Spark urges: 'Oppose aggressive U.S.-South Korea alliance'

In mid-October, four members of Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (Spark) visited the U.S. from South Korea. The delegation included Secretary General You Youngjae, Co-Secretary General Kim Jongil, Chief of Disarmament Team Park Seokboon and Co-Representative Pyon Yeonshik. WW editor Deirdre Griswold conducted the following interview with Secretary General You.

Spark delegate in front of White House holds WW newspaper with headline: 'Nuclear crisis made in USA.' Photo: Yonhap News

Workers World: Why did Spark decide to send a delegation to the U.S. at this time, and what did you do while you were here?

You Youngjae: The 38th South Korea-U.S. annual security consultative meeting (SCM) was held on Oct. 20 in Washington. In this meeting, the nuclear test issue of North Korea was a key point on the agenda, as well as consultation to transform the South Korea-U.S. alliance into an alliance for aggression. These talks are very important and serious issues that are directly connected to the destiny of the South Korean and North Korean people.

Spark decided to send a delegation to the U.S. to convey our voices directly to American society that we oppose the hard-line sanctions against North Korea by the U.S. and the U.N., which are being escalated since the nuclear test of the North, we urge a peaceful resolution of the issue, and we oppose the transformation of the South Korea-U.S. alliance into an aggressive alliance.

Spark delegates present demands to South Korean military at Korean War Memorial in Washington. Photo: Yonhap News

The Spark delegation met the first secretary of South Korea's Permanent Mission to the U.N. in New York on Oct. 18. We handed over a letter to the U.N. secretary general giving Spark's views on North Korea's nuclear issues. In this meeting Spark pointed out that the root cause of the nuclear crisis lies in the U.S. and, in that respect, the U.N. sanctions resolution is unfair and will aggravate the situation. Spark emphasized that the issue could be solved only through dialogue and negotiations after the U.S. withdraws its hostile policy against North Korea. In regard to this, the Spark delegation urged that the South Korean government firmly refuse the demand by the U.S. to participate in President George W. Bush's so-called Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI).

The secretary said he would convey Spark's views to the South Korean government and explained the procedures involved in U.N. sanctions.

That afternoon we held picketing and a candlelight vigil in Dag Hammarskjold Plaza near the U.N. headquarters against the U.N. sanctions resolution and urged that the North Korea nuclear issue be solved peacefully through dialogue. International media, including from Denmark, Japan, Hong Kong and South Korea, came to interview us and cover the picketing.

On the 19th we moved to Washington where we tried to convey our letter to South Korean Minister of Defense Yoon Kwang-woong, who was visiting the Korean War Veterans Memorial. Facing him and other delegation members, we demanded and shouted: "Oppose PSI participation," "Oppose aggressive South Korea-U.S. alliance," "Koreans want peace--No more war on Korean peninsula," and "No U.S. base expansion to Pyongtaek."

That evening the Spark delegation held a candlelight vigil in front of the White House and then tried to convey our appeal letter to the South Korean delegation attending the SCM meeting, including the defense minister, by visiting the hotel where they were staying.

Finally, on the morning of the 20th, we picketed in front of the hotel and, as the delegation was departing for the Pentagon, the SCM meeting place, handed over our appeal letter to them.

In the afternoon, we tried picketing near the Pentagon, in an area where we had heard it might be possible. However, it was difficult. Only with the arrival of Dustin Langley of the International Action Center could we proceed. However, as soon as we began picketing, six police came with a repressive attitude and deleted a photo from our camera that showed us picketing with the Pentagon in the background. They warned that they would arrest us if we came into the Pentagon area or picketed in the neighboring area.

WW: What is your view of the sanctions resolution against the DPRK passed in the U.N. Security Council?

YY: The sanctions resolution of the U.N. Security Council against North Korea is unfair and retaliating. The root cause of the North Korea nuclear issue lies in the U.S. hostile policy against North Korea. As former Secretary of State Colin Powell exposed in his recently published biography, the hardliners in the Bush government like Rumsfeld and Cheney are aiming to collapse North Korea, and the six-party talks were also used as an instrument to isolate the North.

The Bush government enforced financial sanctions against North Korea, notwithstanding the resolution of the six-party talks last year, showing that its real interest is not in solving the North Korea nuclear issue but in isolating and putting pressure on North Korea. In this point, the sanctions resolution of the U.N. Security Council is not impartial, as it never dealt with the responsibility of the U.S., which is the root cause of the North Korea nuclear issue. Furthermore, it is unfair that the U.N. keeps silence about the U.S., which has the most nuclear weapons and has conducted the most nuclear tests.

We cannot but think that the UN Security Council sanctions resolution--which also covers conventional military hardware such as tanks, heavy firearms and battleships along with luxury goods--is only retaliation toward the North, which confronted the Bush government.

We'd like to emphasize that first of all sanctions against the North will only aggravate the situation. The North says it developed nuclear weapons as an unavoidable self-defense measure against the Bush government's obviously aggressive operational plan, its war capacity enforcement and its combined war exercises, especially including its preemptive nuclear strike policy

We think it is a great miscalculation to think that the North, aware of all this and ready to carry out nuclear testing despite all kinds of condemnations and sanctions,

will abolish nuclear weapons because of the sanctions. The North warned that it would regard the sanctions as a declaration of war. The UN sanctions resolution includes provisions that can lead to invoking Bush's PSI, including the inspection of cargo. This is very dangerous and can lead to armed clashes; in this point the U.N. resolution is very irresponsible. We accuse the sanctions resolution of being unfair and retaliatory, and it will worsen the situation. We urge the U.N. Security Council to try to discuss how to make the U.S. give up its aggressive, hostile policy against North Korea and change its policy to dialogue.

WW: What is the nature of the military agreement between the U.S. and the South Korean authorities, and what changes are being pushed by the Bush administration?

YY: South Korea and the U.S. have made about 200 treaties and agreements, including a Mutual Defense Treaty. The common aspects with most of them are that they violate the military sovereignty of South Korea and their contents are unequal and humiliating.

In the case of the Mutual Defense Treaty between South Korea and the U.S., which defines the military relationship between the two countries at the highest level, South Korea endows the U.S. with the right to station its military personnel and equipment there for free. Also, the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA), according to Article 4 of the Mutual Defense Treaty, gives the U.S. legal jurisdiction in cases that the U.S. military recognizes as having happened while on duty, thus depriving South Koreans of the opportunity for impartial and just trials. An example of this is that no U.S. military personnel were punished when two middle-school girls were killed by a U.S. armored vehicle in 2002.

As well, a regulation in the SOFA agreement says that while the U.S. bears the expense of stationing its military there, South Korea offers its facilities and territory to the U.S. forces in Korea. However, under a special agreement enforced by the U.S. since 1991, the U.S. this year will receive about 700 billion won (about $700 million) from South Korea as its share for the so-called defense cost. If direct and indirect costs are added, including the value of the land rental, South Korea is offering the U.S. more than double this expense--about 1,500 billion won.

The Bush government is imposing on South Korea a support system for its Global Posture Review (GPR) and "strategic flexibility" strategy, which allow the U.S. to intervene anywhere in the Asia Pacific region through a rapid deployment force and a precision strike force. The signing of the South Korea-U.S. mutual military logistics agreement in 2004 expanded the U.S. military's ability to provide logistical support for troops sent overseas.

The presidents of South Korea and the U.S. held a summit in November 2005 and announced they had reached an agreement to develop a "comprehensive, dynamic and mutually benefiting alliance." This means the South Korean military will participate with the U.S. military in the Pentagon's strategy for military hegemony in all cases including terror, various types of emergency and disasters.

According to this, the foreign ministers of the two countries, after high-level strategic dialogue last January 2006, released a joint statement that allows strategic flexibility of U.S. Forces Korea (USFK), with participation of the South Korean military.

Based on this, there is a possibility that both countries would like to adopt a joint security declaration similar to that issued by the U.S. and Japan in 1996. Through this they aim to replace the South Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty that has defined the alliance only as deterrence against North Korea. The intent is to justify and legalize the transformation to an aggressive alliance between the two countries. However, the legal status of "declaration" cannot replace the "treaty," so the strategic flexibility of USFK and the transformation of the South Korea-U.S. alliance to an aggressive alliance violate even the unequal South Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty.

WW: How do the people in South Korea feel about this change?

YY: Both South Korea and the U.S. have dealt with the strategic flexibility of the USFK and their transformation to an aggressive alliance in secret meetings without the Korean people's discussion and participation. Because of this, most Korean people are not completely aware of the seriousness and importance of these changes. Progressive social activists and intellectuals are raising the issue against the Korean government and the U.S., trying to expand public awareness.

In general, Koreans think U.S. unilateral and unjust pressure is wrong but, if the USFK withdraw, there can be unrest and insecurity. More or less half of the Korean people think the USFK should withdraw immediately or step by step. However, in case the Korean people demand the withdrawal of USFK, they think there could be unrest and insecurity and a serious incident could happen if the U.S. retaliates economically and politically.

Regarding the North Korea nuclear issue, the common awareness of Korean people, except for a very limited number, is that they never want a second Korean war due to the North Korean nuclear issue. Also quite a few people think that more responsibility lies with the U.S. on the North Korea nuclear issue, even though they may criticize the nuclear test of North Korea. The majority of people think this issue should be solved peacefully through dialogue.

WW: What is Spark's program for resolving the U.S.-DPRK crisis?

YY: The sanctions and pressures against North Korea will only worsen the situation and could cause a war. Therefore, we firmly oppose the sanctions against North Korea.

The crisis should be solved through dialogue and negotiations centering around North Korea and the U.S. The basic direction should be, we think, as the six-party talks joint statement revealed, that both the North and the U.S. should take mutually modulated measures in order to solve mutual interest and concerns step by step, that is, the abolition of nuclear by North Korea, and a security guarantee and improvement of relations by the U.S. We think that this crisis should be evolved into a good opportunity for South and North Korea and the U.S. to sign a peace treaty, so that this could contribute to prepare the bridge for reunification and resolve fundamental peace issues of the Korean peninsula, including the nuclear crisis.

WW: Can you tell us something about other recent activities of your organization?

YY: Spark is working to replace the unequal Korea-U.S. relationship with a relationship based on equality. Spark has held various activities for the peaceful resolution of the North Korea nuclear issue. We also have had campaigns against strategic flexibility and opposing the transformation of the South Korea-U.S. alliance into an aggressive one.

For these objectives, we hold press conferences, seminars, interviews with government personnel, statements and analysis and demonstrations. Also, through membership gatherings and Internet activities, we are trying to raise and expand awareness for sovereignty, peace and reunification.

Spark has held anti-U.S. demonstrations near the U.S. Embassy [in Seoul] every month for the past seven years raising issues in regard to the U.S. military, including the Maehyang-ri bombing range. And we have held peace and disarmament rallies in front of the Ministry of Defense since 2001.

Since 2003 Spark, together with residents of Pyongtaek, a village about 60 miles southwest of Seoul, has campaigned against the U.S. base expansion there. This struggle has now become a national and international issue. Through this struggle two Spark members were imprisoned and tens of members were arrested or wounded.