Kim Jong-un shows a legislative ballot
at a session of the
Supreme People's Assembly, North Korea's rubber-stamp
parliament, last year. Columnist Peter Sturm suspects the
appointment of a new minister to push development could
be behind Pyongyang's recent bellicosity.
Does New Development Minister Explain North Korea's Verbal Barrage? (Frankfurter AllgemeineZeitung, Germany)
"Last
weekend's session of the Central Committee of the Korean Worker's Party may offer
one explanation. ... There was a lot of talk of developing the economy. To this
end, a new minister was appointed who will be simultaneously rewarded with a
seat on the Politburo. So assuming that the military sees this as a threat to
its hitherto unchallenged leadership, the war rhetoric might make some sense."
North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un, after threatening the United States with a pre-emptive nuclear attack - and passing on a new minister for economic development, Apr. 1.
There has been no shortage of martial pronouncements from
and about Korea during the past few days. But they all share an important
caveat: The North blusters: "If" America should dare start a war, North
Korea would transform the southern part of the country, American military bases
in the Pacific, and the U.S. mainland, into a sea of fire. "If" there
is any provocation from North Korea, then political consideration, the South
will respond militarily, says the South Korean president. And "if"
North Korea desires war, Washington indicates that America will be ready with a
response.
Whatever one thinks about the use of such remarks from South
Korea and America, they make an escalation of the conflict conditional on the
other side firing the first shot. This is actually a reassuring assessment, as
South Korea is also reporting that large-scale North Korean troop movements
have not been observed.
Strong U.S.
involvement
On the other hand, it is remarkable how committed the United
States is to this conflict. South Korea appears outwardly unconcerned. But
Washington seems to feel a need to support its ally with demonstrative acts
like the deployment of stealth bombers to the region. This is a logical
response in view of the North’s verbal radicalism. Pyongyang must grasp clearly
what it's getting if it starts a war. On the other hand, many wars have broken
out, although everyone claims later not to have wanted them.
Posted By Worldmeets.US
The question remains, what may have moved North Korea to begin
and fuel this conflict with ever-more exaggerated statements? Last weekend's
session of the Central Committee of the Korean Worker's Party may offer one
explanation. Delegates adopted a program that doesn’t read like an immediate
preparation for war. There was a lot of talk of developing the economy. To this
end, a new minister was appointed who will be simultaneously rewarded with a
seat on the Politburo, giving him quite a lot of power within the system. So assuming
that the military sees this as a threat to its hitherto unchallenged leadership,
the war rhetoric might make some sense. But only if we make that
assumption.
