N. Korea's test was in response to US refusal to negotiate: Analyst

North Korea's recent nuclear test was in response to the United States’ refusal to negotiate a peace treaty aimed at formally ending the Korean War, says Professor Dennis Etler, an American political analyst who has a decades-long interest in international affairs.

Etler, a professor of Anthropology at Cabrillo College in Aptos, California, made the remarks in an interview with Press TV on Monday, a day after the US State Department admitted that it had rejected peace talks with North Korea.

According to the Wall Street Journal, days before Pyongyang’s January 6 nuclear test, the Obama administration secretly agreed to discuss a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War, in which a UN force led by the United States fought for the South, and China fought for the North from 1950 to 1953.

But the US rejected the North Korean proposal after Pyongyang refused to consider reducing its nuclear arsenal.

“The revelation that prior to its latest nuclear test the Democratic People's Republic of Korea proposed the negotiation of a peace treaty with the US, which was rejected by the Obama administration, throws new light on North Korea's motivations. Rather than accepting the offer, Washington demanded that the North scuttle its nuclear program as a precondition for talks. The DPRK responded with its fourth nuclear test which it described as a more advanced thermonuclear explosion or H-bomb,” Professor Etler said.

“It thus becomes clear that North Korea's action was precipitated by Washington's intransigence and was meant to demonstrate Pyongyang's resolve to maintain its self-defense posture and not unilaterally disarm.

“It also demonstrates US duplicity in withholding information about the exchange which puts North Korea's actions in an entirely different context than first reported by the Western media.

“Following the incident it was reported that a senior administration official had said that ‘the United States would never grant full diplomatic recognition to North Korea, nor sign a peace treaty formally ending the Korean War, unless its nuclear capability was dismantled.’ While in retrospect this statement obviously refers to North Korea's proposal, at the time it seemed to be a reaction to the DPRK's preemptive testing program. It is now clear that the North was responding to the United States rejection of its initiative.”

N. Korean nuclear arms program is a deterrent

 Professor Etler said “North Korea and the US ceased hostilities in 1953 with the signing of an armistice agreement, which set forth the subsequent modus vivendi which is still in effect today. The armistice called for the separation of the two Korean sides by a demilitarized zone (DMV) at the 38th parallel, the end of hostilities, withdrawal of foreign troops and negotiations for elections to reunite the Korean peninsula.”

“The last two provisions were never implemented and a tense stalemate has ensued ever since.  During the Cold War the DPRK fell under the Soviet Union's nuclear umbrella and was immune from attack. Following the demise of the USSR however North Korea became more vulnerable to attempts by the US to destabilize the country, leading to the development of its nuclear arms program as a deterrent.”

“The US however has never wanted to settle the status of the divided Korean Peninsula as the stationing of US troops in South Korea is a prime component of US military force projection in the Asian Pacific region.

“With the US military stationed in Japan and Okinawa as well as defense arrangements with the Chinese Taipei, the Philippines and Australia the maintenance of a divided Korea is essential to US efforts to contain China's eastern flank and restrict Chinese access to the Pacific Ocean during times of crisis and conflict. It is part of the US grand design to maintain its paramount position as global hegemon.”

US propaganda machine against N. Korea

Professor Etler said America’s “propaganda machine has gone full tilt trying to portray North Korea as a belligerent threat and it's leader Kim Jong-un as an unstable, trigger happy megalomaniac.

“As in the Middle East where the US supports the Israeli settler state in its obstruction of a peace accord with the Palestinian Authority, it would rather see a continuation of tensions and conflicts as it allows Washington to maintain its presence in the region and its ability to intervene to prevent the rise of any regional power not under its control.

“The US would be hard pressed to asset its influence in either East Asia or the Middle East without the prospect of a self-perpetuating conflict between contending parties with what seem to be irreconcilable differences. As the US has demonstrated with Cuba it is possible for it to reverse course when it deems it necessary in order to further its imperial ambitions.

“It is the US that is the antagonist and aggressor not only in Korea but in other regions where conflicts reign from the Middle East to Eastern Europe, Central Africa and the South China Sea.”

Press TV’s website can also be accessed at the following alternate addresses:

www.presstv.co.uk