Towards the End of Confrontation In Korea

The disintegration of the last Stalinist redoubt continues apace–and is still way ahead of schedule. That is if one assumes, as the world did a mere ten years ago, that even the “liberal” Soviet satellite states, such as Poland and Hungary, would not turn to democracy for another generation. The fall of one man communism before the end of the millennium, now probably imminent in North Korea, could not have been supposed until we learnt by living experience how friable the Berlin Wall really was.

Yet both South Korea and the U.S. behave for far too much of the time as if North Korea is still a behemoth to be feared, a piece of reinforced concrete that is impenetrable to the ideas and influences of the outside world. No one in their right mind, remembering the Korean War and the subsequent years of terrifying sabre rattling and terrorism by the Pyongyang leadership, is advocating a lowering of the guard but that does not excuse the chances missed for diminishing the intensity of the conflict. On many occasions there were possibilities for diluting the paranoia of paramount leader, Kim il Sung, and his son, the present leader, and for edging North Korea into a more liberal minded world. Often, in fact, policy has served to exacerbate the differences, harden North Korea’s intransigeance and close the door to dialogue and the opportunities for evolution.

The outside reporting that has been allowed in North Korea the last 12 unusual months seems to come to a unanimous conclusion: here is a state on its knees. It is Orwell’s “Animal Farm” transmuted into Orwell’s “Down and Out in Paris.” Both industrial and agricultural production are on the edge of oblivion and even the much feared military is depleted of modern weaponry and demoralized by lack of training and resources. Its nuclear industry that had western strategists screwing themselves into contortions to prove that it was able to produce bombs and missiles that would wreak havoc far and wide is, in reality, in the infant stage. At the most, North Korea can produce only basic bombs (and even that is unclear) and certainly not ones that could be delivered any significant distance accurately, say to Japan, on the nose of a rocket.

Incredible though it now seems, it is only three years ago that the U.S., frightened out of its mind by this crumbling pygmy, went to the brink of war. President Bill Clinton ordered the dispatch of substantial military reinforcements to South Korea and the Pentagon prepared plans to attack the North’s nuclear facilities. From the wings, former presidential national security advisor, Brent Scowcroft, and former CIA director, Robert Gates, advocated a quick bombing of the North’s nuclear reprocessing plant.

Only former president Jimmy Carter’s last minute intervention pulled Clinton’s chestnuts out of what could have been (if Robert Gates was correct) a nuclear fire. He went to Pyongyang, met Kim Il Sung face to face, denounced his country’s own attitudes and persuaded Kim to freeze his nuclear programme.

If Clinton had been wiser he would never have permitted the situation to spin so out of control that Carter’s rescue mission became necessary. He allowed himself to be maneuvered by the more intransigent, confrontational elements in the American body politic and by South Korea’s national security apparatus, still stuck in its 1950s time warp, into grossly misreading Kim’s intentions. As Leon Sigal makesplain in his new book, “Disarming Strangers: Nuclear Diplomacy with North Korea,” “at any time from 1992 on North Korea could have extracted enough plutonium to make five or six nuclear weapons. It did not. For a country supposedly hell-bent on bomb making its self-restraint seems difficult to explain.”

North Korea’s bluster was probably no more than an attempt to trade in its putative nuclear weapon program for what it needed more–security and political and economic ties with the U.S. For a while under President George Bush, the White House appeared to understand this and began to woo the North. It withdrew America’s nuclear weapons from the South and it cancelled for a year the large-scale military exercises it regularly conducted with the South. But Seoul’s military president, Roh Tae Woo, kept the pressure on Washington to go no further and even compelled Washington to back track just as the White House had braced itself to make some useful pledges to Pyongyang. With Clinton newly installed in Washington and the Roh presidency entering its last days South Korea stepped up the tactics of confrontation, precipitating the nuclear crisis.

The hard liners in Seoul have continued most of the time to set the pace, apart from the brief interlude of Carter’s magnificent diplomacy. Roh’s successor, Kim Young Sam, although democratically elected, won only 40% of the vote and has never felt strong enough to loosen the bonds with the military and security services. Now, however, with elections only two months away it looks as if the South may produce in Kim Dae Jung, the front runner, a president who would end the conservatives’ neck-lock on South Korea’s foreign policy.

This, together with the continuous deterioration of the North’s economy and, hopefully, the maturing learning curve of the Clinton foreign policy team, offers at long last light at the end of the Korean tunnel. The reward for clever diplomacy will be the end of Stalinism and militarism in the North even quicker than is bound to happen anyway.

Foreign affairs columnist, film-maker and author

Share

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

Peace is promoted by constructive proposals and dialogue Four preceding PressInfos have expressed concern over — and criticised — the ongoing, militarisation of the EU. Some will say: but there are no alternatives. We believe that there are always alternatives, that democracies are characterised by alternatives and choice, and that openly discussed alternatives will improve the quality and legitimacy of society’s decision–making. In addition, it is an intellectual and moral challenge to not only criticise but also be constructive. If we only tell people that we think they are wrong, they are not likely to listen. However, if we say: what are your views on this set of ideas and steps? — we may sometimes engage them in dialogue and sow a seed. Most people in power circles live their daily lives in in a time frame and a social space where certain ideas, viewpoints and concepts are just not...
Photos © TFF 2000 Read PressInfo 90 “Lift the Sanctions and Bring More Aid to Yugoslavia” See Pictures from Belgrade © TFF 2000 Please reprint, copy, archive, quote or re-post this item, but please retain the source.
Av FRANK SØHOLM GREVIL 16 augusti 2004  Vi er nu nået til tredje akt i det absurde teaterstykke, der i analogi med de store skueprocesser i Moskva 1936-38 er blevet døbt ‘Grevil-sagen’. Første akt bestod i min anonyme fremlæggelse af egenhændigt nedklassificerede rapporter i Berlingske Tidende i februar og marts. Andet akt udgjordes af min fremtræden med navn og billede i Information i april samt den efterfølgende mediestorm, som uden min direkte medvirken kostede en forsvarsminister taburetten samt en sigtelse for brud på tavshedspligten. Tredje akt bliver en retssag, hvor jeg står tiltalt for at have overtrådt straffelovens bestemmelser om uberettiget videregivelse eller udnyttelse af fortrolige oplysninger. Statsanklageren har ovenikøbet valgt at påberåbe sig særligt skærpende omstændigheder. Da jeg aldrig har modtaget betaling for at stille rapporterne til rådighed eller lade mig interviewe, må det skærpende bestå i, at “videregivelsen eller udnyttelsen er sket under sådanne omstændigheder, at det påfører...

Recent Articles

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.

TFF on Substack

Discover more from TFF Transnational Foundation & Jan Oberg.

Most Popular

Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Read More
Screenshot-2026-05-15-103534
Jan Oberg May 15, 2026 Go to this Fox News page and scroll the whole way down: President Donald Trump tells the world that his meeting with President Xi Jinping yielded a lot of very concrete political and economic results – of course, only where the Chinese side, according to him, agreed with him. He does not mention the Taiwan issue, but Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, says that it did not feature prominently in their talks and that the US policy on Taiwan has not changed. Then go to China Daily – or Global Times – and you will see that for the Chinese it is framework, principles, structure of cooperation etc. that matters – all embedded in the overall idea of “constructive bilateral relationship of strategic stability.” Nowhere is any concrete agreement or deal – all that Trump refers to – mentioned. At the general level, this gives you insights into the very different social...
Screenshot-2026-05-12-104023
Lena Petrova of “World Affairs In Context” with more than half a million subscribers on YouTube wanted to explore what a peace researcher like me has to say about, among other things, the First and the Second Cold War and why eethics has disappeared from politics. I am particularly happy about this conversation that also yielded an amazing number of very appreciative comments on YouTube. No doubt, people are longing for alternatives, including peace perspectives.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (2)
The MIMAC – Military-Industrial-Media-Academic Complex – drives the world’s rampant militarism and wars without end. Here is a short reflection of how it works against all interests of humanity. #5 deals with why there is no real enemy or threat images/analysis. It’s all ex-post constructions. And, btw, theTFF Peace Pulse is now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551 (1)
Jan Oberg, TFF director April 28, 2026 In this third TFF Peace Pulse, I make the important distinction between the violence and the conflict that violence is a symptom of. If you want peace, focus on the underlying conflict because that is the key to resolution, peacemaking, and a better future for the parties. The West is obsessed with violence, just look around you – and 90+ per cent of the public debate is about military issues and other violence – totally wasted for peace. These Peace Pulses will only be published here a few times. You will also not find them on YouTube and Vimeo because both platforms have blocked TFF and me; you know, peace is dangerous these days. Most TFF’s videos since 2007 are now on Rumble.
Screenshot-2026-04-13-154551
In contrast to most, we’ll bring alternatives, solutions, hope and strategies for a better future. Times are dangerous, yes, but that only intensifies the need for constructive thinking and action! Jan Oberg, TFF director April 13, 2026 The new TFF Peace Pulse uses video messages in a new way: Max 3-5-minute-long comments, ideas or perhaps mini-lectures, all about peace – positive peace. We launch them today on April 13, 2026 with a carefully crafted visual aesthetic fitting the content. We hope to publish them regularly from now on. We launch Peace Pulse (PP) – for a number of reasons. The world is in chaos, and there are countless reasons to feel concerned, frustrated, even angry. The atmosphere is saturated with doom and gloom, with negative energy and rear‑mirror thinking, while vision, imagination, alternatives, strategies and genuine future‑mindedness remain in short supply. And without them, we simply can’t save the world. Looking at problems from a hundred angles will...
IMG_5165 (1)
PART II — Publishing Peace in a System That Prioritises Militarism Jan Oberg, TFF director April 10, 2026 How TFF Maintains a Daily Voice in a Digital World Built for Noise This article is part of the series “TFF at 40″ and it invites you to learn about Four Decades of Publishing Peace. It takes a look at how a small, people‑financed peace foundation has communicated across four generations of technology — from wax stencils and fax machines to mass email and Substack — and why TFF continues to publish every single day in a system that rewards noise, conflict, and militarism. ◆ What it means to publish peace every single day in a digital system built for 24/7 news and other noise, confrontation, and militarism. How TFF’s independence, continuity, and global readership defy algorithms, donor cycles, and Western media censorhip — and why the Majority World keeps listening. When the...