out the International Atomic Energy Agency inspectors. The United States appears to have been taken by surprise by the effrontery of Kim Jong Il, the playboy prince with a liking for blondes and brandy who has ruled North Korea since the death of his father, Kim Il Sung, in 1994. And in stark contrast to its aggressive stance against Iraq, the White House seems unsure of what to do next to bring the rebel nation into line. The problem it faces in dealing with the threat lies in the very nature of the threat: North Korea has nuclear weapons, and it might just be dangerous enough to use them. Even now, North Korea has the capability to hit Tokyo, the capital of its hated near-neighbour, Japan. Just to prove the point, it fired a missile over the Japanese mainland last year. Some experts suggest that the latest generation of North Korean missiles could have a range of 4,000 miles. US officials have admitted that if the rate of technological improvement continues, San Francisco could be within range within two years. If San Francisco is in reach, then so too are Edinburgh, London, Paris, Berlin, Rome, Madrid, Moscow and every other European city. The problem for the western leaders - and to a large extent for North Korean's sometime ally China - is that North Korea learned the lessons of the Cold War: that nuclear weapons are a good deterrent against unwanted aggression. It has also seen what has happened to countries such as Iraq that have been prevented from acquiring such a powerful bargaining chip. According to Professor Paul Wilkinson, an expert in international terrorism based at St Andrews University, the North Koreans pose a far more realistic threat to peace than Iraq. "They are, from a technical point of view, more in a position to threaten their neighbours with nuclear weapons than Saddam's regime at the present time," he said yesterday. "We suspect that they have got several nuclear devices that have been produced by their programme but we don't know how far they have weaponised these. It is perfectly conceivable that they have the knowledge to do that. "Even if you are talking about a relatively small tonnage of weapons you are still talking about weapons of a sort that would be extremely dangerous in the east Asian context where the old resentments between North and South Korea are so strong, and where there is a historic legacy of resentment against Japan." The fear is that any attempt by the US and its allies to use the sort of military threats they have adopted against Iraq could provoke North Korea into lashing out at its neighbours. North Korea has a massive standing army with which to threaten its southern neighbour, and its navy is active in waters that belong to the South. Seoul stands only a short distance across the border and even an attack with conventional weapons would lead to a catastrophic loss of life. The nature of the regime also makes the country extremely difficult to predict. Formed in the aftermath of the Second World War, communist North Korea, with the backing of the Soviet Union, set about a series of reforms, including land redistribution and nationalisation of Japanese property, that drove many skilled workers to the US-backed South. The ensuing war left North Korea more isolated than ever and the pariah state fell back on a policy of "juche" - or self-reliance - as a national philosophy. But it was reduced to begging for outside aid starting in the mid-1990s, when floods devastated its already inefficient, Soviet-style economy, and triggered widespread hunger. This year, North Koreans face the prospect of their coldest, hungriest winter in years but the government-controlled media continues to hail the diminutive Kim as the "peerless leader" and "the great successor to the revolutionary cause". Despite the hardships faced by the population, Prof Wilkinson believes that - unlike in Iraq - there is little hope of an uprising to topple the regime. "It is a regime which has not moved forward with the ending of the Cold War," Prof Wilkinson said. " You can see that it really is a hangover from the worst period of Stalinist totalitarian-type systems and the personality cult around the leader has gone to even dizzier heights than even the European Stalinists achieved." He noted: "There is a much more comprehensive brainwashing of the population, so that any possibility of hoping for a kind of internal reform seems to be out of the question, in contrast to the Iraqi situation, where there is at least a potential for an internal insurgency. " Despite the public show of concern in Washington and London and threats from the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld, that the US is willing and able to fight two wars, the hope is that North Korea's latest moves might be a ploy to force Washington into talks on normalising relations. However, even if North Korea recognises that it will ultimately have to back down, for the moment it is showing no interest in diplomacy. " Clearly they believe that the possession of military nuclear capability is important to them," Prof Wilkinson said. "It may be that they feel the American government's stance on Iraq means they may have to protect themselves against a military attack, but I suspect they decided they were not going to be denied a military nuclear capability."
|
|
||||
|
................................................................................................................. Copyright ©2004 Gethin Chamberlain. All rights reserved. |
|||||||
