Exchanging Fire on the Korean Peninsula

Source: NileBowie

The 38^th parallel dividing the two Korean nation states may be the most potent physical manifestation of antithetical idealism subsisting into the 21^st century. From it’s guerilla warfare induced separation in 1945, to the highly touted present day threat of sacred war – the ideologies of the two opposing Korean nation states have worked to the advantage of powers largely using Korea as a proxy. In the south, the oligarchical cadre of President Lee Myung Bak has worked ad nauseum to dismantle the infrastructure of former President Kim Dae-Jung’s sunshine policy toward the northward regime. In an unfettered embrace for the military industrial complex, Lee has further aligned with the Pentagon and the Obama administration to secure an influx of state-of the-art-military technology.

To the North, ideology has always been far more relevant than economics. Beneath the first signs of Chinese-style market reform and the increasing presence of special economic zones, the effectiveness of state mythology surrounding its deified leadership may soon gently begin to be challenged as North Koreans learn more about foreigners and the world beyond their borders.  Since its inception, the Northern population has been subjected to vigorous domestic propaganda espousing the pristine virtuousness of a uniquely homogenous Korean race – protected from the evils of the outside world under the everlasting paternal care of the Great Father Leader, General Kim il-Sung. Although always second to firepower, economic legitimacy appears to be more of a priority following the third dynastic handover into the remarkably stable Kim Jong-Un regime. 

The threat of war has permanently occupied the Korean peninsula since the existence of its two nation states, with each side seeking to wholly absorb the other into its ideological and economic orbit. The South’s undisputed economic dominance makes it naturally suited to lead integrative efforts toward much needed reconciliation on the peninsula. Under the publically loathed chaebol regime model of Lee Myung Bak, the prospects of a mutual bloodless reunification appear stark. As one state begins to manufacture its own fighter jets and increasingly expands its arsenal of advanced military technology - the other brandishes a collection ageing Soviet-made machinery, suspected to be largely obsolete. Between the artillery exchanges of a hypothetical Korean Holy War, it must be asked – is South Korea really prey or predator?

North Korea: The Broad Geopolitical Implications of the Death of Kim Jong-il

Source: Global Research
Stephen Gowans
 

There are a few facts to keep in mind to understand what’s going on in the wake of the death this week of North Korean leader Kim Jong-il.

#1. US foreign policy vis-a-vis North Korea has always sought to force the latter’s collapse to pave the way for its absorption into the US-dominated South [1] — and did so well before Pyongyang began to work on nuclear weapons. US hostility toward North Korea has never been about nuclear weapons. On the contrary, North Korea’s nuclear weapons are a consequence of US hostility. US hostility, now in its seventh decade, is about what it has always been about: putting an end to what Washington mistakenly calls North Korea’s Marxist-Leninist system (Marxism-Leninism has been replaced by Juche ideology—a home-grown doctrine of self-reliance), its non-market system, and its self-directed economic development [2]. None of these offer much latitude for US profit-making at North Korea’s expense, and hence are singled out for demolition.

#2. North Korea only began to seek nuclear weapons after the United States announced in 1993 that it was retargeting some of its strategic nuclear missiles from the former Soviet Union to North Korea. Since then the country has only been able to develop its nuclear capability to a kindergarten level. [3] The plutonium devices it tested in 2006 and 2009 produced only one-tenth the power of the Hiroshima blast. There is no evidence it has miniaturized a warhead to fit atop a missile. And its missile program is plagued by problems. [4]

#3. North Korea is a military pipsqueak, whose personnel are deployed in large numbers to agriculture. The military budgets and weapons’ sophistication of its adversaries, the United States, South Korea and Japan, tower over its own. If the Pentagon’s budget is represented by the 6’ 9” basketball player Magic Johnson, North Korea’s military budget is 1”, about the height of a small mouse. South Korea’s is 4.5” and Japan’s 3.9”, multiple times larger than the North’s. [5]

#4. North Korea has no more military heft to mount a provocation against the United States than a mouse has to beat Magic Johnson on the basketball court. Nor has it the capability to wage a civil war against its southern compatriots and expect to win. North Korea is not an aggressive threat. “In the Obama analysis,” writes New York Times reporter David Sanger, “the North is receding into what the president’s top strategists have repeatedly called a ‘defensive crouch,’ trying to stave off the world with a barrage of missile and nuclear tests…Constantly on the brink of starvation, its military so broke that it cannot train its pilots, it has no illusions about becoming a great power in Asia. Its main goal is survival.” [6]

America`s Global Warfare: Military Redeployment to Asia and The Pacific Threatens China

Source: Global Research
Prof. Michel Chossudovsky

The 2000 Project for the New American Century (PNAC), which was the backbone of the NeoCon's agenda, was predicated on “waging a war without borders”.

The PNAC's declared objectives were to “fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous major theater wars” in different regions of the world as well as perform the so-called military “constabulary” duties “associated with shaping the security environment in critical regions”. Global constabulary implies a worldwide process of military policing and interventionism, including covert operations and “regime change”.

This diabolical military project formulated by the NeoCons was adopted and implemented from the very outset of the Obama administration. With a new team of military and foreign policy advisers, Obama has been far more effective in fostering military escalation than his White House predecessor, George Bush Junior....

Escalation and Military Redeployment
The Iraq war is "officially over". The thrust of US foreign policy in the wake of the Iraq war is not towards "peace" but towards military escalation and redeployment in all major regions of the World. This process is supported by new military technologies including cyber warfare as well the development of special forces.  

The Pentagon’s global military design is one of world conquest. The emphasis in the wake of Iraq will be placed on the militarization of the Asia Pacific region requiring the redeployment of military capabilities from Europe to South East Asia and the Far East, visibly implying a military build-up directed against the "region’s rising economic and military power", namely The People's Republic of China. To this effect, the US will be reinforcing its military ties with several Asian and Pacific countries including Australia, South Korea, Japan, India, Singapore and  The Philippines:

"The United States has laid bare its concerns about China. Obama last month announced that the United States would post up to 2,500 Marines in the northern Australian city of Darwin by 2016-17, a move criticized by Beijing.

The United States also has some 70,000 troops stationed in Japan and South Korea under longstanding alliances and has offered assistance to the Philippines which launched its newest warship on Wednesday.

Singapore is also a long-standing partner of the United States. The US military already operates a small post in the city-state that assists in logistics and exercises for forces in Southeast Asia. (AFP Report, December 17, 2011, emphasis added)

A report published in Stars and Stripes, December 19, 2011 confirms the Pentagon`s continued resolve to wage a global war, with increasingly advanced weapons systems:

A day after the last U.S. troops left Iraq, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff said the U.S. military must redirect its focus of the last 10 years from preparing for continuous deployments to training, with an eye toward the growing strategic importance of the Pacific region.

Washington's Greater Middles East Agenda: War

Source: Global Research
Stephen Lendman

Targeting the Middle East's rich oil and gas resources, Washington plans waring against the region one country at a time to replace independent regimes with client ones.

At issue is achieving total dominance over MENA (Middle East/North Africa) countries and Central Asia to Russia and China's borders. Another key objective is removing or marginalizing their regional influence. 

Russia is Washington's main military rival. Between them, they control about 97% of the world's nuclear arsenal with sophisticated delivery systems able to target strategic global sites.

China also has significant military strength. According to a 2009 Pentagon report, its naval forces alone are formidable.They number at least 260 vessels, including 75 or more major warships and over 60 submarines. 

In addition, Beijing has hundreds of nuclear warheads, sophisticated delivery systems, and other strategic weapons. As a result, it's the region's dominant military power.

During Asia's mid-November Bali summit, Obama sought anti-China coalition partners to enhance Washington's regional position. Key is establishing military superiority. 

Obama said America "is a Pacific power, and we are here to stay." Military spending amounts "will not - I repeat, will not - come at the expense of the Asia Pacific."

It does include escalating military tensions with China. Beijing is very mindful of US belligerence and quest for global dominance.

During his visit, Obama announced boosting America's Australian presence as part of a broader military buildup targeting China and Eastern Russia.

Together with South Korea, America's expanding its Asian footprint on Jeju Island with a strategic naval base for Aegis class attack ships. They're equipped with sophisticated SM-3 interceptor missiles for offense, as well as powerful computers and tracking radar for first-strike capability.

US to Use S. Korean Base to Project Power Against China?

Source: Global Research.ca
Matthew Hoey

This handout picture released by the Republic of Korea (ROK) Navy shows ROKS DDH-981 Choi Young, a Chungmugong Yi Sun-shin class South Korean destroyer, firing during a joint military exercise between US and South Korean navies in the Sea of Japan (East Sea) on July 27, 2010 (AFP Photo / Roknavy)

Residents on the South Korean Island of Jeju are continuing to resist the siting of a huge naval base there. Critics fear it will be used not as a shield against North Korea, but as a base for the US to target rising world power, China.

On Tuesday, four activists protesting against the base in Jeju’s Gangjeong village were arrested.

Matthew Hoey, an international co-ordinator of the Campaign to Save Jeju Island, told RT that the activists were peacefully protesting outside a hotel where the 10th Annual South Korea-UN Disarmament Conference, known as the Jeju process, was taking place. His friends were among those arrested.