In today’s Asia Times, Gavan McCormack makes the overused and under-thought argument in his article, The great divide over North Korea, that nuclear non-proliferation efforts by nuclear states (i.e., the U.S.) are hypocritical. In the detached political reality of those that favor McCormack’s position, a nation’s level of responsibility and objectives, as demonstrated by past actions and stated intentions, are drowned out by the politically correct “equality” klaxon.

In May 2005, the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) review conference collapsed in failure. . . Responsibility was equally shared by the established nuclear powers whose hypocrisy discredited the system and those outside the club seeking to justify themselves according to the superpower principle: without nuclear weapons there is no security.

[. . .]

[Rather than North Korea] The “problem” is the United States, and the half century of hostile, violent and always intimidating confrontation from the intervention that divided Korea in 1945 and the devastating war of 1950 to 1953 to the hostility that continues to this day. (emphasis added)

The “America-made-North-Korea-do-it,” argument. Rather ironic – and problematic for that position, as circular logic often is – that those nations currently under the most pressure, the “Axis of Evil,” oddly enough, would not be in such situations if not for their illicit weapons programs.

While the blind-eye towards Israel may indeed by hypocritical, and acceptance of Indian and Pakistani programs unfortunate, the author’s foundation for argument is simplistic and amateurish. Rather than argue this point, I will point to a commentary on the subject, The Morality of Non-Proliferation, by Joseph S. Nye, which answers the question realistically and logically.

I don’t throw the label “apologist” around lightly, and the above critical assessment of the U.S. would never been enough reason alone – it only brought attention on the author. McCormack, however, has earned the label:

It scarcely needs to be said that the main victims of the DPRK state are, and have always been, the people of North Korea. There is general agreement on the basic facts. Approximately 200,000 people—just under 1 per cent of a population of around 23 million—are thought to be held in labour camps. Between one and two million—5 to 10 per cent—are estimated to have died of starvation . . .
Yet set in a historical context, North Korea’s record on this score pales before the sum of suffering inflicted by Japan and the superpowers—not least the US—on the Korean people. (emphasis added)

That’s right, the U.S. and Japan made Kim Il-sung and Kim Jong-il do it. Apologize for North Korea, blame the U.S.

But there’s more, from Making Sense of the North Korean Crisis: 12 questions with Gavan McCormack:

4. In 1994, the Clinton administration reached an agreement with North Korea designed to resolve the nuclear controversy. What happened to that agreement?

[. . .]

Wrangling over the site and getting the agreement of others to pay for it (South Korea 70 percent, Japan about 20 percent) took several years, by which time North Korea was in the depths of economic crisis and famine so severe that Washington believed the regime might not survive and therefore the reactor construction need not go ahead. . .

Much, if not most, of the delay in implementing the 1994 Agreed Framework resulted from foot-dragging by the DPRK (e.g., not coming to or delaying talks, delays after a sub infiltration or naval clashes, etc.). After 1998 there were suspicions of uranium processing – prohibited by the 1994 agreement.

Under President Bush, North Korea was labeled a “terror state” and evil, its leader the particular object of presidential hatred.

North Korea earned it’s place on the list of terrorist sponsoring states in 1988, not since the Bush administration. Kim Jong-il, while his father was still alive, was likely the chief architect of the terrorist schemes that landed North Korea on the list (assassination attempt bombing in Rangoon, Burma, and the bombing of a South Korea airliner in 1988).

The present crisis was initiated in October 2002 by U.S. Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly’s claim that North Korea had admitted to having a secret program of uranium enrichment. Allegation and denial brought the Framework to collapse. What actually was said to Kelly, and whether he understood it correctly or not, remains controversial. Pyongyang denies any admission. . . It is hard to imagine any possible motive for North Korea to have said what Kelly alleges was said. (emphasis added)

It could be said that Kang initiated the incident, not Kelly. The obvious explanation of why Kang might have made the admission is trademark brinksmanship. Knowing what we know now, how does it look?

From 2003, the uranium enrichment story was complicated by the admissions stemming from Abdul Qadeer Khan. . .

Pakistan later fully admitted to helping North Korea with a uranium enrichment program in exchange for missile technology, from the late 1990s until at least 2001. This confirms Kelly’s story and refutes North Korea’s denials. McCormack implied that Kelly might be a liar – wonder if he ever apologized?

. . . North Korea had honored its commitment to freeze the graphite-moderated reactor works and waste storage 1994 Agreement covered the plutonium-based (Nagasaki-type) weapons program, not the uranium-based (Hiroshima-type) program that became the subject of the Kelly allegations in 2002 and the Khan revelations in 2003. (emphasis added)

The 1994 Agreed Framework covered BOTH plutonium and uranium based nuclear weapons. The 1994 Agreed Framework (III.2.) implicitly prohibits uranium enrichment by reference to 1992 North-South Joint Declaration on the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (PDF), which explicitly forbids it.

Part of an answer from question 5 in the series of 12:

Although North Korea has neither threatened nor committed any act of aggression against any neighboring state, its relationship with South Korea is of course in a different category.

North Korea has threatened to turn Seoul into a “sea of fire” at least 18 times. It has sent troops to assassinate the South Korea president. There have been numerous naval clashes in which the north fired first. There are many, many more specific examples that show McCormack’s answer to be a falsehood.

For someone who has written a book on North Korea, how could he now be aware of North Korea’s hostile actions toward the south? How could he not be aware of the fact that uranium was indeed prohibited by the 1994 Agreed Framework? How could he so easily dismiss Pakistan’s admission? The key is in the ideology, and such departures from the truth could not have been accidental.

Read the rest of the article, or anything else by the author, on your own – or don’t; his work is trite, biased, and intellectually dishonest.

In DPRK-speak, ‘your reckless accusation is no more than barking at the moon!’

Related post: When academics become DPRK apologists
—–