13 U.S. Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia & the Pacific Statement in Response to Third DPRK Nuclear Explosive Test

 U.S. Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia & the Pacific Statement in Response to Third DPRK Nuclear Explosive Test




U.S. Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia & the Pacific Statement in Response to Third DPRK Nuclear Explosive Test
13 February 2013 at 03:34


U.S. Working Group for Peace & Demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific

Statement in Response to Third DPRK Nuclear Explosive Test



1. We come from diverse backgrounds and hold a range of analyses (or perspectives) approaching the North Korean nuclear weapons test and the further militarization of Asia and the Pacific.



2. We oppose the development, possession of, and threats to use nuclear weapons by any nation. We are committed to creating a world free of nuclear weapons. We have deep concerns that North Korea’s third nuclear weapons test contributes to an increasingly dangerous region-wide nuclear arms race. We understand the North Korean test was part of a cycle of threat and response to previous U.S. nuclear threats, and to continued military provocations. We cannot ignore the double standards and hypocrisies of the members of the “nuclear club” who refuse to fulfill their Article VI disarmament commitments of the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty commitments by “modernizing” their omnicidal arsenals while insisting that other nations refrain from becoming nuclear powers. North Korea has conducted three explosive nuclear tests, compared to the United States’ 1,054.



3. We note that beginning with the Korean War, the United States has prepared and threatened to attack North Korea with nuclear weapons at least nine times, that it maintains the so-called U.S. “nuclear umbrella” over Northeast Asia, and that its current contingency plans for war with North Korea include a possible first-strike nuclear attack.[i]



4. The Obama administration’s first-term policy of “strategic patience” with the DPRK, reinforced by crippling sanctions that contribute to widespread malnutrition, connected to the stunting of growth in children and starvation, has proven to be a grave failure. The policy has foreclosed crucial opportunities to explore diplomacy and engagement. “Strategic patience”, combined with North and South Korea’s increasingly advanced missile programs, aggressive annual U.S.-South Korean military exercises - including preparations for the military overthrow of the DPRK government - and the Obama Administration’s militarized Asia-Pacific “pivot,”[ii]contributed to the DPRK’s decision to conduct a third nuclear “test.”



5. Added to these factors was the January 22, 2013 UN Security Council resolutions condemning North Korea’s December rocket launch and the tightening of the existing punitive sanctions program against North Korea. The double standard that permits all of North Korea’s neighbors and the United States to test and possess missiles, space launch, and military space technologies and to threaten the use of their missiles is extraordinary. It thus came as little surprise that the DPRK respondedby announcing plans for new nuclear teststhat provocatively "target" the United States. Numerous analysts interpreted the announcement of a possible test as a means to break through the Obama Administration’s failed policy of “strategic patience” in order to bring the U.S. to the table for direct U.S.-DPRK negotiations.



6. 2013 marks the sixtieth year since the signing of the 1953 Armistice Agreement, which established a ceasefire but did not end the Korean War. We join Koreans around the world who call for Year One of Peace on the Korean Peninsula, as well as our partners across Asia and the Pacific who have designated 2013 as the Year of Asia-Pacific Peace and Demilitarization. Peaceful relations between the United States and North Korea (DPRK) are possible and they are more urgent than ever.

Given that unending war remains the basis of U.S.-DPRK relations, which have destabilized the lives of ordinary Korean people and been used to help justify the obscenely large Pentagon budget (equal to the spending of the next 13 largest military spenders – combined!)[iii]at the expense of U.S. citizens, we believe it is in the interests of the U.S. and North Korean peoples for our governments to begin negotiations to end the Korean War and leading to the eventual demilitarization and denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. Peace is possible. We recall that, as recently as 2000, the Clinton Administration came within a hair’s breadth of completing a comprehensive agreement with North Korea, which was derailed by U.S. domestic political crisis over the outcome of the presidential election.



7. In this moment of escalation, we call for proactive measures by the U.S. government as an active party to this crisis. In order to stanch the dangerous nuclear, high-tech, and conventional arms races in Asia and the Pacific, we urge the following:


Direct U.S.-DPRK negotiations
Suspension of aggressive military exercises by all parties involved in tensions related to the Koreas
An end to the UN-led punitive sanctions regime against the DPRK, which hurts/devastates? the lives of the North Korean people.
An end to the Korean War by replacing the 1953 Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty
Negotiations leading to the creation of a Northeast Asia Nuclear Weapons Free Zone
An end to the U.S. first-strike nuclear weapons doctrine and a reversal of U.S. plans to spend an additional $185 billion over the next decade to “modernize” the U.S. nuclear arsenal and nuclear weapons delivery systems (missiles, bombers, etc.)
Commence negotiations on a nuclear weapons abolition convention that requires the phased elimination of all nuclear weapons within a time bound framework, with provisions for effective verification and enforcement.

Working Group for Peace and Demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific*



Working Group Members:

Christine Ahn , Gretchen Alther, Rev. Levi Bautista, Jackie Cabasso, Herbert Docena, John Feffer, Bruce Gagnon, Gerson, Subrata Goshoroy, Mark Harrison, Christine Hong, Kyle Kajihiro, Aura Kanegis, Peter Kuznick, Hyun Lee, Ramsay Liem, Andrew Lichterman, John Lindsay-Poland, Ngo Vinh Long, Kevin Martin, Stephen McNeil, Nguyet Nguyen, Satoko Norimatsu, Koohan Paik, Mike Prokosh, Juyeon JC Rhee, Arnie Sakai, ; Tim Shorrock, Alice Slater, David Vine, Sofia Wolman



The Working Group for Peace and Demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific is comprised of individuals and organizations concerned about and working for peace and demilitarization in Asia and the Pacific on a comprehensive basis. For more information see: www.asiapacificinitiative.org.



[i]Joseph Gerson. Empire and the Bomb: How the US Uses Nuclear Weapons to Dominate the World, London: Pluto Press, 2007; John Feffer. North Korea South Korea: U.S. Policy at a Time of Crisis, New York: Seven Stories Press, 2003



[ii]In October, 2011, then Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled a major transformation of U.S. foreign and military policy, the “pivot” from Iraq and Afghanistan to Asia, the Pacific and the strategically important Indian Ocean. Shortly thereafter, the Pentagon’s strategic guidance named the Asia-Pacific region and the Persian Gulf as the nation’s two geostrategic priorities. Elements of the pivot include “rebalancing” U.S. military forces, with 60% of the U.S. Navy and Air Force to be deployed to the Asia-Pacific region. Military alliances with Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and Thailand are being deepened and revitalized, while military collaborations with Indonesia, Vietnam, India and other nations are reinforced. The “pivot” is also being reinforced with deeper U.S. involvement in multi-lateral forums across the region and by efforts to create the Trans Pacific Partnership, a supra-free trade agreement that would more deeply integrate the economies of allied nations and partners with that of the United States.

[iii]Stockholm International Peace Research Institute

The 15 countries with the highest military expenditure in 2011 (table)

http://www.sipri.org/research/armaments/milex/resultoutput/milex_15/the-15-countries-with-the-highest-military-expenditure-in-2011-table/view

; Defence budgets “Military ranking” Mar 9th 2011, 14:57 by The Economist online,http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/03/defence_budgets



The world's biggest defence budgets THE ten biggest defence budgets for 2010 add up to a total of more than $1.1 trillion, according to the latest Military Balance report from the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), a think-tank. The defence budget of America alone, at $693 billion, accounts for more than 60% of the total. But when defence spending is compared to the overall size of each country's economy, Saudi Arabia tops the list. It spends over 10% of GDP on defence, more than double the proportion spent by America. China ranks second in the world's biggest defence budgets (spending some $76 billion) and also boasts the largest armed forces. Only America, India, Russia and North Korea (not shown) have more than 1m military personnel. Defence budgets have grown since 2005, but the balance of military power may be shifting. Western countries, many of which are engaged in Afghanistan, now face budget constrains and cuts, whilst emerging economies, such as Brazil and China, have increased military spending in line with economic growth.

Share

1414
2 shares
5 comments
Comments

Franz Veilhart Of course who does not want this insane waste go away! the snag is: everyone must end this race and stop the waste: I mean no exception. As long as "1" superpower has the mean everyone else better follow or else. Do I want to see my money going to such...See more

13 February 2013 at 06:43Manage

Jun Kyu Lee Overall, i agree this statement. But it should be noted that this nuclear test- third test- cannot be understood only as a defensive action against 'ongoing' external threat. We need to express more explicitly the opposition of DPRK's nuclear test and call for the cessation of additional tests.

13 February 2013 at 15:40Manage

Franz Veilhart @Jun why? with the clown of Americans at their door step, poking their stinky nose, spying, looking, bothering, criticizing them! damned right they need to try to be able to hit those bloody thieves. It I were in their shoes I would definitely built wh...See more

13 February 2013 at 16:34Manage

Sung-Hee Choi thanks so much. i will post and share this with people as soon as possible.

28 February 2013 at 14:31Manage

Tatsuo Kobayshi I　agree　this statement. I 'm a 2nd generation of A-victim ,so I feel strongly . I can understand the situation and feelings of DPRK 's iteration , but nuclear test should not be done. The Japanese A-victims know how tragedies were caused by the resu...See moreSee translation

4 January 2014 at 02:37