Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Defiant N. Korea Vows to Confront U.S.
AP via Yahoo! ^ | January 1, 2003 | By PAUL SHIN, Associated Press Writer

Posted on 01/01/2003 8:20:50 AM PST by Momaw Nadon

SEOUL, South Korea - Showing no willingness to ease tensions over its nuclear weapons program, North Korea vowed Wednesday to build an army-based "powerful nation" and defy pressure from the United States.

North Korea said it fears a possible U.S. military attack, but President Bush said he was confident the North's nuclear issue can be resolved through diplomacy.

"This is not a military showdown. This is a diplomatic showdown," Bush said Tuesday.

North Korea, in its New Year's Day message, called on its people to unite under "the banner of the army-based policy" and build a "powerful nation" to counter a possible U.S. invasion. The reality is that North Korea is impoverished and dependent on outside food aid, much of it supplied by the United States via the U.N. World Food Program.

"The United States is now becoming all the more frantic in its moves to stifle (North Korea), openly clamoring about a preemptive nuclear attack on it," said the message, carried on the country's foreign news outlet, Korean Central News Agency.

The English-language message did not mention rising international concern over Pyongyang's decision to reactivate its nuclear facilities at Yongbyon, but stressed the importance of uniting around the country's military.

In an apparent effort to take advantage of an upsurge in anti-U.S. sentiment in South Korea, the message urged "all the Koreans in the North and the South and abroad" to join in confronting the United States.

"It can be said that there exists on the Korean Peninsula at present only confrontation between the Koreans in the North and the South and the United States," it said.

U.S. and South Korean officials say their alliance is strong, though North Korea often has tried to drive a wedge between them.

Some South Koreans worry that the nuclear dispute could trigger armed conflict on the Korean Peninsula, the world's last Cold War frontier. More than 2 million troops are massed on both sides of the Korean border, while about 37,000 U.S. troops are stationed in South Korea.

South Korean President-elect Roh Moo-hyun, who won a Dec. 19 vote partly because of surging anti-U.S. sentiment among his people, on Tuesday warned against "blindly following U.S. policy."

"The United States should consult fully with South Korea, rather than making a decision unilaterally and then expecting South Korea to follow it," said Roh, who begins a five-year term in February.

Roh supports outgoing President Kim Dae-jung's "sunshine" policy of engaging North Korea. They believe dialogue is the only viable way to resolve the North's nuclear issue peacefully.

South Korea sent a senior diplomat to Beijing on Wednesday to try to win Chinese support in persuading North Korea to give up its nuclear ambitions. Lee Tae-sik, South Korea's deputy foreign minister, will meet Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Wang Yi in Beijing on Thursday, South Korean officials said.

U.S. and South Korean deny a rift is developing between the two close allies over the nuclear dispute.

But in the past two days, both Roh and Kim have expressed concern that Washington might impose heavy economic pressure on Pyongyang to give up its nuclear ambitions, and this could backfire and harden the North's stance.

U.S. State Department spokesman Philip T. Reeker said, "I don't think anybody has suggested at this point imposing sanctions."

Anti-U.S. sentiment was evident on the streets of Seoul on New Year's Eve, when about 22,000 South Koreans gathered near the U.S. Embassy to protest the deaths of two teenage girls accidentally killed in June by a U.S. military vehicle.

Two U.S. soldiers whose vehicle killed the girls were cleared of negligent homicide charges in U.S. military courts last month.

Some protesters shouted for an end to the U.S. military presence in South Korea.

Tensions over North Korea's nuclear ambitions intensified Tuesday when Pyongyang expelled two U.N. inspectors monitoring its nuclear facilities and signaled it might pull out of the global nuclear nonproliferation treaty.

North Korea's ambassador to Moscow, Pak Ui Chun, told Russian news media Tuesday that his country intends to free itself from its last legal obligations under the international nuclear nonproliferation treaty, which seeks to confine nuclear weapons to the United States, Russia, Britain, France and China.

In recent weeks, North Korea removed monitoring seals and cameras from nuclear facilities at Yongbyon that were frozen under a 1994 deal with the United States. It says it is willing to resolve concerns over its nuclear program if the United States signs a nonaggression treaty, but Washington rules out any talks before the North changes course.


TOPICS: Breaking News; Foreign Affairs; Government; Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; Unclassified
KEYWORDS: confront; northkorea; nuclear; pingpong; pyongyang
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last
To: elfman2
P.S. Is is ironic that you chose to quote from Lord Acton to justify a campaign for Wilsonian social engineering. Acion was a great advocate of prudence and restraint in foreign policy. Perhaps the new conservative social engineers should re-read Acton's quotation on the corrupting influence of power and what could be *more* corrupting that a futile effort to police the entire planet!
61 posted on 01/01/2003 12:47:40 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
Post #60. Afghanistan is a hell of a lot better than it was before 9/11/01!!!! The Taliban no longer rule the country and the terrorists no longer rule the country!!!!
62 posted on 01/01/2003 12:48:27 PM PST by Defender2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

Comment #63 Removed by Moderator

To: Defender2
I agree but that wasn't my question. I simply asked whether Afghanistan was "secure." My contention is that is not, not even close. If you have evidence to the contrary, please provide it. BTW, I supported the Afghan U.S. military operation...because it *directly* related to the defense of the U.S.
64 posted on 01/01/2003 12:56:24 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: wolf24
"national interest" is the foreign policy analogue of the "general welfare." Both are weasel terms which can be used to justify anything.

Instead of a vague terms, I prefer to describe myself as an advocate of national defensivism. In other words, if we are attacked, hit back and hit hard. Under such a rationale, the Afghan operation was justified but crusades to attack create a Democratic Iraq or create a "secure" Middle East, or "help our friends," "fight several wars at the same time" are merely a waste of valuable taxpayers resources. In this respect, defensivism, which is not weighed down by Wilsonian side considerations, is the ultimate realism in the grand tradition of George Kennan and George Washington.

65 posted on 01/01/2003 1:03:16 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

Comment #66 Removed by Moderator

To: NC Conservative
"I say pull our guys out". I agree! Then let South Korea's Mr. Roh handle North Korea any way he wants.
67 posted on 01/01/2003 1:15:42 PM PST by maxwellp
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

Comment #68 Removed by Moderator

To: samtheman
Tell the dog-eaters that this is Step One of a plan to vacate the country completely.

Die Another Day...

(soon the whole peninsula will be dark at night, unless you are looking through a radiation sensitive objective)

69 posted on 01/01/2003 1:25:01 PM PST by OReilly
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"Better yet, let's concentrate on something that is manageable: "securing" building up the defense of the U.S. rather than overextending ourselves in futile and expensive world policing."

Let's review now Mr Wright; is one of the reasons you propose this earnest buildup of our defense so that - oh yes - this must be part of your logic:

"Clinton Bankrolled North Korea's Nuke Program"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/17/80959

"Clinton Deal Gave N. Korea 100-Nuke-Per-Year Capacity"
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2002/10/19/114657

70 posted on 01/01/2003 1:27:35 PM PST by WatchNKorea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"Okay, let's use your standard. Do *you* think Afghanistan is "secure?""

I think Afghanistan is secure enough that we can be assured that it will be denied as a massive safe haven and training facility to our enemy with present forces while focusing our efforts to eliminate the next.

Afghanistan with its porous border with Pakistan and tribesmen content to live in little fiefdoms in mountain hideouts for ever will probably not be completely policeable in our lifetime. But that’s not necessary and not our objective.

The threat of international terror is greater when there is some hope among their leaders of success. When we deny them everything but the mountains of Afghanistan, impoverished shi'its tribes in southern Iraq etc… and take out their grip on recognized governments and the resulting funds and military technology, they will likely lose critical mass and their existence as an organized threat will be threatened.

In one sense, it's a matter of diminishing returns. We could spend the next 10 years chasing gunmen through the Afghan hills while greater threats are strengthening.

71 posted on 01/01/2003 1:28:32 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"I prefer to describe myself as an advocate of national defensivism."

Considering you're a Grand Master of defense - would you Mr Wright -give credance to the following application - of simply and easily Spearing all North Korean nuclear reactors?

Poker Beats Chess
Monday, Dec. 30, 2002

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2002/12/30/30344.shtml

72 posted on 01/01/2003 1:31:09 PM PST by WatchNKorea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: AmericanInTokyo
Well said. A thoughtful analysis, but a few thoughts on your suggested options:-


> 1. --Assassination/Coup d'etat and regime change by purely internal elements but
supported to external forces

2. --A stream of N. Korean refugees into China into UNHCR refugee camps causing
internal collapse in Pyongyang

3. --A propaganda campaign of hijacked N. Korea TV/Radio frequencies and balloon
drops with leaflets/food to reach the people directly

4 .--And finally, a strategic strike on N. Korean nuke plants and missile
production/launch facilities, with probably a larger invasion war. <


1. Probably the best solution but highly unlikely. Kim may be certifiably insane but he rules with a rod of steel. The only assets which could be used by the west to infiltrate and foment the conditions for a coup would be South Korean and the latter are not trustworthy. The Cold War is over, S.Korea is of no strategic significance and, if we had any sense we would withdraw all US forces form the South. The North and the South deserve each other. The US should focus, solely, on the threat which the North presents to American interests and security.
2. The regime would probably be glad to have a few million less mouths to feed. They’d be likely to lay on free bus services to the border. And can you really see China going for that?
3. A propaganda campaign aimed at an impotent populace?
4. The only viable option. However, to limit pre-emptive action to only nuclear plants and missile facilities would still leave open the possibility of retaliation. Short of a simultaneous strike by thousands of conventionally armed Cruise missiles, there is no way that US forces in the South and Japan would remain unscathed. As commented elsewhere on one of today’s posts:-

“"Diplomacy has consistently failed with North Korea," said
Robert Maginnis, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and a military
analyst. "It has never honored its agreements nor will it in the
future.”

Any and all softly, softly approaches to what is arguably the gravest threat posed by any of the clutch of nuclear-armed rogue states is doomed to failure. Immediate nuclear annihilation of all North Korean military capability is not only the optimum solution but it would send a very clear signal to Pakistan, Iran, et al - ‘Get rid of your nukes now. We mean business’.
73 posted on 01/01/2003 1:31:20 PM PST by Selous
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: WatchNKorea
pardon my typo Mr Wright - credence
74 posted on 01/01/2003 1:33:13 PM PST by WatchNKorea
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: WatchNKorea
Actually, you are proving my case! Clinton's "realpolitik" of buying off North Korea (likely to be soon followed by Dubya as well) was a collosal failure. Deals of this type (remember Reagan's aid to Saddam?) go hand-in-hand with attepts to police the world and micromanage "the balance of power." I say bring the troops home, defend our borders, build a strong SDI, and stop this wasteful and counterproductive effort to buy friends or control events in every knook and cranny of the planet. It is hard enough to secure our own borders first!

As I said, I'll wager that Dubya will soon try to buy off North Korea. Do you want to take my bet?

75 posted on 01/01/2003 1:34:59 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Austin Willard Wright
"justify a campaign for Wilsonian social engineering"

Most relationships between nations following war has had an element of "social engineering". Hopefully well choose an amount that is both sufficient and affordable.

76 posted on 01/01/2003 1:41:29 PM PST by elfman2
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 61 | View Replies]

To: WatchNKorea
Bombing on-line nuclear reactors? Dubya will never do that. Far more likely is another "bribe" a la Clinton. To answer your question directly, I believe that the "let's bomb Pearl Harbor" first strategy brings diminishing returns over time and does little to advance real national defense, such as an effective SDI. Unfortunately, nuclear proliferation has already happened and will continue to happen, no matter how reactors we bomb. That is the simple reality.
77 posted on 01/01/2003 1:43:01 PM PST by Austin Willard Wright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: Selous
"Immediate nuclear annihilation of military forces" in North Korea, or in Iraq, for that matter, would only need to be done once.

You are absolutely right that the craven scum in the other sh*tholes of the old Third World would get the idea instantly. In addition there would be a very large and welcome silence among the chattering classes!
78 posted on 01/01/2003 1:49:45 PM PST by hinckley buzzard
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

Comment #79 Removed by Moderator

To: LibKill
I agree that Bush is handling this very well. Let South Korea, Japan and China deal with the demented N. Koreans, and if S. Korea keeps whining about us being there, we should leave and let them battle it out with the North themselves.

We shouldn't have to be in position where we have to beg S. Korea to allow us to defend them... sheesh.

80 posted on 01/01/2003 2:00:37 PM PST by Pravious
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 41-6061-8081-100101-104 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson