Commentary

This issue of Pyongyang Report is devoted entirely to reaction to President Bush’s State of the Union address - the ‘axis of evil’ speech.

The speech has aroused concern and bewilderment around the world. It has embarrassed American allies especially in Europe and even Japanese Prime Minister Koizumi has tried to distance himself from it (whilst still relishing the opportunities the ‘war on terror’ offers for remilitarising Japan). Beijing and Moscow have wisely contented themselves with restrained criticism, in public at least. Even in the United States there has been some condemnation amongst the jingoist cheers, although one of the apparent casualties of September 11 has been the ability of the political and media establishment to make any reasoned appraisal of administration foreign policy. However, perhaps spurred by the reaction of foreign friends, some politicians have been emboldened to utter mild criticism. Senate majority leader Democrat Tom Daschle has moved from endorsement to saying “We have to be very careful with the rhetoric of that kind”; not quite the vigorous denunciation that a speech of such manifest banality and foolishness would seem to warrant from an opposition politician. However there is criticism, coded in the mainstream press and more forthright in the alternative, increasingly web-based, media (eg http://www.zmag.org/). Here we have a brief extract from the distinguished historian of Korea Bruce Cumings (written before September but still relevant) and the wickedly funny satire from SatireWire.com – it is important to make the point that, apart from anything else, much of the speech was just plain silly.

It is hard to understand the rationale behind the speech – it alienated allies, brought mutually cool or even hostile countries closer together (Teheran and Iraq have resumed commercial air links) and raised expectations in the American public of military actions which are unlikely to be taken. However there are at least seven interlocking threads which can be discerned.

Triumphalism after the apparent easy victory in Afghanistan. Problems include losing a sense of judgement and needing, like a junkie, to increase the dose to keep the excitement
Jingoism is popular with the US public, as long as there are no body bags
Frustration at the failure to capture Osama bin Laden or even destroy the Taliban, let alone general non-state resistance to the US
Enron – a potent reason to divert public attention elsewhere
Israel – much of the ‘axis of evil’ idea and the wider ‘war on terrorism’ derives from the Israel/Palestine conflict and is directly fuelled by the Sharon government
Missile Defence requires an enemy, and it is impolitic to mention that China is the real target
Military/industrial complex – always an important driver of US policy and particularly strong with Rumsfeld in office
Ignorance and miscalculation – as Cumings points out the Bush team is very ignorant about Korea. They seem to be particularly ill informed about Iran.

Most of this has nothing in particular to do with Korea, and DPRK has done nothing to provoke the attack; it has kept to its agreements on nuclear power and on rocket testing, has expressed regrets over September11, and has signed anti-terrorism pacts. But, more than for most countries, US foreign policy is a continuation of domestic politics by other means and the outside world has little influence. Bush’s ‘cowboy unilateralism’, as US Korea scholar Peter Peck termed it, has had a profound effect on the Korean peninsula. Pyongyang has the luxury of being able to say aloud what others can only say in private. Bush is crazy, this is tantamount to a declaration of war, his ‘extremely reckless remarks’ and ‘war hysteria’ threaten world peace. However, apart from that Pyongyang’s response has been very restrained. Kim Jong Il has made a number of visits to army units (but not missile units or anything that could be construed as provocative) and ROK reports no increased military activity. Pyongyang has also made it clear, via British envoy James Hoare and by DPRK ambassador to the UN Pak Gil-yon, that it is still willing to talk - “If Washington is willing to pick up the dialogue with North Korea on an equal basis and without preconditions, there will be no problem at all.'' It is regrettable and incomprehensible that Pyongyang has not done more to strengthen the hand of Kim Dae-jung – more family reunions, opening the land route to Mt Kumgang, rejoining the railways, etc. would have helped build a constituency in the South that would have opposed Bush’s anti-DPRK policy.

Seoul is clearly disturbed, perplexed and angry about the ‘axis of evil’ and apprehensive about Bush’s visit. This goes to some degree across the political spectrum and although opposition leader Lee Hoi-chang has made hay out of his reception in Washington, it is likely that if he were in the Blue House his position would not be too dissimilar to DJ’s. No government in Seoul can now back away from engagement and that means restraining Bush. It is not merely that war on the peninsula would wreak terrible damage North and South. If nothing else, the division imposes significant direct economic costs on the South – military expenditure, conscription, tribute (paying for the US garrison, buying US warplanes). There are also indirect ones – foreign investment is scared away by tension as are tourists. The World Cup is kicking off in a couple of months – the biggest event in Korea’s history according to Kim Dae-jung, with billions of TV viewers and hundreds of thousands of visitors. And all is in jeopardy, both peace and prosperity. No wonder Seoul is awaiting the Bush visit with apprehension and determination

Tim Beal.

The New Danger in Korea

Bruce Cumings, University of Chicago

A little over a year after the historic Pyongyang Summit, in which the leaders of the two Koreas shook hands for the first time since the country was divided in August 1945, a dark cloud has fallen over Korean reconciliation and any prospect of Korean reunification in the foreseeable future. As an American it pains me to say that this cloud was manifestly produced in just one place-Washington, D.C.-by a new administration completely lacking in any mandate from the American people. The arbitrary and unilateral actions of the Bush administration have heightened tensions in Korea and have raised the specter of another long period of confrontation between Pyongyang and Washington, if not necessarily between North and South. ..// Bush's Foreign Policy Team..//.. I want to dwell for a while on the new group, and why their advice to the new president has been so predictable-and so disastrous. The national security managers now hovering over George Bush have few historical parallels. You have to go all the way back to 1945 to find a comparable retinue of highly experienced advisors towering over an accidental president hoisted to the White House by a peculiar fate. ..//... There hasn't been so much pseudo-gravitas in one room since the last time Henry Kissinger dined alone, but there is nothing in the record to suggest that these advisors have an inkling of the tasks that ought to be central to the American foreign affairs agenda..//.. it is hardly just Rumsfeld's pet missile defense and space warfare projects that depend on a useful enemy named "North Korea;" any true reconciliation between North and South must instantly threaten an extensive network of military interests, because it would question the rationale for much of the American security position in Northeast Asia.

The Korean War, moreover, was the conflict that built the entire American national security position around the world and that vastly expanded the national security state and the military-industrial complex at home, and it was also the conflict that solidified an American strategy called "containment"-but not until a terrible debacle had unfolded in the autumn of 1950. "Korea came along and saved us" was Secretary of State Dean Acheson's famous statement, meaning that the war in Korea finally convinced Congress to send defense spending up to (and well beyond) the levels that Acheson, Paul Nitze, and other officials had called for..//.. Almost forgotten amid these abrupt and disturbing changes is Bush's lack of any democratic mandate; he lost the popular vote in November 2000 and probably the electoral vote as well. Yet he is making radical changes that will have long-term consequences for Korea, for America, and for the peace of the world. Perhaps the election fluke that brought this manifestly inexperienced and unprepared man to power underlines the degree to which the U. S. straddles the globe in the new century, towering over any combination of conceivable rivals. A man who traveled abroad only three times in his life before taking office can flick his finger and make China into a new enemy, kick the closest American allies in the teeth over global warming, or derail years of successful diplomacy in Korea. In this sense former UN chief Boutrous Boutrous-Ghali put his finger on the deepest contemporary truth about the American role in the world: "Like in Roman times," he said, the Americans "have no diplomacy; you don't need diplomacy if you are so powerful."

Source: Korean Reconciliation and Reunification for Global Peace; the People’s agenda; Seoul 13-14 August 2001

Tension with North worries Jin

Deputy Prime Minister Jin Nyum warned that escalation of tension on the Korean Peninsula could bring serious damage to the economy and drive away foreign investors. ..// a strong economy is conditional on peace and stability on the peninsula. ..//..Foreign investment in the past four years has been more than double the total recorded previously [because of the] "sunshine policy" of embracing Pyeongyang.

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 7 February 2002

Junior Lawmakers Slam Bush for Hard-line US Stance Toward NK

A group of junior reformist lawmakers from both the ruling and opposition parties yesterday denounced U.S. President Bush's harsh rhetoric against North Korea, arguing that his unilateral North Korea policy undermines peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.

``We are unhappy with Bush's tendency to flex military muscle while defining inter-Korean relations unilaterally without prior consultations and coordination with the South Korean government,'' the 16 lawmakers said in a press conference. ..//.. In a thinly veiled accusation of the U.S., Rep. Kim Won-wung of the opposition Grand National Party (GNP) said, ``A country trying to ignite a war on the peninsula for any reason cannot be our ally.''

Kim stressed that the U.S. assertion that North Korea poses a threat to its national security is unconvincing, explaining that the North has kept the 1994 U.S.-North Korea deal called the Agreed Framework, honored its missile test moratorium and joined as many as seven international anti- terrorism agreements.

Source: Korea Times 4 February 2002

A call to spend 1% on aid to North

..//.. The Unification Ministry reckons the annual cost of separation at $5 billion in the 1970s, $25 billion in 1980s and $40 billion in 1996 and 1997. The Korea Development Institute estimated that $270 billion will be needed over 10 years after unification, with $30 billion in the first year - more than one third of this year's national budget…//..

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 4 February 2002

Bush's 'axis of evil' widens split with allies

A chorus of European leaders indicated this week that they would oppose military action against the countries identified by President George Bush as an "axis of evil", as the split between Europe and Washington widened further…//..

The Guardian Weekly 7-2-2002, page 1

Axis of Evil' Theory Meets with Attack: Roundup

..//.. Madeleine Albright, former US Secretary of State, described Bush's "Axis of Evil" remark as "a gross mistake". She said that the principle Bush currently uses in handling foreign affairs has caused the international community to think that the United States is doing things "in an utterly disorderly way" and has "lost reason". She said: "putting the three countries together is a gross mistake." She is particularly opposed to listing the DPRK in the so-called Axis of Evil, saying that Bush's way of doing things will possibly cause the United States to lose popular support among the international community.

Albright particularly noted that she had contacted and reached agreement with the DPRK. Whereas Bush has "single-handedly destroyed" the initial relationship she had established with Korea during the Clinton age. ..//..

Source: People’s Daily website

How Bush can fix this 'evil' mess

Brent (Won-ki) Choi

..//.. Mr. Bush's speech, or at least the portion dealing with these three rogue nations, was generally unpopular in Seoul. As he did early in his tenure, Mr. Bush contradicted himself on an issue of vital importance to the Korean Peninsula. ..//.. The other problem ..//.. was the lack of context. While it is true North Korea is a serious violator of human rights and is still exporting missiles to Middle East countries, Mr. Bush is missing the point. Yes, Kim Jong-il may be no better than Osama bin Laden. Kim starves his own people, rather than attacking civilians in other nations.

But the difference is, Mr. Kim wants dialogue with Washington. He's practically begging for it. Mr. bin Laden, on the other hand, prefers to do his talking with hijacked planes and bombs.

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 6 February 2002

Seoul perplexed by Washington's tough talk

Seoul is reportedly baffled by Washington's recent hard-line rhetoric on North Korea. So much so that some experts said the split between the traditional allies over how to deal with Pyongyang could not only lead to a lack of coordination on North Korea policy, but could also threaten Seoul-Washington ties…//.. other officials in Seoul are having trouble putting Mr. Bush's strong remarks in context, leaving the government here to speculate as to U.S. motives for issuing what amounts to a warning to Pyongyang. ..//..

Source: JoongAng Ilbo 5 February 2002

Bush's Message to NK _ `Take It or Leave It'

Seoul is still in a state of shock from U.S. President George W. Bush's State of the Union speech in which he said North Korea was part of ``an axis of evil'' together with Iran and Iraq. Every pundit _ private and official _ is guessing what Bush meant.

Some predict that war may be in the offing on the Korean peninsula, while others say that President Kim Dae-jung's ``sunshine'' policy of inter- Korean reconciliation and cooperation is set to suffer another setback.

They have come up with various theories about what caused Bush to toughen his stance. The theories range from Bush's attempt to divert attention from his domestic troubles, such as the Enron scandal and economic recession, to his strategy for mid-term elections and tactic to sell U.S.-made F-15s to Korea. Perhaps one thing these complicated theories may commonly miss is the apparent simplicity with which Bush sees foreign affairs. ..//.. Bush was inaugurated with little experience in foreign affairs last year. He tends to see things in black and white

Source: : Korea Times 5 February 2002

ANGERED BY SNUBBING

ANGERED BY SNUBBING, LIBYA, CHINA SYRIA FORM AXIS OF JUST AS EVIL Cuba, Sudan, Serbia Form Axis of Somewhat Evil; Other Nations Start Own Clubs

Bitter after being snubbed for membership in the "Axis of Evil," Libya, China, and Syria today announced they had formed the "Axis of Just as Evil," which they said would be way eviler than that stupid Iran-Iraq-North Korea axis President Bush warned of his State of the Union address.

Axis of Evil members, however, immediately dismissed the new axis as having, for starters, a really dumb name. "Right. They are Just as Evil...in their dreams!" declared North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. "Everybody knows we're the best evils...best at being evil... we're the best."

Diplomats from Syria denied they were jealous over being excluded, although they conceded they did ask if they could join the Axis of Evil.

"They told us it was full," said Syrian President Bashar al-Assad.

"An Axis can't have more than three countries," explained Iraqi President Saddam Hussein. "This is not my rule, it's tradition. In World War II you had Germany, Italy, and Japan in the evil Axis. So you can only have three. And a secret handshake. Ours is wicked cool."

THE AXIS PANDEMIC

International reaction to Bush's Axis of Evil declaration was swift, as within minutes, France surrendered.

Elsewhere, peer-conscious nations rushed to gain triumvirate status in what became a game of geopolitical chairs. Cuba, Sudan, and Serbia said they had formed the Axis of Somewhat Evil, forcing Somalia to join with Uganda and Myanmar in the Axis of Occasionally Evil, while Bulgaria, Indonesia and Russia established the Axis of Not So Much Evil Really As Just Generally Disagreeable.

With the criteria suddenly expanded and all the desirable clubs filling up, Sierra Leone, El Salvador, and Rwanda applied to be called the Axis of Countries That Aren't the Worst But Certainly Won't Be Asked to Host the Olympics; Canada, Mexico, and Australia formed the Axis of Nations That Are Actually Quite Nice But Secretly Have Nasty Thoughts About America, while Spain, Scotland, and New Zealand established the Axis of Countries That Be Allowed to Ask Sheep to Wear Lipstick.

"That's not a threat, really, just something we like to do," said Scottish Executive First Minister Jack McConnell.

While wondering if the other nations of the world weren't perhaps making fun of him, a cautious Bush granted approval for most axes, although he rejected the establishment of the Axis of Countries Whose Names End in "Guay," accusing one of its members of filing a false application. Officials from Paraguay, Uruguay, and Chadguay denied the charges.

Israel, meanwhile, insisted it didn't want to join any Axis, but privately, world leaders said that's only because no one asked them.

Source: http://www.satirewire.com/news/jan02/axis.shtml