First up is Kim Tae-kyung, “a staff writer at OhmyNews specializing in Northeast Asia regional issues,” who writes, Strange Tempests Follow Missile Tests, posted at Nautilus. Kim is followed by Tim Beal, who is making his second appearance in this sort of post, with his most recent Pyongyang Report newsletter. Both engage in a combination of selective exclusion of information that is contrary to their position and the ever present blaming of America for North Korean actions. The result, in both cases, is a position of moral relativism devoid of coherency that, in at least the latter case, is also intellectually dishonest.

---

Strange Tempests Follow Missile Tests, by Kim Tae-kyung

India recently test fired the Agni III, an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of delivering nuclear warheads at a range of 4,000 kilometers. The event provoked criticism that the U.S. applies a double standard in dealing with the missile program of North Korea.
Responding to the criticism, Tony Snow, the White House spokesman, argued that India is a significantly different country from North Korea. He emphasized that India has developed its missile program in an acceptable way by not threatening neighboring countries.

U.S. President George W. Bush signed an agreement promising a transfer for nuclear technology from the U.S. to India during his trip to India last April. Meanwhile, India, a nuclear power, has not ratified the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

The U.S. argues that North Korea’s missile program is another matter because of its threats.
However, North Korea has not made war since the end of the Korean War in 1953. The U.S., however, has been involved in many wars: the Vietnam War, the invasion of Cambodia, the invasion of Grenada, the Iraq War, etc. India has made war three times against Pakistan because of Kashmir issues and has had border conflicts with China.

[…]

In fact, the list of absurd double standards that the U.S. applies is quite long. But let us skip the ethical aspects of these double standards because they are not the focus of this article.

While I agree that the U.S. should not aid India until it is a member of the NPT and that there are potential problems with it, one must not overlook that it likely also will, “encourage India to accept international safeguards on facilities it has not allowed to be inspected before.” Unlike the 1994 Agreed Framework with North Korea, there is very little doubt that there will be real and lasting progress with India.

Equating India’s missile program to North Korea’s, as well as the other comparisons, is specious. First, India has not threatened to turn neighboring countries into a “Sea of Fire” (the count was 18 and rising as of December 2005), nor is it a proliferator of missiles and missile technology to rouge nations. The fact that India is a nuclear nation with missiles in no way makes it a moral equivalent of North Korea.

Second, using only the criteria of being in a war for determining the threat a nation poses is divorced from reality; threat equals capability plus intentions, not capability alone. One can be attacked and respond, and a collective may opt for a small war of disarmament sooner when a potential larger conflict is deemed likely later, or other equally unacceptable outcomes are assessed to be probable (i.e., Iraq). However the distinction of just vs. unjust warfare is lost on the author.

The tests of the Taepodong 2, recently launched by North Korea, seem unsuccessful. At this time, it is unclear if the Taepodong 2 was originally designed to reach Alaska or Hawaii, or not. However, it is very likely that the Taepodong 2 was used to get the attention of the U.S. in order to promote bilateral talks with North Korea. In short, the Taepodong 2 was launched with political and diplomatic intentions.

Thus, this event should be an issue between North Korea and the U.S. Of the many concerned countries, Japan has taken the hardest stance in response to North Korea’s missile launch.
Indeed, Japan acts as if it had been attacked by North Korea. . .

In August 1998, North Korea launched Taepodong 1. Those missiles flew over Japan and fell into the Pacific Ocean. The Taepodong 2 missiles did not pass over Japan. In fact, two of the seven missiles fired came down near Russia. If any country has the right to complain about the missile launch, it is Russia.

First, this is not a U.S.-DPRK issue; it is a regional issue. It could also be construed to be a global issue as any threat by North Korea to attack the U.S. – the message the ICBM was made to deliver – would be a UN issue. Launching a missile with such rudimentary guidance at a major U.S. population center with the goal of influencing U.S. “political and diplomatic” actions also is strikingly close to the definition(s) of terrorism. If South Korea and China are concerned about regional security, as they no doubt are, they would be foolish to consider this a mere U.S.-North Korean issue.

Second, the Taepodong was not the only missile tested; the MRBM pose a direct threat to Japan. Additionally, the last ICBM launch went over the archipelago in a likely unplanned path, meaning that the latest launch could just as easily been lobbed into a Japanese population center by accident.

The notion that Russia might be concerned about being attacked by a North Korean ICBM is absurd; Russia would not hesitate to repay North Korea (and would receive little of the rebuke that the U.S. would for a similar hypothetical retaliation).

Japan’s reactions to North Korea’s missile tests are quite furious. Japan has not hesitated to provoke South Korea and China, and has made a huge issue out of the possible threat posed by North Korea. If Japan does not deal with tensions or conflicts with its neighboring countries in a well-measured and serious manner, it should not be considered a real member of the Northeast Asian region. (emphasis added)

That last sentence goes far in displaying the divorced-from-reality mindset that is all to common in South Korea. One could replace “Japan” with “North Korea” for a sound conclusion, but “South Korea” would also not find the fit too uncomfortable.

---

Pyongyang Report, Vol 8 Nos 2&3 July 2006, by Tim Beal

The Security Council’s condemnation of the DRPK missiles tests was a blatant violation of the UN charter, which respects the right of all countries to self-defence. The DPRK, as a sovereign state, was quite within its rights to test missiles.

The first sentence is factually false - it’s an opinion that the author might wish was true, but it is not. Japan could have employed the exact same logic – and with some justification – had it immediately launched missiles at Pyongyang upon detecting missiles being launched in its general direction. After all the last ICBM launch took an unplanned trip over Japan. But the author apparently doesn’t apply the same right of self-defense to Japan, but instead assigns that right to the aggressor, North Korea.

The censure was also an egregious breach of natural justice. During the weeks around the DPRK tests both Russia and India test fired a ballistic missile, and the US tested two… It appears that the Security Council which thought that ‘such launches jeopardize peace, stability and security in the region and beyond’ considered this applied only to the DPRK, and not other countries who conducted such tests, but did not attempt to explain why. The UNSC also overlooked America’s RIMPAC-2006 naval exercises (in which the ROK navy participated) although they were the largest since the Vietnam War… None of this means that the DPRK tests were wise, but they were neither illegal, nor unusual…

Again, the feeble attempt to apply moral relevancy and ignore all other facts. Frankly, yes, North Korea is different than the U.S., India, and Russia. Leftists seem to have a difficult time grasping the mechanics of what a threat is – capability plus intentions.

It is also hypocritical to grandstand about the right to self-defense (for North Korea), and then to berate the U.S. for conducing exercises that ensure readiness.

The other purpose [of the launches] was to force the United States to lift sanctions and engage in meaningful peace negotiations…

Yes, I suppose that is why North Korea has consistently walked away from the Six-Party Talks, and continues to take actions that ensure there are no negotiations. No, this is part of North Korea’s Strategic Disengagement.

Pyongyang’s best defense against Washington lies in its relationship with Seoul, and with Beijing.

Can’t argue with that. The amazingly inept Roh administration continues to ride the dead horse that was the Sunshine Policy, even though all that amounts to now is scooting along on a bit of hide and hair. But it helps prop up Kim Jong-il. And China is a disingenuous ally who prefers the status quo.

Washington used the allegations about counterfeiting to justify its imposition of financial sanctions. Kim Jong il, it was said, was running off false $100 notes in order to destabilise the US economy. The official line has been that the sanctions were intended to force Pyongyang back to the Six Party Talks; it is more plausible to see them designed to keep the DPRK away, and the talks in limbo. Not merely has no evidence been forthcoming but the amounts involved - $2.8 million annually according to one American official – are tiny… (emphasis added)

No evidence? The Roh administration didn’t officially accept the evidence given by the U.S., but the South Korean banking system sure did, and China has also recently taken action against North Korea for counterfeiting.

The New York Times has an in-depth article on DPRK counterfeiting, evidence has been located in South Korea, and North Korea is known to have purchased at least one intaglio printing press for US$ 10 million (type used by the U.S. Bureau of Engraving and Printing).

Going over the reasoning and logic of apologists who doubt North Korea has been involved in counterfeiting, I get the feeling that if they walked into a room and found Kim Jong-il standing over a dead body with a bloody knife in his hand still stabbing, they’d wonder who did it.

As for the criticism that the U.S. is being over-bearing by applying sanctions, I agree with David Asher, a former Department of State official, “Holding North Korea to normal standards of behavior should not be seen as a heavy-handed pressure strategy.”

As stated in my first post on one of these newsletters, as Tim Beal keeps a careful chronology of DPRK news he must have been aware of all of this and selectively ignored it – which I find to be incredibly dishonest. Worse, his misinformation may serve to confuse others about these important issues.
—–