By Paul Walker
For more than a year the United States has been pursuing a confrontation with North Korea over its alleged attempts to manufacture nuclear weapons. In the war of words, Clinton last November threatened to destroy North Korea, while on March 21 North Korea threatened to drown South Korea in a "sea of fire" if war broke out.
Inspectors from the US-dominated International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) claim they have proof that North Korea has manufactured weapons-grade plutonium at the Yongbyon reprocessing plant, and that the resulting waste has been hidden underground. CIA Director James Woolsey claims that "they [the North Koreans] probably have diverted enough material to manufacture at least one weapon".
However, that is at best speculation; even the CIA doesn't really know. In the end, it isn't the main point.
The United States is not waging a worldwide campaign against nuclear proliferation which happens to have come up against the intransigence of the North Koreans. The US actively supplies nuclear know-how to its allies.
In February it was revealed that Israel has at least 200 nuclear warheads, but not a word of complaint has emerged from Washington. Indeed, it seems likely that Israel's nuclear program was aided by US nuclear technology.
Neither has the US run such a high-profile campaign against the acquisition of nuclear weapons by India and Pakistan, or against the South African nuclear program, now allegedly discontinued.
There is thus a lot more to the US anti-North Korea campaign than meets the eye. Underlying the rhetoric are US military-political objectives, and the US response to the growing economic crisis in North Korea itself.
The US wants to topple the Kim Il Sung regime, which is trapped in a huge economic crisis; but it also wants an excuse to maintain its key military and political role in the region. These objectives come together in the hypocritical campaign against the "North Korean bomb".
On November 18 the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum (APEC) met in Seattle, hosted by US President Clinton. The 15 member states now account for about 50% of world production and 40% of global trade.
The area of the world with the highest economic growth is Asia, and in particular China, which recorded growth rates of 13% in both 1992 and 1993. The last thing the US wants is to be politically or economically excluded from east Asia which is why it fought a bitter battle to get into the APEC forum in 1989, against Australian objections.
When the US took over the APEC chair from Thailand in 1992, it let it be known that it wanted APEC to be an "achievement-based" group and not just a "talking shop". In other words, the US wants APEC to knock down Asian tariff walls, allowing in US exports.
Key to US interests in the region are economic links with Japan and China: it has a big trade deficit with both. The US has been involved in a long and bitter row with Japan about barriers to US exports. And the US State Department is playing a cat-and-mouse game with China over human rights, which really involves not US concern with Beijing's repressive regime, but whether and on what terms to allow China to maintain its "most favoured nation" trading status.
These economic relationships may seem far removed from the North Korean crisis, but in fact they are central to it. For, in the "New World Order" military might gives political clout, and political clout brings economic benefits.
US regional and world capitalist leadership is not just based on economic power, because that is declining. In 1993, for the first time, the value of Japanese domestic manufactured goods exceeded those of the US. But the US is the world's leading military power by a very long way. The ostentatious display of military might is central to maintaining US power and influence.
In late February the CIA reported a general mobilisation of the North Korean army: the army was preparing to bring in the rice harvest. Despite its Rodong guided missiles which could hit South Korea, Japan and US bases in Okinawa, not a single serious observer thinks North Korea wants a war, which could bring nuclear oblivion to the country.
If Pyongyang is building nuclear weapons, the best explanation is that it is trying to find an alternative form of defence against US threats which would allow it to demobilise part of its hugely expensive one-million-strong army.
North Korea's economy has been savagely hit by the collapse of its main economic partner, the USSR. According to the Bank of Korea, North Korean production fell 7.6% in 1993, 5.2% in 1992 and 3.7% 1990. Agriculture lacks pesticides and fertiliser, industry lacks raw materials, and there is a general lack of power for domestic and industrial electricity. With Russia now demanding hard currency, oil imports have fallen from 8.5 million tonnes in 1986 to a mere 400,000 tonnes in 1992. The effect is catastrophic.
Power blackouts are endemic, production of cereal crops has fallen by 20% since 1986 (leading, ironically, to more than US$200 million worth of grain imports from the US in 1993). Even 2-3% of the army are said to suffer from malnutrition.
At the Central Committee of the ruling North Korean Workers Party in Pyongyang on December 8-9, Premier Kang Song San bluntly referred to the failure to meet major industrial goals of the five-year plan which ended in December. Even President Kim Il Sung said "the difficulties facing our country today are unprecedentedly grave and serious".
Neither has China been prepared to step in to replace the USSR as the main North Korean benefactor. China's eyes are on economic and diplomatic relations with the West; in February 1993, minor military clashes were reported on the border between the two countries.
North Korea's regime is notoriously the most unreconstructed Stalinist government in the world. Power is concentrated in Kim Il Sung's family, with his son Kim Jong Il gradually taking over the reins of power.
According to Far Eastern Economic Review, major debates are, however, taking place in the North Korean leadership about the way forward, with some leaders arguing for an economic opening to the West.
Minor economic reforms, allowing limited foreign investment, have been introduced. Nonetheless, according to the Review, supporters of Kim Il Sung's juche or "self-reliance" doctrine have been promoted. For the moment, Korean-style autarkical Stalinism seems firmly entrenched.
Since the 1950-53 Korean war, when its military machine was fought to a standstill by North Korean and Chinese troops, the US has maintained tens of thousands of troops on the peninsula (today 48,000). The fall of North Korea would be a tremendous victory for US power and prestige.
The crisis puts the US in the centre of political developments in the region. Because China is a member of the UN Security Council, with the ability to veto sanctions against North Korea, negotiations between the US and China inevitably involve the Korean issue. South Korea and Japan are urging restraint on the US: in return there will be more negotiations over trade and economic relations.
But for a large part of the US political right and foreign policy establishment, the issues are more clear-cut and simple. North Korea is a "terrorist" state. It has good relations with Iran and Libya. It was the enemy in a war in which 50,000 US troops died. It thus deserves to be crushed.
However the nuclear issue is resolved, or whether it is kept running indefinitely, the US intends to squeeze North Korea. That country's defence costs will continue to be huge, and millions of North Koreans will suffer hunger and cold as a result of US imperialism's ambitions.