An end-of-war declaration would be an important step towards reducing
the dire threat of war and opening the way to further accommodations… The best
policy I think would be in the general spirit of the Sunshine policy: steps
toward accommodation, relaxation of tensions, withdrawal of threats and
provocations. – Noam Chomsky
Isn’t it a good prelude to avoid USA’s taking back the reins of South
Korea sponsoring conservative Yoon Suk-yeol’s razor-thin 0.7% victory margin in
South Korea’s March 9 presidential election, which was far from a public
mandate for his much-touted hawkish foreign policy.
Yoon’s sharp rhetoric on a tougher stance toward North Korea–including
repeated references to pre-emptive strikes against Pyongyang–is out of step
with the South Korean electorate, the majority of whom want peace with the North. His foreign policy stance promises to force South Korea into the front
lines of a new US-led Cold War. By doing his part to ensure that a state of
tension is maintained in the Korean peninsula, Yoon is faithfully serving US
strategic interests by placing the Korean nation at risk while enabling
Washington to continue justifying its nearly eight-decade occupation of South
Korea in order to secure its forward military position against China.
Five years after the ignominious end of the conservative Park administration, South Korea’s
conservatives are back in power, a
development that does not bode well for Korea or the rest of the world.
Yoon’s controversial past, his lack of practical experience, and his hawkish views combine to form a dangerous political free radical in the game of
brinkmanship that continues to be played out in the Korean Peninsula. Yoon lost
no time in labeling Pyongyang as Seoul’s “main enemy,” marking a departure from his predecessor Moon Jae-in. Amplifying Yoon’s rhetoric, his foreign policy delegation to
Washington has advocated for a policy of Complete, Verifiable and Irreversible
Denuclearization (CVID) with respect to the North. The delegation also stressed South Korea’s
commitment to the US strategy of containing China and advocated for the
redeployment of US strategic
assets such as nuclear-capable
aircraft carriers, bombers and submarines to the Korean peninsula.
Unsurprisingly, Yoon’s hawkish pivot has been warmly welcomed by the
Biden administration and the foreign policy elite in Washington, who believe
his victory will give the US an upper hand in arm wrestling South Korea into
its strategy of containing China. Conservative US news outlets lauded the “pro-US Yoon victory” and predicted that “South Korea’s hawkish new president will be good for the western alliance”, while emphasizing that
Yoon’s victory signaled that “The time to reconstitute pressure on Pyongyang is now.”
Echoing this chorus, Philip Goldberg, the nominee for US ambassador to South Korea and former enforcer of UN
sanctions against the North, stated that the United States should “resolutely
pursue complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearization” of “the rogue
regime in North Korea”. However, Washington’s strategy of demanding concessions
in the absence of meaningful assurances has only increased Pyongyang’s
determination to acquire nuclear deterrence capability as a security guarantee
against the US. Daniel DePetris observes that: The chances of Kim relinquishing his nuclear
deterrent at this late stage in the game is somewhere between slim to none. No
country has undergone such large opportunity costs over a period of decades to
develop as many as 65 nuclear warheads, only to suddenly trade those weapons
away in exchange for economic and political concessions and vague security
guarantees.
Only last week, China, stressing that the additional US sanctions
imposed on Pyongyang were only raising tensions, proposed a halt to the
historically provocative annual US-South Korea military drills in exchange for
the North’s suspension of ICBM and nuclear testing. The US rejected China’s proposal.
On March 31, South Korea and the United States upgraded their
joint wartime operations plans to include a response to North Korean nuclear measures, and senior US,
Japanese, and South Korean military leaders discussed trilateral cooperation, ostensibly to “deter the North’s threats”–a euphemism for the Biden
administration’s priority of hemming in China. A majority of Koreans oppose such a provocative military alliance that
would threaten regional peace and stability.
On April 14, under the pretext of deterring the North’s “aggression,”
the US dispatched the USS Abraham Lincoln
strike group to conduct bilateral
operations with the Japanese Maritime Self-Defense Force near the Korean
Peninsula, marking the first time since 2017 that a US carrier group has been
deployed to the waters between South Korea and Japan.
On April 18, the US and South Korea began their controversial annual
joint military drills, in spite of the opposition of the majority of Koreans
and over 350 US, South Korean, and international organizations who released a
statement calling for their suspension. The drills, which mobilize considerable
numbers of US troops and ordnance on the Korean Peninsula and simulate military
engagement against the North, have historically served as a reliable means
to increase regional
tensions: In recent years, these war
drills have been based on operation plans that reportedly include preemptive
strikes and “decapitation measures” against the North Korean leadership. They
also have involved the use of B-2 and B-52H bombers (which are designed to drop
nuclear bombs) and nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and submarines. While the
United States and South Korea have called them defensive in nature, these
military exercises have long been a trigger point for heightened military and
political tensions on the Korean Peninsula, due to their scale and provocative
nature.
Thus far, Yoon’s hawkish policies have failed to garner public
support. According to a series of recent polls conducted in 2021, over 70 percent of South Koreans do not regard
the North as an enemy; 70 percent support an End of War declaration; 61 percent support relaxing sanctions on the North; and, 79 percent
support peace with Pyongyang. This sentiment persists even among Yoon supporters, a majority of
whom support a peace treaty, breaking with his rhetoric calling for a tougher stance toward North
Korea.
While Yoon’s victory bodes well for Washington’s unrelenting campaign to
drive Seoul into the front lines of its anti-China crusade, his stated policy
stance of “no” to North Korea and China and “yes to the US” will be easier said than done, not the least because of the
far-ranging economic interdependence between South Korea and China. In 2021,
China took in more than a quarter of all Korean exports, while the United
States accounted for only 15 percent. According to a 2021 survey, Koreans remain unenthusiastic about America’s anti-China containment
strategy, with a majority supporting a neutral stance in the US-China rivalry”.
Yoon’s refusal to engage with the North or to exert any degree of
sovereignty vis-a-vis the US ensures that South Korea remains a semi-occupied
subservient “force multiplier” existing primarily to serve Washington’s growing strategic interests
in Northeast Asia.
The US itself, having waged a brutal war in the Korean peninsula that left millions dead, continues to
block all attempts at reconciliation by the two Koreas, refusing to support
constructive diplomacy, sign a peace treaty or even declare a symbolic end to
the nearly eight-decade Korean war. Instead,
Washington’s policies, and the limits they place on South Korean sovereignty
and inter-Korean relations, ensure the maintenance of a permanent state of
tension in the Korean Peninsula, providing the US with perpetual justification
for its unprecedented seventy-seven year military occupation and political
subjugation of the South.
The “North Korean threat” serves as a cover for Washington’s anti-China policy and its expanding military projection into Asia. In this context, Yoon’s victory is a component of a
transnational hawkish pivot that threatens peace and stability in the Korean peninsula and all of Northeast Asia. In
addition to the tensions Washington built in Europe on Ukrainian ground.
Does Biden want to go down in history as the American president responsible for World War III?
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário