FALSE FLAG MEME SPREADING OVER BOSTON (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

FROM FOURTH MEDIA http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/04/19/false-flag-meme-spreading-over-boston/

“False-Flag” Meme Spreads over Boston
Post Categories: Afghanistan
Press TV | Friday, April 19, 2013, 10:20 Beijing
Print

Police react after the Boston Marathon bombings, April 15, 2013.

http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/04/19/false-flag-meme-spreading-over-boston/
false flag movahedian20130417043652060

On September 11th, 2001, the US media began chanting “Bin Laden” in unison almost from the moment the attack was reported. The possibility that US government insiders had orchestrated the attack – in order to blame Muslims, launch wars on Muslim countries, and seize near-absolute power – was never mentioned.

Bin Laden’s repeated statements that he deplored the 9/11 attacks, considered them un-Islamic, and suspected that American supporters of Israel were behind them failed to penetrate the corporate media bubble. When the FBI definitively stated that Bin Laden was “not wanted” for 9/11 because there was “no hard evidence” of his involvement, the media blacked out the story.

But after the Boston bombings of April 16th, 2013, even the corporate monopoly media could no longer ignore the possibility of a false-flag attack. Yahoo News asked “Who’s behind the Boston Marathon bombings?” and offered 4 theories: (1) Islamic jihadists, (2) Right-wing militia types, (3) the government, and (4) a criminally-insane lone wolf.

Numbers (1), (2), and (4), of course, are the usual suspects. But including (3) “the government” on the suspects list is unprecedented for a mainstream news story reporting on a domestic terror incident.

The false-flag meme’s growing prominence was underlined at Massachusetts governor Deval Patrick’s press conference after the bombings. The first question for Governor Patrick came from Infowars correspondent Dan Bidondi, who asked whether the bombings were “a false-flag staged event to take away our civil liberties.” Patrick, of course, answered “no.”

Even the Atlantic Monthly, a neocon-lite magazine associated with names like Goldberg and Hitchens, felt compelled to publish a story headlined: “What Is a ‘False Flag’ Attack, and What Does Boston Have to Do with This?” Amazingly, the Atlantic article stated that yes, there is historical precedent for viewing the Boston bombing as a false-flag event. The author, Philip Bump, even admitted: “If the Boston attack had been a ‘false flag’ attack, Gov. Patrick would have responded ‘no’ anyway.”

What has changed since 2001 to bring the false-flag meme into the limelight?

Short answer: The 9/11 truth movement. During the past decade, millions of activists have been working to awaken the American and global publics to the evidence that 9/11 was an American Reichstag Fire. Polls show that 36% of Americans – roughly 100 million people – think it likely that 9/11 was an inside job. Many of these truth-seekers are highly-accomplished scientists, engineers, military and intelligence officers, and other experts. You can meet some of them at Patriots Question911.com and AE911Truth.org.

Since the corporate mainstream media and the foundation-funded pseudo-alternative media have refused to report the facts about 9/11, roughly 100 million Americans consider the media moguls pathological liars.

Even among the almost 200 million Americans who are not up-front 9/11 skeptics, the vague sense that something is wrong, and that the media and the politicians are lying, is widespread.

A recent Pew Research poll, for example, showed that Americans’ trust in government has fallen to an all-time low: Fewer than one-third of Americans trust the government, while more than two-thirds do not.

As the people lose faith in their government, and the corporate media crumbles into bankruptcy, a vibrant new independent media has sprung up on the internet.

The Alex Jones media empire, which pushes the false-flag meme about as hard as it can be pushed, now reaches an estimated five to ten million people.

Jeff Rense, Mike Adams, Mike Rivero, Veterans Today, American Free Press, and the foreign-run English language outlets Press TV and Russia Today also reach large and influential audiences with honest reporting about false-flag events.

Today, it isn’t just a few marginalized radical intellectuals who think “false-flag” when they hear about an alleged domestic terror incident. Millions of people are sharing their suspicions about the Boston bombings on Facebook, Twitter, the blogosphere, and internet media in general.

Are they right?

Though it is too early to know for sure, the Boston bombings featured the most important telltale sign of a false-flag op: A terror drill running simultaneously, mirroring the actual attack. As Webster Tarpley has explained in his book 9/11 Synthetic Terror: Made in USA, false-flag attacks such as 9/11 and 7/7 are designed as drills that suddenly “go live.” This allows insiders to plot and execute the attacks under cover of the drills, with the “Team B” bad guys actually carrying out the attacks they were supposedly going to feign.

September 11th, 2001 had been previously designated as by far the biggest special operations day in US history, with a total of 46 pre-planned drills and exercises, including live-fly planes-into-buildings exercises, providing cover for the insider attacks. (Google “Tarpley 46 drills of 9/11” for details.)

July 7th, 2005 also featured terror drills that went live. Peter Power, the UK’s biggest terror consultant, admitted on live television that all of the actual bombs that devastated London that day exploded at the exact times and places envisioned in the drills.

Were the Boston bombings a drill that went live?

Mobile, Alabama TV station Local TV 15 reported:

University of Mobile’s Cross Country Coach, who was near the finish line of the Boston Marathon when a series of explosions went off, said he thought it was odd there were bomb sniffing dogs at the start and finish lines.

“They kept making announcements on the loud speaker that it was just a drill and there was nothing to worry about,” Coach Ali Stevenson told Local 15. “It seemed like there was some sort of threat, but they kept telling us it was just a drill.”

At 12:53 pm local time, the Boston Globe newspaper tweeted: “Officials: There will be a controlled explosion opposite the library within one minute as part of bomb squad activities.”

Then almost two hours later, at 2:50 p.m., bombs exploded near the finish line of the Boston Marathon, killing three people and injuring more than 100 others.

Just a coincidence? Maybe. But since all of the biggest “terror attacks” in recent US history, including the two World Trade Center bombings and the Oklahoma City bombing, have been inside jobs, and since most of the “terror plots” discovered in the US since 9/11 have been created by the FBI, we have every right to be suspicious.

Terror bombings have only one beneficiary: Governments, and the wealthy families that own them.

As Vincent Vinciguerra, one of the perpetrators of the Operation Gladio terror attacks, explained: “You had to attack civilians, the people, women, children, innocent people, unknown people far removed from any political game. The reason was quite simple: to force . . . the public to turn to the state to ask for greater security.”

Whatever the truth about the Boston bombings, it seems that the false-flag meme is infiltrating mainstream discourse. And it isn’t going to go away . . . at least not until 9/11 and other false-flag crimes are solved, and effective measures instituted to protect the public against the scourge of false-flag terror.

KB/HMV, Press TV

Posted in 4th Media, Decline of the American Imperium, Faces of Fascism, FALSE FLAGS, Fascism in America, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism | Leave a comment

DIVIDE AND/TO RULE: THE HISTORY OF U.S. SABOTAGE OF KOREAN PEACE AND REUNIFICATION (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

http://www.4thmedia.org/2013/04/08/brief-history-us-sabotage-of-korean-peace-and-reunification/

The History of US Sabotage of Korea’s Self-determined Reunification Since …
Post Categories: Asia
Dr. S. Brian Willson | Monday, April 8, 2013, 4:04 Beijing
Share on facebookShare on twitterShare on emailShare on printShare on gmailShare on stumbleuponShare on favoritesMore Sharing Services12Print

The U.S. decision to artificially divide an ancient homogenous Korea upon the surrender of the Japanese, August 15, 1945, and the subsequent U.S.-directed reign of terror, 1945-1948, that led directly to the war of national independence against western imperialist intervention, 1948-1950, and then, consequently, the hot war, 1950-1953, to be followed by extensive periods of military dictatorships until 1997 supported by the U.S. government, surely must rank as one of the cruelest tragedies of the Twentieth Century. This is virtually unknown history in the West, and today’s issues relating to Korea cannot be understood without knowing this diabolical assault on the Korean soul.

U.S. Intentions and Actions Dividing Korea, 1943-1945

Within months of Pearl Harbor, in early 1942, U.S. State Department planners began to express concern in the event there was to be Soviet involvement in the war against the Japanese in Manchuria and Korea. They feared that the Russians would bring with them the fearless Korean guerrillas who had been passionately fighting the Japanese in Manchuria in their efforts to recover their homeland. The first formal international statement supporting Korean independence was proclaimed in November 1943 when the U.S. (Franklin D. Roosevelt), Great Britain (Winston Churchill), and China (Chiang Kai-shek) issued the Cairo (Egypt) Declaration, in which Korea was to receive independence “in due course” following the expected ultimate unconditional surrender of the Japanese. This arrogance over Korea’s future existed despite the fact that Korea was the oldest victim of Japanese expansion.

Fearing a Russian puppet regime in Korea once the Japanese were defeated, something confidentially presumed, this “conclusion” became the critical factor in planning for Korea. In March 1944, the U.S. State Department recommended “the employment of technically qualified Japanese in Korean economic life … during the period of military government.” (emphasis added) Given the extent of nearly forty years of Japanese domination and the humiliating subservient role forced on the Koreans, this secretly planned postwar U.S. military government in Korea amounted to preservation of Japanese imperialism and an unlawful, cruel violation of Korean sovereignty.

At the February 4-11, 1945 Yalta “Big Three” Conference, held at Yalta, a city in southern Ukraine on the Black Sea, President Roosevelt, without consulting the Koreans, suggested to Stalin and Churchill that Korea be placed under joint trusteeship prior to being granted its independence at the conclusion of World War II, once Japan surrendered. However, the most important agreement achieved at Yalta was the Soviet’s promise to enter the Pacific war theatre three months after the anticipated surrender of Germany, thereby relieving the U.S. of further casualties in defeating the Japanese in Manchuria, China, Korea, and Japan itself. This secret agreement by the USSR to enter the war against Japan was promised in return for possession of S. Sakhalin (island off the east coast of USSR just north of the Japanese island of Hokkaido), the Kurile Islands (extending northeast from the Japanese island of Hokkaido to the USSR peninsula of Kamchatka between the Sea of Okhotsk and the Pacific Ocean), and an occupation zone in Korea if the U.S. insisted on joint trusteeship.

Harry Truman had only succeeded to the Presidency on April 12, 1945, upon the death of President Roosevelt, only 2 months after the Yalta conference. Germany surrendered on May 7, starting the 3 month clock to the promised entrance of the Soviet Army to hopefully finish off the Japanese in Asia. The strategic decision to wait for resolution of the Manhattan Project (development of the top secret Atomic bomb) came to dominate much of secret U.S. policy making beginning in mid-May. Truman, only having been briefed of the existence of the new weapon project once taking the Presidency in April, and as a newcomer to international diplomacy, was believed to have dreaded his upcoming meeting with Stalin and Churchill at Potsdam, near Berlin, in northeastern Germany. The advance agenda of Potsdam was to discuss challenges arising out of the collapse of Nazi Germany and the disposition of eastern Europe vis-a-vis the Soviet Union. Not surprisingly he delayed the conference. However, it is significant to note that Truman finally scheduled the confernece to immediately follow the critical test of the secret Bomb, to occur July 16 at Alamogordo, 120 miles southeast of Albuquerque, New Mexico.

The test’s success exceeded expectations and immediately provided the U.S. with unprecedented confidence in all of its post-test negotiations. Potsdam began on July 17 and concluded on August 2. Previously, the U.S. had virtually accepted the fact that once the Japanese were defeated with Soviet assistance, the Soviets would occupy and control the future of the Korean Peninsula. However, with the success of the new, most powerful, weapon ever developed, U.S. diplomacy was radically altered, and U.S. arrogance could prevail with minimal need to compromise.

On August 8, exactly three months after the German surrender, Russian troops entered Manchuria, as they had earlier promised, overwhelming Japanese forces there. On August 12 they entered northern Korea, further ousting Japanese forces, thereby assuring no more U.S. casualties. This significant Soviet involvement now made it impossible for the U.S. to exclude the USSR in a post-war Korean settlement. On August 11 (three days after the entrance of the Soviet troops in the Japanese arena and, as it turned out, only four days before the imminent surrender of Japan), President Truman ordered two colonels in his Department of War to hurriedly identify a supposedly temporary line dividing Korea into two zones. The 37th and 38th parallels were discussed in a quick 30-minute meeting by two young colonels, one being Oxford-educated Dean Rusk (later to be Secretary of State under President’s Kennedy and Johnson during the early Vietnam War years), at the newly constructed headquarters of the then U.S. War Department, the 34 acre Pentagon building in Arlington, VA. The decision on the 38th parallel, no surprise, created a division that placed approximately 21 million rural people, sixty-five percent of the country’s population, and the historic capital city of Seoul in the United States zone. Nine million people and the more industrial sectors, with fifty-five percent of the land base, were to be in the Soviet zone. The question was whether Stalin would accept the 38th parallel rather than the 37th, the latter of which would have included the historic capital of Seoul in the anticipated Soviet zone.

This decision establishing the 38th parallel, publicly proclaimed on August 15 as “General Order No. One,” occurred without prior consultation with other countries, including the Soviet Union. This public proclamation occurred on the same day that Japan announced its intentions to surrender. No one was sure how Stalin would respond to this limit on the August Soviet military advances in Korea. To everyone’s surprise, Stalin accepted the division without comment or challenge. The division of Korea had begun, even before Japan announced its surrender. Later, Dean G. Acheson, Secretary of State (1949-53), a lawyer trained at both Yale and Harvard, described the 38th Parallel as no more than “a surveyor’s line.” But to the Koreans it was the equivalent of an egregious assault on their historic soul and aspirations for genuine independence. Order Number One determined that the Japanese were to transfer power immediately from their authority to specified occupation forces, and to prevent local “Left” populations from taking control.

The U.S. was to take the southern zone; the already present Soviet troops were to remain temporarily in the northern one, with the aim of repatriating all Japanese in their respective sectors. The U.S. immediately created the United States Army Military Government in Korea (USAMGIK), which was the sole legal authority south of the 38th Parallel, and it remained so until the Republic of Korea was formally established on August 15, 1948, exactly three years later. Tragically, Western plans for a post-war division of Korea were proceeding without the prior knowledge or consent of the Korean people.

Ironically, on the very same day of the Japanese surrender and U.S proclamation of General Order Number One, August 15, 1945, the Korean people, the majority seriously impoverished, openly celebrated their liberation after forty years of miserable Japanese occupation. The Koreans immediately formed The Committee for the Preparation of Korean Independence (CKPI). By August 28, all Korean provinces on the entire Peninsula had established local peoples’ democratic committees and, on September 6, delegates from throughout Korea, north and south, gathered in Seoul to create the Korean People’s Republic (KPR). The people of Korea were confident they would now be able to build their own society, resuming control over their sovereignty which had been effectively suspended since the Japanese had taken over their foreign and military affairs in 1905 prior to formal full annexation in 1910. At that exciting moment in their lives on September 6, 1945, the Korean people could not have imagined that they were about to become victims of an even more tragic and cruel injustice, this time inflicted upon them by a Western nation, the United States of America, rather than by one of their historic Asian nemesises.

Japan presented its formal surrender on September 2 to five-star (a newly established rank at the time) General Douglas MacArthur aboard the U.S.S. Missouri in Tokyo Bay. MacArthur was named commander of the Allied powers in Japan and directed the subsequent occupation that included Korea as well.

On September 7, the very next day after the excited creation of the KPR, General Douglas MacArthur, as commander of the victorious Allied powers in the Pacific, formally issued a proclamation addressed “To the People of Korea,” announcing that forces under his command “will today occupy the territory of Korea south of 38 degrees north latitude.” The very first advance party of U.S. units, the 17th Regiment of the 7th Infantry Division, actually began arriving at Inchon on September 5th, two days before MacArthur’s occupation declaration. The bulk of the U.S. occupation forces began unloading from twenty-one Navy ships (including five destroyers) on September 8 through the port at Inchon under the command of Lieutenant General John Reed Hodge. Hundreds of black-coated armed Japanese police on horseback, still under the direction of Japanese Governor-General Abe Nobuyuki, kept Korean crowds away from the disembarking U.S. soldiers. On the morning of September 9, the U.S. troops marched into Seoul, again protected by Japanese troops lining the streets, ushering the high-ranking officers into their new quarters at the Choson Hotel. And on September 9, General Hodge announced that Abe, the Japanese Governor-General would continue to function with all his Japanese and Korean personnel.

Hodge had become known for his aggressive warfare in battles at Guadalcanal, Leyte, Bougainville, and the “last battle” at Okinawa, earning him the reputation as “the Patton of the Pacific.” Patton had been nicknamed “old blood and guts” for his tank actions in World War I, and his later exploits during War II in Italy, North Africa, and France and Germany.

Within a few weeks there were 25,000 troops and members of “civil service teams” in country. Ultimately the number of U.S. troops in southern Korea reached 72,000. Though the Koreans were officially characterized as a “semi-friendly, liberated” people, General Hodge, nonetheless, regrettably instructed his own officers that Korea “was an enemy of the United States…subject to the provisions and the terms of the surrender.” Quickly, tragically, and ironically, the Korean people, citizens of the victim-nation, had become enemies, while the defeated Japanese, who had been the illegal aggressors, served as occupiers with and friends of the United States. Korea was inflicted with the very occupation originally intended for Japan. Japan was subsequently built up by the U.S. in the post-war period, while Korea was subjected to brutal occupation. Japan remains to this day the U.S. forward military base affording protection and intelligence for its “interests” in the Asia-Pacific region.

This was due to strategic evaluations made by the U.S. of projected post-war plans of its wartime Soviet ally but who in fact were held with fear and mistrust by the West since the Bolshevik revolution first articulated its socialist philosophies in 1917. The provisions of such occupation, including ordinances issued by the Military Governor of Korea, were to be enforced by a “Military Occupation Court.” On September 12, West Point Graduate and artillery expert Major General Archibald V. Arnold, was named U.S. Military Governor to replace Japanese Governor-General Abe, though most of the existing administrative and police personnel were retained.

Arnold was later replaced as U.S. Military Governor by Major General William F. Dean, a highly decorated World War II veteran of battles in France, Germany and Austria. Interestingly, when the ‘hot’ war started in June 1950, Dean became the commander of the U.S. 24th Division and was captured on August 25 in Taejon, being the highest ranking U.S. officer ever captured by the North Koreans and imprisoned as a POW for 37 and-a-half months.

From that fateful day on September 8, 1945, to the present, a period of now 56 years — a long, painful 660 months — U.S. military forces (currently numbering 37,000 positioned at 100 installations), have maintained a continuous occupation in the south, supporting de facto U.S. domination of the political, rhetorical, economic and military life of a needlessly divided Korea. This overwhelming U.S. role, often brutal in nature and, until recently, supporting repressive policies of dictatorial puppets, continues to be the single greatest obstacle to peace, because of its interference with inevitable reunification of the Korean Peninsula. Until 1994, all of the hundreds of thousands of South Korean defense forces operated legally under direct U.S. command. Even today, although integrated into the Combined Forces Command (CFC), when the U.S. military commander in Korea deems there is a war situation, these forces automatically revert to direct U.S. control.

The well documented but little publicly known historical record of the United States in Korea is nothing short of demonic and shameless: from the brutal U.S. formal occupation (1945-48); to steadfast support of the tyrannical rule of U.S. puppet, Syngman Rhee, before, during, and after the hot Korean War (1948-1960), under the rhetorical propaganda of a Korean “democracy”; to U.S. dominance in Korea from 1960 to the present, most of the time during which the Korean people have been forced to labor under iron fist military dictators while the U.S. State Department often reported to the U.S. population the existence of “democratic reforms” there.

The United States direct involvement in Korea beginning in August 1945 provides us the earliest example of U.S. Cold War behavior. When examined carefully, it reveals a great deal about the nature of her national psyche as it is expressed in corresponding misguided political and vicious military policies, as well as the kind of unrestrained terror that was to be in store for its victims. Fear of communism — a national, and Western, mental illness of paranoia — caused a ferocious fury of violence to be directed at undeserving “Third World” peoples, as the monolithic spread of communism, itself grossly exaggerated, was regularly confused with genuine national self-determination (democratic) movements striving for independence from Western, colonial forces.

The United States’ ability to crush the popular movement (of “communists” as they were incorrectly labeled by U.S./Rhee political and military leaders) in Korea was an important test of the success or failure of the “containment” policy articulated in 1948 by George Kennan, director of the U.S. State Department’s Policy Planning Staff (PPS). Publishing a then top-secret document (PPS 23, February 24, 1948), Kennan laid out an honest assessment of the need for a successful U.S. imperial policy:

“…we have about 50 percent of the world’s wealth, but only 6.3 percent of its population…In this situation, we cannot fail to be the object of envy and resentment. Our real task…is to devise a pattern of relationships which will permit us to maintain this position of disparity without positive detriment to our national security…We need not deceive ourselves that we can afford today the luxury of altruism and world-benefaction…We should cease to talk about vague and — for the Far East — unreal objectives such as human rights, the raising of the living standards, and democratization. The day is not far off when we are going to have to deal in straight power concepts. The less we are then hampered by idealistic slogans, the better.”

The U.S./Puppet Rhee Repression Machinery Created

The U.S. understood that if it was to assert Western-style, capitalist control in Korea it had to defeat, then eliminate, the broad-based popular, democratic KPR. Instead of repatriating Japanese as mandated, the U.S. military government (USAMGIK), manned by nearly 2,000 U.S. officers, most of whom were unable to speak or understand the Korean language, quickly recruited them and their Korean collaborators to continue administrative functions. More important, and egregiously, the U.S. military government revived the feared Japanese colonial police force, the Korean National Police (KNP). About 85 percent of the Koreans who had served in the Japanese colonial police force were quickly employed by the U.S. to man the KNP. Other collaborators were recruited into the Korean Constabulary created in December 1945 by the commander of the U.S. forces in Korea, General John R. Hodge. Secret protocols, later revealed, gave the U.S. operational control of the South Korean police and all of its armed forces from August 15, 1945 to June 30, 1949. Additionally, many Japanese and Korean collaborators who had been correspondingly purged, often brutally as well, by Russian forces and the new popular Korean committees in the north, became core members of powerful paramilitary groups like the Korean National Youth (KNY) and the Northwest Youth League (NWY) in the south which would work in concert with the “official” U.S./Rhee security forces.

This was happening despite the fact that the U.S. government knew full well of Korean desires in 1945 for independence. General John Reed Hodge, commander of the XXIV Corps of the United States Tenth Army, became Commanding General of the US Armed Forces in Korea because his forces could be moved quickly to Korea after Japan’s August 15 surrender. While in Okinawa, Japan, the XXIV Corps possessed a thorough study entitled, “Joint Army-Navy Intelligence Study of Korea.” This report described the strong desires of the Koreans for their independence, and that they preferred a cumbersome autonomous transition to the danger and dread of continued control by “some successor to Japan.” The study described the extent of the 40 year Japanese rule and its collusion with an aristocratic Korean minority, reiterating that the majority of tenant-farmers were terribly oppressed. Nonetheless, the U.S. had no intention to grant the Koreans their historical legal and cultural rights to independence. And a subsequent U.S. survey of Korean attitudes disclosed that nearly three quarters of the population clearly wanted a socialist, rather than a capitalist, system. Furthermore, early reports revealed that their socialist leanings were quite independent of any directives from the Soviet Union, and were cooperative with but not under the thumb of northern Korea communists.

The U.S. hurriedly organized wealthy conservative Koreans representing the traditional land-owning elite and, on September 16, convened the Korean Democratic Party (KDP). According to XXIV Corps intelligence, the U.S. had quickly identified “several hundered conservatives” among the older and more educated Koreans who had served the Japanese who could serve as the nucleus for the rapidly convened KDP. These were the Koreans who had grown wealthy as a result of years of collaboration with their Japanese colonizers. Preston Goodfellow, former Deputy Director of the U.S. Office of Strategic Services (OSS) who had a background in U.S. Army intelligence and clandestine warfare, was an acquaintance with Syngman Rhee living in the United States, and quickly made arrangements to import the seventy-year-old expatriate politician to Korea. Apparently Rhee had in some way cooperated with OSS in Washington, D.C. during World War II. On October 16, 1945, Rhee was flown to Korea from the U.S. on General Douglas MacArthur’s personal plane.

At the conclusion of World War II, Goodfellow was director of a mysterious “Overseas Reconstruction Corporation” which probably served as an intelligence front. In that capacity he became involved in Asian tungsten deals with the World Commerce Corporation, a postwar company established by heads of Allied intelligence operations, including William J. (“Wild Bill”) Donovan, the founding director of the OSS and Goodfellow’s immediate boss when he was gathering intelligence during the war. Tungsten was and is one of the most treasured strategic metals used in making hardened tank armor and anti-tank shells tipped with tungsten carbide. Only the more recent discovery of depleted uranium (DU 238) as an even more effective, but extraordinarily dangerous, armor plating and piercing shell has tungsten been replaced in this function. By early 1949 Goodfellow had become Syngman Rhee’s principal U.S. advisor and was a key agent for Korean-American business deals, and likely intelligence operations, involving both the U.S. and Nationalist China prior to the success of the Communists over the Nationalists. In 1954 Goodfellow was working with the former head of propaganda operations for the OSS in importing tungsten for the U.S. which at the time was desperate to maintain its military stockpile.

Rhee had been born in 1876 in Hwanghae Province, south of Pyonyang, into a struggling, though upper class family in the Yi dynasty. While attending a Methodist middle school in Seoul he repudiated Buddhism and Confucianism in favor of Christianity. However, he was vigorously opposed to the Japanese presence in Korea. He was arrested by Japanese police authorities and was sent to prison for several years. After release he had left for the United States in 1905, and was apparently able to arrange a meeting with outgoing Secretary of State John Hay in urging Theodore Roosevelt to protect Korean independence as the President was mediating an end to the Russo-Japanese War. He apparently was also able to meet with Roosevelt at his summer home at Oyster Bay, Long Island, at the very same time that Roosevelt’s Secretary of War Taft was meeting with Japan’s Katsura to consummate an agreement to Japan’s control over Korea if Japan honored the U.S. control over the Philippines. Rhee was rudely rebuffed.

Rhee remained in the United States and received degrees from George Washington University (1907), an M.A. from Harvard (1908), and an alleged Ph.D. from Princeton (1910) where he claimed to have studied under Professor Woodrow Wilson. He is credited to being the first Korean to receive a doctorate from a U.S. university, even though it is not at all certain that he received such degree. He returned briefly to Korea in 1910 to work for the Seoul YMCA as a teacher and evangelist, but returned to the U.S. in 1912 where he remained, part of the time in Hawaii, other times in Washington and New York, until Goodfellow brought him back to Korea on MacArthur’s plane thirty-three years later with his wealthy Austrian wife whom he had met on a 1932 trip to Europe. To his credit an anti-Japanese colonialist, he had at one point been the leader of a Korean Provisional Government in exile, but was expelled in 1925 for embezzlement. Now Rhee, a Methodist, would quickly become the U.S. puppet leader in Buddhist and Confucianist Korea, just as Diem, a Catholic who had been temporarily living in New Jersey, was to be in Buddhist Vietnam nearly ten years later in the continuation of a tragic Asian policy in which the U.S. continued to confuse national movements for self-determination with monolithic communism. When he returned to Korea in 1945 few Koreans or U.S. Americans knew much about him since he had been in exile in the U.S. for a total of nearly forty years.

Now, with its Korean police state forces beefed up and a Korean political puppet it could herald as the new democratic leader of a South Korea, the U.S. Military Government could begin its systematic purge of all opposition forces. On October 20, at the Welcoming Ceremony for the Occupation, Rhee made it clear he was not intending to unify the country. Rhee denounced Russia and the North and refused to work with the KPR that had been democratically created on September 6. Rhee quickly embraced the pro-Japanese Koreans already working with the U.S. military government, while denouncing the more numerous anti-Japanese advocates on the Left. On December 12, 1945, the USAMGIK, working closely with Syngman Rhee, outlawed the KPR and all its related local, provincial and national democratic peoples’ organizations and activities. The various unions had joined forces in November under the National Council of Korean Labor Unions (NCKLU), affiliated with the KPR, but their activities were soon prohibited. All labor strikes were forbidden; most union activities were considered traitorous. Women’s organizations, youth groups, and other elements of the popular movement were targeted as well. In September 1946, disgruntled workers declared a daring strike that by October spread throughout South Korea. The USAMGIK declared martial law. By December, the combination of KNP forces, the Constabulary (called the National Defence Forces by Koreans, later to become the Republic of Korea Army or ROKA), and right-wing paramilitary units, supplemented by U.S. military forces and intelligence as needed, had forcefully contained the insurrection in all provinces. More than 1,000 Koreans had been killed with more than 30,000 jailed. Regional and local leaders of the popular movement were either dead, in prison, or had gone underground.

Korean Division Becomes “Legal”

Seventy-three-year-old Rhee was elected President on May 10, 1948, an election boycotted by virtually all Koreans except the conservative, elite KDP and Rhee’s own right-wing political groups. Rhee legally took office as President on August 15, and the Republic Of Korea (ROK) was formally declared. In response, three-and-a-half weeks later (on September 9, 1948), the people of the north begrudgingly created their own separate government, the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK), with Kim Il Sung as its Premier. Korea was now clearly, and tragically, split in two. Kim Il Sung had survived being a guerrilla fighter against the Japanese occupation in both China and Korea since 1932 when he was twenty years old. Kim was thirty-three when he returned to Pyongyang in October 1945 to begin the hoped-for era of rebuilding Korea free of foreign domination, and thirty-six when he became North Korea’s first premier on September 9, 1948.

Meanwhile, the Russian forces that had occupied the north since August 1945 withdrew on schedule in December 1948, leaving only a small number of advisors behind. After the ROK was offically proclaimed in August 1948, the U.S. State Department argued to delay the expected withdrawal of U.S. combat troops until June 30, 1949. This provided Rhee with additional benefits from U.S. combat support against his civilian and guerrilla opposition. These forces were finally withdrawn at the end of June 1949, replaced by a 500-man Korean Military Advisory Group (KMAG), headed by Brigadier General William L. Roberts.

Meanwhile, in September 1949, following the withdrawal of the majority of U.S. troops, Rhee’s anxiety increased about the lingering guerrilla war and the growing strength of the DPRK’s air forces, even though the Russian military had withdrawn from the North in 1948. He wanted to begin building his own air force, alleviating his nervous dependency upon the United States air forces. U.S. military and political leaders were opposed to granting aircraft to Rhee whose eagerness to invade the North they believed could cause a needless provocation with the North. Also secretary of State Acheson had denied the same request from Chiang Kai-Shek for his Nationalist forces fighting the Chinese Communists. Pastor Goodfellow was supporting his friend Rhee’s request for air forces for the ROK. Rhee found additional sympathetic support from Goodfellow’s friend, General Claire Chennault, who founded the Civil Air Transport (CAT) after World War II, the “Flying Tiger” air force, subsequently controlled by the CIA.

CAT had been flying mercenaries and supplies for China’s Kuomintang (KMT) forces who by late 1949 were sequestered in Burma in the wake of the Communist victory. All of the CAT planes had by then been safely moved to Formosa. In August 1949 Chiang Kai-Shek visited Rhee seeking an airbase in Korea that could assist the Nationalists in their continued campaign against the Chinese communists. Rhee in turn invited Chennault to Korea in November 1949 to present plans for developing a Korean air force along with the necessary secure bases. However, not until the Korean hot war started did the U.S. brass authorize the forty CAT planes relocated to six CIA training stations in Japan and Korea to fly transport, bombing and intelligence missions against Chinese installations along the coast, as well as serving the U.S./ United Nations campaigns against North Koreans. The nearly bankrupt airline, despite CIA funds, had a new lease on life, and was given the job of running the Korean National Airline as well.

The Systematic Elimination of Civilian Dissent

Both U.S. Secretary of State Dean Acheson and George Kennan, Asian specialist at the U.S. State Department, made it clear in 1949 that the ability of the “democratically elected” Syngman Rhee to suppress the internal threats to his regime was very important for the success of our containment (of “communism”) policy. The “guerrillas” had to be quickly eliminated so that the world could clearly witness Korea’s successful handling of the “communist threat.” The stakes were high in Korea for the U.S., and the West in general, and the U.S. wanted to make sure that their puppet Rhee would prevail, no matter the cost to the Korean people or to their aspirations for a reunified country. Goodfellow had briefed Rhee at the end of 1948, referencing his conversations with Acheson about Korea, that the guerrillas had to be “cleaned out quickly…everyone is watching how Korea handles the communist threat.” This helps explain the large role the U.S. military played in suppressing any and all resistance to the Rhee regime: advisers with all Korean army and police units, use of spotter planes to ferret out guerrillas, daily briefings of counterinsurgency units, interrogation and torture of prisoners, regular intelligence briefings, use of transport planes carrying armed troops and supplies, and even the occasional use of U.S. combat forces.

The Rhee/U.S. forces escalated their ruthless campaign of cleansing the south of dissidents, identifying as a suspected “communist” anyone who opposed the Rhee regime, whether openly or quietly. In fact, most participants or believers in the popular movement in the south were socialists and unaffiliated with outside “communist” organizations. As the repression intensified, however, alliances with popular movements in the north, including communist organizations, increased. The Cheju Island insurgency was crushed by August 1949 with 30,000 to 60,000 Koreans murdered and nearly 300 villages destroyed, but on the mainland, guerrilla warfare continued in most provinces until 1950-51.

In the eyes of the commander of U.S. military forces in Korea, General Hodge, and new “President” Syngman Rhee, virtually any Korean not a publicly professed rightist was considered a “communist” traitor. Therefore massive numbers of farmers, villagers and urban residents were systematically rounded up in rural areas, villages and cities from throughout South Korea. Captives were regularly tortured to extract names of others. Thousands were imprisoned, and even more thousands forced to dig mass graves before being ordered into them and shot by fellow Koreans, often under the watch of U.S. officers. Estimates of civilians murdered under the pretext of killing “communists” during the era of legal U.S. occupation (August 15, 1945-August 15, 1948) and the succeeding extended period until June 30, 1949 when U.S. combat troops were finally withdrawn, often are in the 500,000 range, with the lowest figure being 100,000, the highest being 800,000.

Political prisoners under U.S. occupation increased from 17,000 in southern Korea at the time Rhee was brought from the United States in October 1945, to over 21,000 by December 1947. By mid-1949, there were 30,000 alleged “communists” in Rhee’s jails, and an estimated 70,000 in so-called “guidance camps” used as overflow prisons. By December 1949 as many as 1,000 people a day were being rounded up, tortured, and imprisoned. Meanwhile numerous others were being murdered summarily after torture, not even having the “privilege” of being thrown in prison. Agents had penetrated every organization, every student group, every cafe, and every workplace seeking any evidence of publicly expressed dissent and contempt for the Rhee regime. And even though the bulk of U.S. troops had departed, officials from the U.S. embassy and with the remaining 500 man U.S. Military Advisory Group knew and was complicit in this reign of terror.

A 1948 CIA personality profile analysis of Rhee, apparently the first ever prepared on a foreign leader by the relatively new CIA, concluded: “The danger exists…that Rhee’s inflated ego may lead him into action disastrous or at least highly embarrassing to the new Korean Government and to the interests of the U.S.” It is certainly true that the U.S. was worried about Rhee provoking a military attack against the North across the 17th Parallel. But a bloodbath within the South, exterminating or imprisoning virtually the entire popular movement, which at one time clearly represented the vast majority of Korean citizens, was of no concern to the U.S. In fact, it supported and directed much of it! Though at times the U.S. government privately censured Rhee and his military and Korean National Police units, U.S. officials consistently publicly praised the “free and democratic” Republic of Korea (ROK).

This sordid record of U.S. policy and its consequent behavior in Korea between 1945-50 served as a “training” model to be subsequently emulated, “refined” and at times varied to suit the situation. For example, following the 1965 CIA coup in Indonesia replacing the unacceptable (to the U.S. government) “Neutralist” President Sukarno with military strongman Suharto, systematic identification and elimination for several years of those perceived as sympathetic with Sukarno or who were thought to be “communist” led to the murders of anywhere from 500,000 to one million. The Phoenix program in South Vietnam sought to eliminate the Viet Cong civilian infrastructure from 1967-72, with estimates of those killed and/or captured reaching nearly 70,000. U.S. support for the counterrevolutionary government in El Salvador and its associated death squads from 1980 to 1994 led to the murders of 75,000 people, and displacement of more than a million. In revolutionary Nicaragua, U.S. created counterrevolutionary terrorists called Contras that marauded from 1982-90 through the countryside, destroying villages and assassinating those identified as supportive of the revolutionary government. More than 75,000 Nicaraguas were murdered or severely maimed.

There are many other examples, as well, perhaps six or seven dozen, where the use of military and security forces have used (and continue to use) terrorism under the aegis of fighting terrorism, more than not with U.S. support and direction, to preserve an ideology that supports the way of life for the elite and privileged at the expense of the poor majority. But with the possible exception of the barbaric purge in Indonesia from 1965-1967, which murdered anywhere from 500,000 to one million, the systematic elimination of the popular movement in Korea directed by the U.S./Rhee regime from 1945-50 continues to rank as the most aggrieved of all victim-nations during the so-called Cold War.

Meanwhile, and ironically, the period 1945-50 was experienced by most U.S. Americans as being among the most pleasant in their history. Basking in military victory from World War II, feeling invincible with possession and further development of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military weaponry ever known to humankind, the people of the United States through their plutocratic government and capitalist economics were to rule the world. They would perceive as a threat virtually any alternative political-economic idea and prevent it from taking hold. “Manifest Destiny” began its truly global march to everywhere.

U.S. Decides To Announce Beginning of Hot War

The hot war apparently began at Ongjin very near the 38th Parallel in western Korea about 3 or 4 a.m. on June 25 (Korean time), 1950. This was in the same general area where heavy fighting had erupted at Kaesong in early May 1949, when battles, apparently started by six infantry companies from the south, lasted four days, taking the lives of 400 North Korean and 22 South Korean soldiers. According to U.S. and South Korean officials, nearly 100 civilians were also killed in Kaesong. Subsequent heavy fighting occurred in June on the remote Onjin Peninsula on the west coast above Seoul, and in August when forces from the north attacked the ROKA occupying a small mountain north of the 38th Parallel. Rhee had constantly threatened attacks on North Korea, creating anxiety among U.S. advisers. Just how the fighting started and by whom on that particular day, June 25, 1950, depends on one’s source of information.

The North’s official version claims that South Korean forces had been shelling with howitzers and mortars the Unpa-san area on the Ongjin Peninsula on June 23-24. Then the ROKA’s 17th Regiment attacked a northern unit at Turak Mountain on the Onjin Peninsula on June 25 which was repelled by the northern forces. The South claimed, on the contrary, that elements of ROKA’s 17th Regiment counterattacked and were in possession of Haeju city, the only location north of the 38th Parallel claimed to have been taken by the South’s forces. This was announced on the morning of June 26. The details are irrelevant, however, since a civil and revolutionary war had been raging for nearly two years with military incursions moving routinely back and forth across the 38th Parallel. The war was announced to the world as a premeditated, belligerent attack of communist forces from the north against a sovereign democratic society in the south. The quick introduction of U.S./U.N. military forces beginning on June 26 occurred with no understanding by the West (except by a few astute observors such as journalist I.F. Stone) that in fact they were entering an active revolutionary, civil war in progress explicitly against five years of U.S. interference with the passionate effort of indigenous Koreans to achieve genuine independence. These additional outside forces simply fueled Korean passions even more, while creating further divisions among them.

This tragic paranoid misunderstanding by the U.S., and the West in general, accompanied by deeply held racism, helps to explain, but not in any way excuse, the massive numbers of civilians (“gooks”) massacred by U.S./U.N. forces, including, of course, by the ROK army itself, and the incredible devastation of civilian targets and murder of millions of civilians from the tenacious aerial bombing campaigns conducted throughout the war. Many of the bombing missions were carried out by the 1,008 bomber crews of the Strategic Air Command (SAC) under direction of its young and reckless commanding General, Curtis LeMay, who had recently directed the firebombings that destroyed all or parts of sixty-six Japanese cities in 1945. The extent of the hatred felt by U.S. forces toward Koreans was sometimes reported by shocked news people. The derogatory term “gooks” was as commonly applied to Koreans by U.S. military personnel as it was to Vietnamese later, during the Vietnam War. The Rhee forces, mostly made up of Koreans collaborating with their former Japanese occupiers, were also merciless in their killing of fellow Korean civilians in both southern and northern areas of Korea.

Bombing Everything

During the Korean “hot” war, General Douglas MacArthur ordered the U.S. Air Forces “destroy every means of communication, every installation, factory, city,and village” south of the Yalu River boundary with China. Pyongyang and 76 other Korean cities in the north were leveled during the 37-month bombing campaign coinciding with the hot war period.

Massive saturation bombings, especially with napalm and other incendiaries, alone murdered perhaps 2.5 million civilians. Major General William B. Kean of the 25th Infantry Division ordered that “civilians in the combat zone” be considered enemies. The famous July 25, 1950 Fifth Air Force memorandum to General Timberlake declared that adherence to Army orders to “strafe all civilian refugees [have been] complied with.” USA Today (Oct. 1, 1999) and The New York Times (Dec. 29, 1999) reported from declassified U.S. Air Force documents the “deliberate” strafings and bombings of Korean “civilians” and “people in white.” In the August 21, 1950 issue of Life, John Osborne reported that U.S. officers ordered troops to fire into clusters of civilians.

Germ Warfare

An early study examined the allegations of the use by the United States of bacteriological and chemical weapons in Korea. The Commission of International Association of Democratic Lawyers’ Report on U.S. Crimes in Korea, March 31, 1952, concluded that the U.S. used both germ (“deliberate dispersion of flies and other insects artificially infected with bacteria, with the intention of spreading death and disease”) and chemical (“use of poison gas bombs and other chemical substances”) warfare against both civilians and combatants in North Korea. Established at the September 1951 Berlin Congress of the Association, the Commission consisted of eight lawyers, one each from Austria, Italy, Great Britain, France, China, Belgium, Brazil, and Poland. The Association had been prompted by a Report of the Committee of the Women’s International Democratic Federation in Korea, May 16-27, 1951, an international commission of 22 women from 18 countries (including Canada and 7 Western European nations) that found systematic war crimes by a number of means were being committed by U.S. forces and South Korean forces under the command of the U.S., though it did not specifically discuss use of bacteriological or chemical weapons.

China convened its own international study, Report of the International Scientific Commission for the Investigation of the Facts Concerning Bacteriological Warfare in Korea and China, issued in Peking in 1952, finding significant use by the U.S. of germ warfare.

In all, thirty-six U.S. officers, mostly pilots, most from the Fifth Air Force, as well as some from the 1st Marine Air Wing under direction of the Fifth Air Force, gave their Chinese jailers statements admitting their participation in biological (germ) warfare. Most captured flyers acknowledged that tho they were subject to stress and duress, they were neither physically beaten nor provided information to include in their statements. The most exhaustive study of extent of US collaboration in the POW camps conducted by the US Army concluded that in fact there was no brainwashing nor beatings nor torture, but that the US prisoners were from a cultural background that failed to provide them with political insight and emotional maturity for dealing with such adverse experiences. Shortly after the confessing US prisoners were released in 1953, they were placed under strict control and the US government presented recantations signed by one-quarter of those who confessed. The majority did not recant, at least in public.

Of course, the U.S. denied the various allegations and accusations of its use of biological and chemical warfare, and does so to this day. However, thanks to two York University professors in Toronto, Canada, Stephen Endicott and Edward Hagerman, we now have the benefit of their 20-year exhaustive study, The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets from the Early Cold War and Korea (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1998). Carefully researched, their report concludes that the United States experimented with and deployed biological weapons during the Korean War, and that the U.S. government lied both to Congress and the U.S. public in saying that its biological warfare program was purely defensive (for retaliation only). A large and sophisticated offensive biological weapons system had been developed in the post-World War II years, and was used in North Korea. However, their study does not identify any use of germ warfare in South Korea, tho Koreans have insisted it was used in South Chollah Province.

Threat of US Use of Atomic Weapons on Northern Korea and China

Due to the early military successes of the northern forces pushing the ROK army and U.S. forces far south of Seoul, General MacArthur, on July 9, 1950, requested the use of Atomic bombs to protect his retreating forces. After some deliberation in Washington, this request was denied. This was the first of at least nine separate circumstances when the U.S. seriously considered using Atomic/Nuclear bombs against northern Korea and adjacent regions of China during the Korean War. A second “active consideration” of use of the Bomb occurred on November 30, 1950, following entrance into the war in late October of the Chinese military “hordes,” when President Truman publicly suggested General MacArthur might be given authority to use the Atomic bomb at his discretion to stop the Chinese. This created a tremendous furor in Europe which initially dampened the idea. Nonetheless, Truman ordered SAC to “dispatch…bomb groups” to Asia to “include Atomic capabilities” and had non-assembled Atomic bombs moved to aircraft carriers off Korean coasts.

Seven subsequent known serious considerations of using the Bomb occurred.

1. In December 1950, only a short time after Truman’s public suggestion elicited negative responses from Europe, the Joint Chief of Staff (JCS) supported General MacArthur requested discretionary use of over thirty Atomic bombs to be dropped on “retardation targets” and “invasion forces” if necessary to avoid defeat.

2. In March and April 1951, the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested use of Atomic bombs against Chinese bases in Korea and China, a plan supported in principle by President Truman who ordered the transfer (of completely assembled Atomic weapons) “to military custody” in Asia (Guam and Okinawa, Japan) for use against Chinese and North Korean targets if the Soviets and Chinese in any way escalated the war that spring.

3. In June and July 1951, the Joint Chiefs of Staff requested use of Atomic weapons in tactical operations, five months after the first U.S. tests of tactical Nuclear weapons, in case of “unacceptable” deadlocks in the peace talks that had begun in July.

4. In October 1951, three Army colonels traveled from Washington, D.C. to Japan and Korea for a top secret meeting with General Ridgeway, commander of the U.N. forces, and other officers, in part to initiate plans and preparations for “the employment of atomic weapons in support of ground operations” in Asia. In September and October 1951, U.S. bombers flew simulated Atomic bombing runs over northern Korea, even dropping dummy Atomic bombs, in preparation for using the real thing if peace talks were unacceptably stalled.

5. In May 1952, when General Mark Clark replaced General Mathew Ridgeway as Commander of the U.N. forces, he proposed a number of new steps, including deployment of Atomic bombs.

6. In February 1953, shortly after President Eisenhower was elected to office, he directly threatened China with Atomic bombs. The U.S. Air Force transferred fresh Atomic bombs to Okinawa, and its chief of staff, Hoyt Vandenberg, publicly suggested that an area in northeastern China, Mukden (Shenyang, 150 miles north of the border with Korea containing a large air base), would be an appropriate strategic target. This crisis was averted by diplomacy of Soviet leaders who immediately succeeded Stalin after his death on March 5.

7. On May 20, 1953, the National Security Council seriously discussed the “extensive” use of atomic bombs against China, including much of Manchuria, if the Communists did not accept “reasonable” peace terms. Secretary of State John Foster Dulles transmitted a message through Premier Nehru of India to the Chinese and North Koreans, that the U.S. was prepared to use the Bomb during another adjournment of the peace talks. It should be noted that just one year later Dulles also offered two Atomic bombs to aid the French besieged at Dien Bien Phu in northwest Vietnam. Fortunately, Georges Bidault, Dulles’ counterpart as French foreign minister, turned down the offer due to his wise realization that the French forces would be wiped out as well if Atomic weapons were used.

On at least two other occasions the U.S. has seriously considered using nuclear weapons against North Korea. The first was in 1969, within a few months after Nixon became President, when the North Koreans apparently shot down a U.S. plane, killing thirty-one persons. Nixon and his Secretary of State, Henry Kissinger, recommended dropping a Nuclear bomb, but were subsequently persuaded to nix the plan. The second time was in June 1994, when President Bill Clinton was on the verge of bombing North Korea’s nuclear program in Yongbyon. Though it wasn’t clear whether Clinton intended to use low-level nuclear bombs, it was clear that bombing of nuclear facilities risked substantial radiation over a wide-area. Only the personal interventions of South Korean President Kim Young Sam and former U.S. President Jimmy Carter on an emergency diplomatic mission averted the crisis within hours of the planned bombing.

Korea and the “Axis of Evil”

February 13, 2013 – 3:17 pm

By S. Brian Willson, June 2002, Revised October 2006
[First published in Global Outlook, Issue # 2, Summer 2002, later modified & published on global research website:http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=WIL20061012&articleId=3464%5D

USAF Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.” It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to belligerence of another.

The demonization of North Korea by the United States government continues unrelentlessly. The wealthy oil and baseball man who claims to be president of the United States, used his first State of the Union address on January 29, 2002 to brand perennial enemy North Korea, along with former allies Iran and Iraq, as “the world’s most dangerous regimes” who now form a threatening “axis of evil.” Unbeknown to the public, because it was intended to have remained a secret (whoops!), was the fact that this claimed president presented a “Nuclear Posture Review” report to Congress only three weeks earlier, on January 8, which ordered the Pentagon to prepare contingency plans for use of nuclear weapons. The first designated targets for nuclear attack were his newly identified members of the “axis of evil,” along with four other lucky nations as well – Syria, Libya, Russia, and China. That this is nothing short of a policy of ultimate terror remains unaddressed in the U.S. media.

That Koreans are deeply concerned is an understatement. However, they understand the context in which their “evil” is being portrayed, not an altogether new threat leveled at them. However, the dangerous escalation of policy rhetoric following the 9-11 tragedy now boldly warns the world of virtual total war. Vice-president Richard Cheney, another oil man from Texas, declares that the U.S. is now considering military actions against forty to fifty nations, and that the war “may never end” and “become a permanent part of the way we live.”1 The Pentagon has declared that the widening gap between the “Haves” and “Have-nots” poses a serious challenge to the U.S., requiring a doctrine of “full spectrum dominance.” Thus, the U.S. demands total capacity to conquer every place and its inhabitants in and around the Earth, from deep underground bunkers, including those in North Korea and Iraq, through land, sea, and air, to outer space. All options for achieving global and spatial hegemony are now on the table. Already, the U.S. military is deployed in 100 different countries.2

Addiction to use of terror by the United States is nothing new. The civilization was founded and has been sustained by use of terror as a primary policy. For example, in 1779, General George Washington ordered destruction of the “merciless Indian savages” of upstate New York, instructing his generals to “chastize” them with “terror.” The generals dutifully carried out these orders. In 1866, General William Tecumseh Sherman ordered “extermination” with vindictive earnestness of the Sioux. They were virtually exterminated. Secretary of War Elihu Root (1899-1904) under President’s McKinley and Theodore Roosevelt, justified the ruthless U.S. military conduct in the Philippines that savagely killed a half-million citizens by citing “precedents of the highest authority:” Washington’s and Sherman’s earlier orders.3

War against nations around the world is not new either. The U.S., over its history, has militarily intervened over 500 times, covertly thousands of times, in over one hundred nations.4 Virtually all these interventions have been lawless. It has bombed at least eighteen nations since it dropped Atomic bombs on Japan in 1945. It has used chemical warfare against Southeast Asia, and has provided chemical warfare agents for use by other nations such as Iraq. It has used biological warfare against China, North Korea, and Cuba. The Koreans are quite aware of most of this history. Most U.S. Americans are not. But now the U.S. has declared a unilateral terrorist war on the whole world.5

Two of the interventions in the Nineteenth Century were inflicted against Korea, the first in 1866. The second, larger one, in 1871, witnessed the landing of over 700 marines and sailors on Kanghwa beach on the west side of Korea seeking to establish the first phases of colonization. Destroying several forts while inflicting over 600 casualties on the defending Korean natives, the U.S. withdrew realizing that in order to assure hegemonic success, a much larger, permanent military presence would be necessary. The North Korean people regularly remark about this U.S. invasion, even though most in South Korea do not know of it due to historic censorship. Most in the U.S. don’t know about it either, for similar reasons, even though in all of the Nineteenth Century, this was the largest U.S. military force to land on foreign soil outside of Mexico and Canada until the “Spanish American War” in 1898.

I believe it important for U.S. Americans to place themselves in the position of people living in targeted countries. That North Korea, a nation of 24 million people, i.e., one-twelfth the population of the U.S., many of them poor, a land slightly larger in area than the U.S. state of Pennsylvania, continues to be one of the most demonized nations and least understood, totally perplexes the Korean people. It is worthwhile to seek an understanding of their perspective.

I recently visited that nation and talked with a number of her citizens. I traveled 900 ground miles through six of North Korea’s nine provinces, as well as spending time in Pyongyang, the capital, and several other cities. I talked with dozens of people from all walks of life. Though times have been hard for North Koreans, especially in the 1990s, they long ago proudly rebuilt all of their dozens of cities, thousands of villages, and hundreds of dykes and dams destroyed during the war.

U.S. interference into the sovereign life of Korea immediately upon the 1945 surrender of the hated Japanese, who had occupied the Korean Peninsula for forty years, is one of the major crimes of the Twentieth Century, from which the Korean people have never recovered. (SEE “United States Government War Crimes,” Foerstel and Willson, Spring 2002 – issue Number One, Global Outlook). From a North Korean’s perspective they (1) have vigorously opposed the unlawful and egregious division of their country from day one to the present, (2) were blamed for starting the “Korean War” which in fact had been a struggle between a minority of wealthy Koreans supporting continued colonization in collaboration with the U.S. and those majority Koreans who opposed it, (3) proudly and courageously held the U.S. and its “crony U.N. allies” to a stalemate during the “War,” and (4) have been tragically and unfairly considered a hostile nation ever since. They have not forgotten the forty years of Japanese occupation that preceded the U.S. imposed division and subsequent occupation that continues in the South. They deeply yearn for reunification of their historically unified culture.

Everyone I talked with, dozens and dozens of folks, lost one if not many more family members during the war, especially from the continuous bombing, much of it incendiary and napalm, deliberately dropped on virtually every space in the country. “Every means of communication, every installation, factory, city, and village” was ordered bombed by General MacArthur in the fall of 1950. It never stopped until the day of the armistice on July 27, 1953. The pained memories of people are still obvious, and their anger at “America” is often expressed, though they were very welcoming and gracious to me. Ten million Korean families remain permanently separated from each other due to the military patrolled and walled/fenced dividing line spanning 150 miles across the entire Peninsula.

Let us make it very clear here for western readers. North Korea was virtually totally destroyed during the “Korean War.” U.S. General Douglas MacArthur’s architect for the criminal air campaign was Strategic Air Command head General Curtis LeMay who had proudly conducted the earlier March 10 – August 15, 1945 continuous incendiary bombings of Japan that had destroyed 63 major cities and murdered a million citizens. (The deadly Atomic bombings actually killed far fewer people.) Eight years later, after destroying North Korea’s 78 cities and thousands of her villages, and killing countless numbers of her civilians, LeMay remarked, “Over a period of three years or so we killed off – what – twenty percent of the population.”6 It is now believed that the population north of the imposed 38th Parallel lost nearly a third its population of 8 – 9 million people during the 37-month long “hot” war, 1950 – 1953, perhaps an unprecedented percentage of mortality suffered by one nation due to the belligerence of another.

Virtually every person wanted to know what I thought of Bush’s recent accusation of North Korea as part of an “axis of evil.” Each of the three governments comprising Bush’s “axis of evil” of course immediately condemned the remarks, North Korea being no exception. I shared with them my own outrage and fears, and they seemed relieved to know that not all “Americans” are so cruel and bellicose. As with people in so many other nations with whom the U.S. has treated with hostility, they simply cannot understand why the U.S. is so obsessed with them.

Koreans were relieved to learn that a recent poll had indicated eighty percent of South Koreans were against the U.S. belligerent stance against their northern neighbors. The North Korean government described Bush as a “typical rogue and a kingpin of terrorism” as he was visiting the South in February, only three weeks after presenting his threatening State of the Union address.7 It was also encouraging that the two Koreas resumed quiet diplomatic talks in March just as the U.S. and South Korea were once again conducting their regular, large-scale, joint military exercises so enraging to the North, and to an increasing number of people in the South among the growing reunification movement there.8

In the English-language newspaper, The Pyongyang Times (February 23, 2002), there were articles entitled “US Is Empire of the Devil,” “Korea Will Never Be a Threat to the US,” and “Bush’s Remarks Stand Condemned.” Quite frankly, all three of these articles relate a truth about the U.S. that would draw a consensus from many quarters around the world.

While in country, together we listened to Bush’s March 14 Voice of America (VOA) radio chastizement of North Korea. First, he stated that the North’s 200,000 prisoner population was proof of terrible repression. Though I had no way of knowing the number of prisoners in the North, any more than Bush did, I do know that the United States had at least 2 million prisoners which is similar in per-capita detention rate to that of North Korea if the 200,000 figure is accurate. Furthermore, the U.S. has a minimum of 3-4 million persons, mostly minority and poor, under parole and probation supervision. The U.S. sweeps its class and race problems into prison.

Second, Bush declared that half the population was considered unreliable and, as a result, received less monthly food rations. The Koreans are a proud people living in a Confucian tradition, having rebuilt their nation from virtual total destruction during the Korean War. I did not notice any obvious display of dissent though some Koreans are desperate due to lack of food, water, and heat, especially in some rural areas. This does not automatically translate into dissent, though some are seeking relief by travel to neighboring countries.9

Third, Bush claimed that Koreans who listen to foreign radio are targeted for execution. Together Koreans and I regularly listened to U.S.VOA radio broadcasts and they freely discussed the content of the broadcasts without fear of reprisals.
Fourth, Bush condemned the DPRK for spending too much on its military, causing food shortages for the people.

[Note: Again it must be remembered that it was the U.S. that unilaterally divided Korea following the Japanese surrender in August 1945, and subsequently ruled with a military occupation government in the south, overseeing the elimination of virtually the entire popular movement of (majority) opposition to U.S. occupation, murdering hundreds of thousands of people.

The consequent Korean civil war that openly raged in 1948-1950 was completely ignored when the U.S. defined the beginning of the Korean War in 1950. The U.S. remains at war with the DPRK, never having signed a peace treaty with her. The war has left a deep scar in the Korean character with a memory that is regularly provoked by continued belligerence directed at the DPRK.

The U.S. regularly holds joint military exercises with South Korean military forces aimed at the DPRK. The U.S. retains 37,000 military troops at 100 installations south of the 38th parallel. The U.S. has its largest Asian bombing range where it practice bombs five days a week, fifty-two weeks a year, despite opposition from most South Koreans.

And now Bush has identified North Korea as part of an “axis of evil” targeted for nuclear attack. This is no remote idea to North Koreans. The U.S. possesses nuclear weapons on ships and planes in the Pacific region surrounding North Korea. Virtually every nation in this perilous position would be concerned about their defense. It is worth noting that the United States is the leading military spender in the world resulting in substantial underfunding of its own indispensable social programs.]

Fifth, Bush accused the DPRK of selling weapons to other nations. That is like the pot calling the kettle black.
The U.S. is by far the largest manufacturer of conventional, nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons in the world. It is also the largest seller of these weapons, and has used conventional (against dozens of nations), biological (Cuba, China, Korea, perhaps others), chemical (Southeast Asia), and nuclear (Japan, and threatened to use them on at least 20 other occasions) weapons.

In addition it has armed other nations with these weapons of mass destruction, including Iraq, one of those countries now identified as part of the “axis of evil.” In the year 2000, international arms sales were nearly $37 billion, with the U.S. being directly responsible for just over half of those sales. South Korea was the third largest buyer of weapons from the United States with $3.2 worth of military hardware.10 And in January 2002, South Korea was seriously contemplating purchasing an additional $3.2 billion worth of 40 F-X fighter jets from U.S. arms giant Boeing.

At the conclusion of this VOA radio broadcast, Koreans and I looked at each other in disbelief. But we also knew that we were in solidarity with each other as part of the human family. When I said goodbye to my new friends we embraced knowing that we live in a single world made up of a rich diversity of ideas and species. We know that we are going to live or die together, and hope that the arrogant and dangerous rhetoric and militarism of the United States will soon end so we can all live in peace.
However, for that to happen, there will need to be a dramatic awakening among the U.S. American people and a corresponding expression of massive nonviolent opposition that will make such threatening behavior impossible to carry out.

Dr. S. Brian Willson is one of the frequent contributors for The 4th Media.

http://www.brianwillson.com/

Notes
1. Bob Woodward, “CIA Told To Do ‘Whatever Necessary’ to Kill Bin Laden,”The Washington Post, October 21, 2001.
2. Bradley Graham, “Pentagon Plans New Command For U.S. Four Star Officer, Would Over See Homeland Defense,” The Washington Post, January 26, 2002.
3. Richard Drinnon, Facing West: The Metaphysics of Indian Hating and Empire Building. New York: Schocken Books, 1990, p. 329.
4. B.M. Blechman and S.S. Kaplan, Force Without War: U.S. Armed Forces As A Political Instrument. Wash., D.C.: The Brookings Institution, 1978, Appendix B; Congressional Research Service (Foreign Affairs and National Defense Division), Instances of United States Armed Forces Abroad, 1798-1993. Wash., D.C.: Congressional Research Service, 1993; William Blum, Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Intervention Since World War II. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 1995; John Stockwell, The Praetorian Guard. Cambridge, MA: South End Press, 1991.
5. William Blum, Rogue State. Monroe, ME: Common Courage Press, 2000; Stephan Endicott and Edward Hagerman, The United States and Biological Warfare: Secrets From the Early Cold War and Korea. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press, 1998.
6. Richard Rhodes, “The General and World War III,” The New Yorker, June 19, 1995, p. 53.
7.“North Korea Calls Bush ‘Kingpin of Terrorism,” Reuters wire story, February 23, 2002.
8.”South Korea Envoy to Travel North,” BBC News Online: World: Asia-Pacific, March 25, 2002. Retrieved March 26, 2002, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/low/english/world/asia-pacific/newsid_1891000/1891457.stm
9. Ji-Yeon Yuh, “North Korean Enemy Should Be Made Friend,” The Baltimore Sun, February 27, 2002.
10. Thom Shanker, “Global Arms Sales Rise Again, and the U.S. Leads the Pack, ” The New York Times, August 20, 2001.

Posted in 4th Media, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND U.S., DPRK AND WAR WITH US, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Korean Issues, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Masters of the Universe, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Neoclassical Theory, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Political Economy, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Uncategorized | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

Tibet: The CIA’S CANCELLED WAR (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

Tibet: The CIA’s Cancelled War
Post Categories: China
Jonathan Mirsky | Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 16:25 Beijing
Print
Lhamo Tsering Collection

tibet orphans_jpg_470x713_q85
Resistance fighters on the Tibetan border during the early years of the CIA’s Tibet program

For much of the past century, US relations with Tibet have been characterized by kowtowing to the Chinese and hollow good wishes for the Dalai Lama. As early as 1908, William Rockhill, a US diplomat, advised the Thirteenth Dalai Lama that “close and friendly relations with China are absolutely necessary, for Tibet is and must remain a portion of the Ta Ts’ing [Manchu] Empire for its own good.”

Not much has changed with the Fourteenth Dalai Lama one hundred years later. After a meeting in 2011 with President Obama in the White House Map Room—the Oval Office being too official—the Dalai Lama was ushered out the back door, past the garbage cans. All this, of course, is intended to avoid condemnation from Beijing, which regards even the mildest criticism of its Tibet policy as “interference.”

However there was one dramatic departure from the minimalist approach. For nearly two decades after the 1950 Chinese takeover of Tibet, the CIA ran a covert operation designed to train Tibetan insurgents and gather intelligence about the Chinese, as part of its efforts to contain the spread of communism around the world.

Though little known today, the program produced at least one spectacular intelligence coup and provided a source of support for the Dalai Lama. On the eve of Richard Nixon’s historic 1972 meeting with Mao, the program was abruptly cancelled, thus returning the US to its traditional arms-length policy toward Tibet.

But this did not end the long legacy of mistrust that continues to color Chinese-American relations. Not only was the Chinese government aware of the CIA program; in 1992 it published a white paper on the subject. The paper included information drawn from reliable Western sources about the agency’s activities, but laid the primary blame for the insurgency on the “Dalai Lama clique,” a phrase Beijing still uses today.

The insurgency began after the People’s Liberation Army invaded Tibet following its defeat of the Nationalists, and after Beijing forced the Dalai Lama’s government to recognize Chinese administration over the region.

In 1955, a group of local Tibetan leaders secretly plotted an armed uprising, and rebellion broke out a year later, with the rebels besieging local government institutions and killing hundreds of government staff as well as Han Chinese people.

In May 1957, a rebel organization and a rebel fighting force were founded, and began killing communist officials, disrupting communication lines, and attacking institutions and Chinese army troops stationed in the region.

By that point, the rebellion had gained American backing. In the early 1950s, the CIA began to explore ways to aid the Tibetans as part of its growing campaign to contain Communist China. By the second half of the decade, “Project Circus” had been formally launched, Tibetan resistance fighters were being flown abroad for training, and weapons and ammunition were being airdropped at strategic locations inside Tibet.

In 1959, the agency opened a secret facility to train Tibetan recruits at Camp Hale near Leadville, Colorado, partly because the location, more than 10,000 feet above sea level, might approximate the terrain of the Himalayas. According to one account, some 170 “Kamba guerrillas” passed through the Colorado program.

While the CIA effort never produced a mass uprising against the Chinese occupiers, it did provide one of the greatest intelligence successes of the Cold War, in the form of a vast trove of Chinese army documents captured by Tibetan fighters and turned over to the CIA in 1961.

These revealed the loss of morale among Chinese soldiers, who had learned of the vast famine that was wracking China during The Great Leap Forward. Over the next decade, however, there was growing disagreement in Washington over the CIA’s activities in Tibet, and in 1971, as Henry Kissinger prepared for Nixon’s meeting with Mao, the program was wound down.

“Although Tibet may not have been on the table in the Beijing talks, the era of official US support for the Tibetan cause was over,” recalled John Kenneth Knaus, a forty-year CIA veteran, in his 1999 book Orphans of the Cold War: America and the Tibetan Struggle for Survival. “There was no role for Tibet in Kissinger’s new equation.”

By 1975, President Gerald Ford was able to say to a skeptical Deng Xiaoping, China’s future leader, “Let me assure you, Mr. Vice-Premier, that we oppose and do not support any [United States] governmental action as far as Tibet is concerned.”

Many friends of Tibet and admirers of the Dalai Lama, who has always advocated nonviolence, believe he knew nothing about the CIA program. But Gyalo Thondup, one of the Dalai Lama’s brothers, was closely involved in the operations, and Knaus, who took part in the operation, writes that “Gyalo Thondup kept his brother the Dalai Lama informed of the general terms of the CIA support.”

According to Knaus, starting in the late 1950s, the Agency paid the Dalai Lama $15,000 a month. Those payments came to an end in 1974.

In 1999, I asked the Dalai Lama if the CIA operation had been harmful for Tibet. “Yes, that is true,” he replied. The intervention was harmful, he suggested, because it was primarily aimed at serving American interests rather than helping the Tibetans in any lasting way.

“Once the American policy toward China changed, they stopped their help,” he told me. “Otherwise our struggle could have gone on. Many Tibetans had great expectations of CIA [air] drops, but then the Chinese army came and destroyed them. The Americans had a different agenda from the Tibetans.”

This was exactly right, and the different goals of the Agency and the Tibetans are explored fully by the Tibetan-speaking anthropologist Carole McGranahan in herArrested Histories: Tibet, the CIA, and Memories of a Forgotten War (2010).

Although sometimes clouded by anthropological jargon, her account fascinatingly explores how differently from their American counterparts the Tibetan veterans remember the CIA operation.

A striking example is the matter of the Chinese army documents, whose capture in a Tibetan ambush of a high-ranking Chinese officer is depicted in grisly detail in a huge painting in the CIA’s museum in Washington. In addition to revealing low Chinese morale, the documents disclosed the extent of Chinese violence in Tibet.

“This information was the only documentary proof the Tibetan government [in exile] had of the Chinese atrocities and was therefore invaluable,” MacGranahan notes.

Yet the documents and their capture rarely came up during her long interview sessions with the veterans. “Why is it that this particular achievement, so valued by the US and Tibetan governments, is not remotely as memorable for [the] soldiers?”

One reason is that the Tibetan fighters were told nothing about the value of the documents, which they couldn’t read. One veteran explains to her:

Our soldiers attacked Chinese trucks and seized some documents of the Chinese government. After that the Americans increased our pay scale. Nobody knew what the contents of those documents were. At that time, questions weren’t asked. If you asked many questions, then others would be suspicious of you.

The leader of the ambush tells her that “as a reward the CIA gave me an Omega chronograph,” but he, too, had little knowledge of the documents’ importance. As McGranahan shows in extensive detail, the veterans were preoccupied above all by their devotion to the Dalai Lama, whom they wanted to resume his position as supreme leader of an independent Tibet.

After the CIA mission was ended, Tibet became increasingly marginal to Washington’s China policy, as Knaus has now made clear in a second book,Beyond Shangri-la: America and Tibet’s Move into the Twenty-First Century. The reality is that American presidents now face a world power in Beijing.

In language that sums up the cats-cradle of American justifications for ignoring Tibet, ex-Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia Marshall Green recalls to Knaus, “there was nothing we could do to help the Tibetans except by improving our relations with the Chinese Communists so that we might be in a position to exert pressure on them to moderate their policies towards the Tibetans.” Green “admitted that this was ‘perhaps a rationalization.’”

President Obama will soon meet the new Chinese leader, Xi Jinping. His advisers will have reminded him of the encounter between his predecessor, Bill Clinton, and then-Chinese president Jiang Zemin on June 27, 1998. In that meeting, Clinton assured Jiang that, “I agree that Tibet is a part of China, an autonomous region of China.

And I can understand why the acknowledgement of that would be a precondition of dialog with the Dalai Lama.” Banking on his well-known charm, Mr. Clinton added, “I have spent time with the Dalai Lama. I believe him to be an honest man, and I believe if he had a conversation with President Jiang, they would like each other very much.” Jiang, it is reported, threw back his head and laughed. Clinton’s suggestion was omitted from the official Chinese transcript.

Jonathan Mirsky

http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2013/apr/09/cias-cancelled-war-tibet/?utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=April%209%202013&utm_content=April%209%202013%20CID_06c53dc2c837c6cf4f8f7624d3429f27&utm_source=Email%20marketing%20software&utm_term=The%20War%20We%20Cancelled


April 9, 2013, 2:29 p.m.

Related articles:
The Truth About Tibet and Dalai Lama
US Meddling In, and Information On, China, Hong Kong, Tibet
U.S.-China Relations: Some Secret History and My Father’s Memories I
U.S.-China Relations Some Secret History Part II
Self-immolation Truth: Tibetan Buddhism Kidnapped by Politics

Posted in 4th Media, China, China-U.S. Relations, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Dalai Lama and Western Imperialism, Decline of the American Imperium, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, Genocide in and From America, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Neoclassical Theory, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, WESTERN DALAI LAMA IMPERIALISM AND FASCISM | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

WHAT NORTH KOREANS THINK: “WE LEARNED THE LESSON IN YUGOSLAVIA, AFGHANISTAN, LIBYA: BE STRONG…” (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

What North Koreans Think: “We Learned the Lesson in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, … : Be Strong.”

from 4th Media

Post Categories: Afghanistan
Stansfield Smith / The 4th Media News | Wednesday, April 10, 2013, 0:51 Beijing
Print

libya460-1

I recently returned from a late March trip to North Korea [Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea, DPRK], along with 45 others, through Koryo Tours. On that tour I had the opportunity to discuss with the Korean tour guides their views on the current situation.

I only recall the DPRK view mentioned here once in the corporate media, when Dennis Rodman returned with a message from new President Kim Jong Un. The message was “I don’t want war, call me.”

Nobel Peace Prize winning President Obama refused to accept it, evidently preferring an escalating threat of a regional nuclear war to talking. I asked my Korean tours guides to be interviewed so I could present their views to US people.

Has the DPRK made proposals for peaceful national reunification?

Yes, now we have options: the historic option of a federal republic, and the recent option. In our history we proposed three principles for reunification: that the North and South unite the country independently of foreign forces, that we reunify peacefully, and that we work together over the years to create the unity of the whole nation.

Our historic option is a federal republic: a central government concerned only with national defense and diplomacy, and two local governments, North and South, handling all other issues.

But recently the situation on the peninsula is deteriorating. There are no signs of resolving the issue. If South Korean provocations continue, war will break out and we are prepared to fight.

Because the situation has deteriorated, that is why we invalidated the 1953 ceasefire agreement. Now there is no contact between North and South. Now there are no phone lines between North and South, there is no hotline.

Now the US and South Korea plan is that the DPRK will collapse. The situation continues to deteriorate. They are playing a dangerous game.

Japan is also very hostile. The present government is very rightwing. It is trying to build a strong military using “dangerous” DPRK as a pretext to justify turning its self-defense force into a regular army. Not only the DPRK, but many Asian countries are concerned with this right-wing Japanese resurgence.

The American people should ask the US government to change its hostile policy. Make America aware of the real situation in the Korean peninsula. Ask the American government to sign a peace treaty and push for diplomatic ties with the DPRK.

Why did the DPRK feel the need to develop a nuclear bomb?

Koreans had to deal with the reality of nuclear weapons twice before. Many thousands of Korans were used as slave labor by the Japanese in World War II, and many of these were forced labor workers in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb.

Later, in the U.S. war in Korean, U.S. General MacArthur wanted to drop 50-70 atomic bombs along the China-Korea border to create a belt of land people cannot live on or cross.

Later in the Pueblo incident in 1968, when the DPRK captured a U.S. spy ship in our waters, President Johnson aircraft carriers with nuclear weapons to Korea. And in 1969 when the U.S. E-C spy plane was shot down over our territory, the U.S. again threatened us with a nuclear attack.

The “Team Spirit” US-South Korea war exercises from the 1970s to the 1990s practiced with using nuclear bombs.

The DPRK joined the International Atomic Energy Agency and became a Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty member in 1985. We wanted to develop cooperation in the field of nuclear energy. Our purpose for joining was to be safe from nuclear attack. But the threat has continued.

In 1994 with our agreement with the US, we froze our nuclear program. In exchange, President Clinton and the US promised to supply us with a light water reactor. As we now know, Clinton only made those promises because the US thought the DPRK would collapse, and so did not need to honor the agreement.

We allowed nuclear inspections until 1999, to show that our nuclear power was only for peaceful purposes. The US broke the agreement in 2002 under Bush, and we resumed using our nuclear power plant.

The Yugoslav war showed us that we need to defend ourselves. We learned from the US that the US has no justice, no fairness. The US respects only power. So the DPRK developed nuclear weapons to have power.

The DPRK needs to allocate resources to meet people’s needs but must spend money on nuclear weapons to protect and defend our country. We learned the lesson in Yugoslavia, Iraq, Afghanistan: be strong.

The DPRK negotiated with the U.S., but the U.S. broke agreements, and increased sanctions five times. When the DPRK would agree to some terms, the U.S. would raise the ante.

The U.S. had said we cannot have nuclear power, because we could use it for bombs. We cannot have satellites because the missiles we send them into space with can be used as military missiles. These things can have dual purpose, one civilian, one military.

They deny us food because they say it can be used to feed the military. If we kept going along with this, they would say we cannot have kitchen knives because we could use them for fighting.

There are slave states and noble states. Noble states develop their own technological infrastructure, GPS, weather reporting, etc., so need satellites. These days satellites are used for many things.

If your country doesn’t have your own technology, you end up a slave state, dependent on other countries. Noble countries are in control of their own development and have a future.

Maybe without nuclear weapons we could already have been attacked by the US in a war. Now our people can live more peacefully. The people of the DPRK are proud we have nuclear weapons, they are a guarantee of peace. Only we on our own can safeguard the peace.

The US has over 1000 nuclear weapons in South Korea – nuclear artillery, nuclear missiles, nuclear bombs, nuclear landmines.

The DPRK has called for a nuclear free Korean peninsula, but this call has been ignored. Now that we saw no choice but to develop nuclear weapons to defend ourselves, we are sanctioned. This is a double standard insulting to our people.

What do the people of the DPRK think of the US/UN sanctions? How do these sanctions affect the people here?

We have been used to coping with U.S. sanctions since 1945. Our people think the sanctions are a clear example of a double standard and a misuse of the UN Security Council. There is no justification for them. Sanctions were applied because of our nuclear bomb tests and satellite launches.

Since World War II there have been 9000 missile/ satellite launches. Four were by the DPRK. There have been 2000 nuclear tests, 3 by the DPRK. But the UN never made a resolution or imposed sanctions against any country for doing that, only the DPRK.

This is a double standard by the UN. It is a misuse of the UN Security Council by the US. Other countries are like US puppets to go along with this.

The sanctions affect every household, every individual in the DPRK. There are power cuts, a heating and energy shortage, a food problem. Even you visiting tourists are affected by the sanctions, as you see with your hotels. [in Pyongyang water and lights were only on certain hours of the day; in other towns it was even less].

There is a lack of oil and spare parts for machinery.

The sanctions threaten any country that trades with the DPRK, so that they must choose who they want to trade with, the DPRK or other countries. Our trade now is really only with China.

How is the food situation now and what role is the US playing?

The food situation is still not satisfactory, and we are still trying to cover our basic food needs with the help of food imports and foreign aid. Repeated US sanctions have stopped food aid. The sanctions have made the food situation worse.

At present US NGOs [Non-governmental organizations] give only some, limited, token medical aid and no food aid. For a period of 7-8 years there was no food aid from the US. The US sanctions are interfering with solving the food situation. It has cut its food aid, and even interferes with other countries providing food aid.

What is the main emphasis in the DPRK’s economic plan now [for the last several years the country had a military first policy]?

The DPRK now emphasizes two points: agricultural production and light industry. Light industry is what you call textiles, food processing, toys, furniture, shoes, and so on. We want to invest and develop more these two areas.

We want to improve the living standard of people. We focus on these two even if the situation is dangerous. Even if war is coming, we will focus on agriculture and light industry until war starts. We must work harder on developing agriculture and light industry.

Now with the nuclear bomb, the DPRK is a little safer and can turn from self-defense spending to light industry and consumer goods investment. You saw in Pyongyang a big conference of 10,000 delegates from light industries all over the country.

They are here to discuss and exchange ideas about how to improve light industry, what has worked in their factories, what has problems, and how to solve them.

How are relations with South Korea since the Sunshine Policy?

[Started by South Korean President Kim Dae Jung and continued by President Roh Moo-hyun, from the years 1998-2008. In this period of less chilly relations between North and South, the heads of state of the two countries met in 2000 and again in 2007. Cooperative business developments began, several thousand South Korean tourists visited the North. Kaesong Industrial Park in the DPRK was opened.]

Since 2008 South Korea has shown only confrontation. There has been no cooperation. South Korea has broken all agreements we have made during the Sunshine policy.

There is no more cooperation, no tourism from the South, no engagement. Now relations are only negative, there are no positive signs.

This is because of both US pressure and a South Korean decision. South Korea President Lee Myung-bak is a right-wing businessman, who changed the situation, just like Bush reversed Clinton’s even moderate degree of cooperation.

The present South Korea president is Park Geun-hye, daughter of South Korean military dictator Park Chung-hee , who was an officer in the Japanese Imperial Army. Cooperation has changed to confrontation. South Korea thinks military pressure on the North, combined with sanctions, will make the DPRK collapse.

Stansfield Smith recently spent a week in North Korea. He can be reached at: stansfieldsmith@yahoo.com


http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/04/08/what-north-koreans-think/

Posted in 4th Media, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND U.S., DPRK AND WAR WITH US, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, Genocide in and From America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Korean Issues, Legal Actions on Genocide, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism and Neoclassical Theory, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Political Economy, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

MAHER ARAR: MY RENDITION AND TORTURE IN SYRIAN PRISON HIGHLIGHTS U.S. RELIANCE ON SYRIA [ONCE] AS AN ALLY

cia-rendition-map3Maher Arar: My Rendition & Torture in Syrian Prison Highlights U.S. Reliance on Syria as an Ally

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/6/13/maher_arar_my_rendition_torture_in

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/04/extraordinary-rendition-torture-report_n_2617809.html

http://www.opensocietyfoundations.org/sites/default/files/globalizing-torture-20120205.pdf

http://takeaction.amnestyusa.org/site/c.goJTI0OvElH/b.1387629/k.F4A8/Extraordinary_Renditions__US_outsourcing_Torture.htm

« Back to Action Item

Amnesty International is concerned by the practice of “extraordinary renditions” in which the United States is transferring individuals for interrogation to countries with a record of using torture. U.S. laws and international treaties prohibit the transfer of suspects to countries where they are likely to face torture. Nonetheless, the U.S. Government is reported to have sent or been complicit in sending individuals to countries such as Jordan, Uzbekistan, Morocco, Syria, and Egypt – all countries the U.S. has criticized for practicing torture. The U.S. Government has not offered a public definition of “extraordinary renditions” nor has it provided public disclosure about this practice. The practice of “extraordinary renditions” is cloaked in secrecy, making it difficult to know how many individuals are affected. Detainees have been denied legal recourse to challenge their detention or prevent their transfer to a country where they may be tortured. There has been little accountability. Congress must act to ensure compliance with U.S. law and protection of basic human rights.

“Extraordinary renditions” contravene U.S. law and international treaties. The United States ratified the UN Convention Against Torture and adopted legislation to help implement the treaty obligations through the Foreign Affairs Reform and Restructuring Act of 1998 (“FARRA”). The Torture Convention prohibits nations from deporting persons to a country where it is more likely than not that s/he will be tortured. FARRA states: “It shall be the policy of the United States not to expel, extradite, or otherwise effect the involuntary return of any person to a country in which there are substantial grounds for believing the person would be in danger of being subjected to torture, regardless of whether the person is physically present in the United States.”

Congressman Edward Markey (MA) has introduced the “Torture Outsourcing Prevention Act” (H.R. 952) and Senator Patrick Leahy (VT) has introduced the “Convention Against Torture Implementation Act” (S. 654) to prevent the transfer of a detainee to a country that has a history of practicing torture. It would require annual reporting of countries that engage in torture, and establish standards for assurances from such regimes for immigration removal and lawful extradition practices. This legislation is an important step in affirming U.S. commitments under both international agreements and domestic laws to prevent torture, and helps restore U.S. credibility.

The case of Mahar Arar brought public attention to “extraordinary renditions.” U.S. authorities detained Arar, a Canadian citizen of Syrian descent, at New York’s JFK airport where he was in transit to Canada. He was detained and interrogated in the United States for several days and denied access to counsel and family. He was flown against his will to Jordan where he reports being beaten during detention. Arar was then forcibly transferred to Syria where he was held for ten months and reportedly tortured. Canadian officials secured his release and he now resides with his family in Canada. The Arar case raises many questions about how the decision was made to deport him to Syria, even though he traveled on his Canadian passport and expressed fear of torture if returned to Syria.

Several other similar cases have since been reported. Swedish authorities are investigating the US capture and transfer of two men, Ahmed Agiza and Muhammed al-Zery, to Egypt where were both were allegedly tortured with electric devices. Additionally, Germany and Italy are pursuing criminal investigations: German citizen, Khaled el-Masri, was taken from a bus in Macedonia and allegedly abducted by the CIA. German prosecutors say they have confirmed parts of el-Masri’s story that he was taken to an American prison in Afghanistan, deprived of water, and interrogated for five months before being told that there had been a case of mistaken identity and left in Albania. El-Masri has since filed a law suit against the United States. Italian prosecutors investigating the CIA’s involvement in the kidnapping of Hassan Mustafa Osama Nasr have indicted 22 CIA agents for kidnapping. Nasr was reportedly kidnapped in Milan, sprayed in the face, forced into a van and taken to Egypt.

Amnesty International USA’s Recommendations:

• Members of Congress should cosponsor and pass H.R. 952 and S. 654, which addresses concerns about “extraordinary renditions”
and prohibits the transfer of a detainee to a country that has a history of practicing torture.
• Congress and the Administration should recommit to uphold U.S. and international law against torture.
• The Administration should provide public information on “extraordinary renditions,” and ensure transparency and accountability relating to all individuals detained by the United States or transferred to countries with a record of torture.

Take action on this issue.

A staggering map of the 54 countries that reportedly participated in the CIA’s rendition program

Posted by Max Fisher on February 5, 2013 at 3:21 pm
Click to enlarge. (Max Fisher — The Washington Post)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/worldviews/wp/2013/02/05/a-staggering-map-of-the-54-countries-that-reportedly-participated-in-the-cias-rendition-program/

After Sept. 11, 2001, the CIA launched a program of “extraordinary rendition” to handle terrorism suspects. The agency’s problem, as it saw it, was that it wanted to detain and interrogate foreign suspects without bringing them to the United States or charging them with any crimes. Their solution was to secretly move a suspect to another country. Sometimes that meant a secret CIA prison in places such as Thailand or Romania, where the CIA would interrogate him. Sometimes it meant handing him over to a sympathetic government, some of them quite nasty, to conduct its own “interrogation.”

The CIA’s extraordinary rendition program is over, but its scope is still shrouded in some mystery. A just-out report, released by the Open Society Foundation, sheds new light on its shocking scale. According to the report, 54 foreign governments somehow collaborated in the program. Some of those governments are brutal dictatorships, and a few are outright U.S. adversaries.

Their participation took several forms. Some, such as Poland and Lithuania, allowed the CIA to run secret prisons in their countries. Many Middle Eastern, Central Asian and European countries handed over detainees to the CIA, some of whom those countries captured on the agency’s behalf. Other states, particularly in the Middle East, interrogated detainees on the CIA’s behalf, such as Jordan, which accepted several Pakistanis. Several, such as Greece and Spain, allowed flights associated with the CIA program to use their airports.

Here’s what the Open Society report has to say about the staggeringly global participation in the CIA program, including a full list of the countries it names:

The report also shows that as many as 54 foreign governments reportedly participated in these operations in various ways, including by hosting CIA prisons on their territories; detaining, interrogating, torturing, and abusing individuals; assisting in the capture and transport of detainees; permitting the use of domestic airspace and airports for secret flights transporting detainees; providing intelligence leading to the secret detention and extraordinary rendition of individuals; and interrogating individuals who were secretly being held in the custody of other governments. Foreign governments also failed to protect detainees from secret detention and extraordinary rendition on their territories and to conduct effective investigations into agencies and officials who participated in these operations.

The 54 governments identified in this report span the continents of Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and North America, and include: Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belgium, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Canada, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Denmark, Djibouti, Egypt, Ethiopia, Finland, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Italy, Jordan, Kenya, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritania, Morocco, Pakistan, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Saudi Arabia, Somalia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sweden, Syria, Thailand, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uzbekistan, Yemen, and Zimbabwe.

I was most curious about the involvement of two governments that are very much adversaries of the United States: those of Iran and Syria. It’s clear that, in both cases, it was an enemy-of-my-enemy calculus. Iran and Syria are both enemies of al-Qaeda and have struggled against Sunni Islamist extremism (Syria’s government is secular, Iran’s is Shia). Here’s the report’s section on Iran:

Iran was involved in the capture and transfer of individuals subjected to CIA secret detention. In March 2002, the Iranian government transferred fifteen individuals to the government of Afghanistan, which in turn transferred ten of these individuals to the U.S. government. At least six of those transferred to U.S. custody were held in secret CIA detention in Afghanistan. These six individuals included Hussein Almerfedi, Tawfik al-Bihani, Wesam Abdulrahman Ahmed al-Deemawi (Wassam al-Ourdoni), Rafiq al-Hami, Walid Shahir al-Qadasi, and Aminullah Baryalai Tukhi.

Iran’s transfer occurred as part of a detainee exchange. Because the hand-over happened soon after the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, Iran was aware that the United States would have effective control over any detainees handed over to Afghan authorities. Amin al-Yafia, another individual believed to have been captured in Iran, in 2002, may have been subsequently held in CIA custody. Yafia’s whereabouts are unknown. See the detainee list in Section IV.

There are no known judicial cases or investigations in Iran relating to its participation in CIA secret detention and extraordinary rendition operations.

The section on Syria is disturbing. That government’s record of horrific abuses has spilled out into the open since the uprising of 2011 became a civil war, with more Syrians subjected to – and speaking out about – a torture regime that sounds as if it were from another century. According to a 2005 article by the New Yorker’s Jane Mayer, quoted in the report, Syria was one of the “most common destinations for rendered suspects.” Government forces, according to the report, held some U.S.-provided detainees in a prison known as “The Grave” for its coffin-sized cells and subjected them to “torture involving a chair frame used to stretch the spine (the ‘German chair’) and beatings.”

Posted in 4th Media, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, Dialectics, eXTRAORDINARY, EXTRAORDINARY RENDITIONS, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Political Economy, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Uncategorized, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , | 4 Comments

[THE] “ILLEGAL WE DO IMMEDIATELY; [THE] UNCONSTITUTIONAL TAKES A LITTLE LONGER.”: KISSINGER IN NEW MASS WIKILEAKS DOCUMENT RELEASE

FROM THE STRATEGIC CULTURE FOUNDATION AND 4TH MEDIA
http://www.strategic-culture.org/news/2013/04/09/illegal-we-do-immediately-unconstitutional-takes-little-longer-kissinger-mass-wikileaks-document-release.html

colors_run_300

‘Illegal we do immediately; unconstitutional takes a little longer’: Kissinger in new mass WikiLeaks document release
News | 09.04.2013 | 06:44

WikiLeaks has published the ‘Kissinger Cables’: its largest public release of documents in nearly a year, totaling some 1.7 million classified files, including information on the US’s secret diplomatic history.

A variety of files have been collected and collated, including from congressional correspondence, intelligence reports, and cables.

Julian Assange, who heads the organization, told the Press Association that the documents were illustrative of the “vast range and scope” of global US influence. He is to present and mark the release of the documents on Monday in a mass-press conference.

Assange is currently residing at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London, under the threat of arrest if he leaves.

Former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger is quoted as saying, “Before the Freedom of Information Act, I used to say at meetings, ‘The illegal we do immediately; the unconstitutional takes a little longer’,”during a 1975 conversation which included a Turkish and Cypriot official.

Among the other information released is the revelation that that the Vatican may have collaborated with the US in supporting the Pinochet coup in Chile, which saw in a regime of bloodshed and disappearances.

In a cable dated 18 October 1973, it is stated that “Archbishop [Giovanni] Benelli, Vatican Deputy Secretary of State, expressed to illing [sic] his and Pope’s grave concern over successful international leftist campaign to misconstrue completely realities of Chilean situation.”

Nazi Belt Buckle

The events which preceded Pinochet’s 17-year dictatorship were dismissed as overblown.

“Bellini labeled exaggerated coverage of events as possibly greatest success of Communist propaganda, and highlighted fact that even moderate and conservative circles seem quite disposed to believe grossest lies about Chilean Junta’s excesses.”

It went on to admit that there had been bloodshed during what they labeled ‘mopping up’ procedures in Chile, but followed it up with the statement that the Junta was making ‘every effort’ to return the situation to normal.

Documents had previously come to light about US involvement in the bloody Chilean coup. One CIA document released in a 2003 book of collected works stated “It is firm and continuing policy that Allende be overthrown by a coup…it is imperative that these actions be implemented clandestinely and securely so that the USG [US government] and American hand be well hidden.”

The WikiLeaks releases additionally suggest that former Indian Prime Minister, Rajiv Ghandi, worked as a negotiator for Swedish company Saab-Scania, which was trying to sell its Viggen fighter aircraft to Chile in the 1970s.

The documents are comprised of the 250,000 leaked state department memos made previously available through the ‘Cablegate’ release, alongside the new 1.7 million US State Department files from Kissinger’s time in the SoS position, from 1973-1976.

Although the 1.7 million had been officially declassified, and accessible through the National Archives and Records Agency, members of the WikiLeaks team consider their importance to be too significant for them to stay subtly tucked away.

“The Kissinger Cables provides unparalleled access to journalists and the general public,” said WikiLeaks in a statement.

Assange himself commented on the role that their publication of the documents’ played in preserving all sides of US history.

“The US administration cannot be trusted to maintain the history of its interactions with the world. Fortunately, an organization with an unbroken record in resisting censorship attempts now has a copy,” he said. He went on to call it the single most significant the single most significant body of geopolitical material ever published.

The lack of accessibility was also commented upon.

“One form of secrecy is complexity. That’s the reason why we decided to merge these files with our existing cables and put a lot of effort into making a user-friendly and accessible database” a WikiLeaks spokesperson, Kristinn Hrafnsson, told Forbes.

WikiLeaks has voiced additional concern over the possibility that some documents could be reclassified.

Julian Assange’s confinement in London’s Ecuadorian Embassy means the country has already spent some $4.5 million on police officers patrolling the building on 24-hour watch. He has been resident in the building since he lost a UK court case demanding his extradition to Sweden.

WikiLeaks dropped a bombshell when it released over 250,000 leaked US cables in 2010, infuriating the US, as many related to the war in Iraq.

The material released by the organization included the infamous ‘Collateral Murder’ video, which was shot from an Apache helicopter gun-sight, and documented direct attacks on unarmed Iraqi civilians.
RT

Posted in Capitalism and Psycho-Sociopathy, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, Genocide in and From America, Government Corruption, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, KISSINGER AS WAR CRIMINAL, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Masters of the Universe, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

DPRK (“NORTH KOREA”) THE GRAND DECEPTION BY U.S. REVEALED: THE TRUTH OF THE DPRK AS A WHOLE–REPORT BY A US-CANADIAN PEACE DELEGATION OF THE NATIONAL LAWYERS GUILD (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

“NORTH KOREA” THE GRAND DECEPTION BY US REVEALED: THE TRUTH OF DPRK AS A WHOLE By US-Canada Peace Delegation

FROM 4TH MEDIA (BEIJING)

Neil Berman, Christopher Black, Peter Erlinder, Jennie Lusk, Eric Sirotkin | Monday, April 1, 2013, 15:22 Beijing
Print

chris black shapeimage_1

Thursday, November 20, 2003

NORTH KOREA: THE GRAND DECEPTION REVEALED

The Preliminary Report of the October 2003 National Lawyers Guild/American Association of Jurists Delegation to the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea
I. The Delegation and its Purpose
II. First Impressions
III. The Role of Lawyers
IV. War Crimes
V. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)
VI. The Countryside and Hours of Talk
VII. The Circus
VIII. Human Exchanges
IX. Particular Observations
A. The Juche idea of Socialism
B. The Role of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il
C. The Legal System
D. Education
E. Health Care
F. Housing
G. Work Conditions
H. Political System
I. Military Service
J. Reunification
K. The Role of Women
X. War and Peace
XI. Final Observations and Future Activities

I. The Delegation and its Purpose

On September 29th, 2003 four lawyers from the National Lawyers Guild of the United States, Peter Erlinder, Professor of Law at the William Mitchell School of Law in St. Paul, Minnesota, Neil Berman, Attorney in Boston, Massachusetts and Eric Sirotkin and Jennie Lusk, Attorneys in Albuquerque, New Mexico as well as a member of the American Association of Jurists, Christopher Black, Barrister in Toronto, Canada, traveled to North Korea, formally the Democratic Peoples’ Republic of Korea (DPRK) at the invitation of the Korean Democratic Lawyers Association (KDLA).

We came to North Korea in order to increase bonds between lawyers in North Korea and the west, as well as to increase understanding between the peoples of North America and North Korea in order to reduce the risk of war between the DPRK and the United States of America.

The visit had several specific purposes: (1) to develop personal and professional relationships with lawyers in North Korea with a view toward understanding their legal system and its role in society, (2) to determine and understand the views of the people of the DPRK with respect to war and peace and its link to the problem of reunification of the “two” Koreas, and (3) to observe as best we could the real situation for the people of the DKRP in the context of the information being propagated in the western press of an Orwellian, totalitarian, impoverished and starving society – allegations which have been used by the United States to justify all its recent wars of aggression. We felt it essential to let the North Koreans know that many Americans and Canadians have a deep desire for peace and oppose the rhetorical “axis of evil” posture announced by the current U.S. administration.

Most of us met in Beijing as virtual strangers, but we parted company days later as friends, transformed by our experience. We came from different backgrounds, different areas of law and represented several political and philosophical points of view. We had one essential thing in common; the real fear of a war between the United States and the DPRK and a deep desire to know the truth. All felt misled over the years by the U.S. government through its misinformation used to justify wars against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq. We no longer accept bald allegations of “widespread violations of human rights”, the need for a “war on terrorism”, war to destroy “weapons of mass destruction,” or the need to fight wars to preserve and expand our Western way of life. As world citizens we felt obliged to reveal the truth and to take steps to build, rather than destroy, relationships, even with those whom we may disagree.

The delegation met with KDLA members, government officials and military officers, and discussed comparative judicial systems and strategies for building bridges for peace between DPRK and the United States. We toured Pyongyang, traveled hundreds of kilometers into the countryside, visited the Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) on the Northern side at the infamous joint use area of Panmunjom, and interviewed U.S. soldiers and business consultants from around the world who, much to our surprise, were discovered working in North Korea,

II. First Impressions

On September 29th we went to the embassy of the DPRK in Beijing to obtain our visas. It was there that our eyes first began to open. Also waiting for visas were a young Irishman who wanted to tour the country and a Canadian representative of Saskatchewan farmers providing aid to North Korean farmers, whose aid is matched by the Canadian government four to one. Before leaving to North Korea we had already become aware of the many nations in Europe and across the planet that have formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK, but we were not ready for the many international contacts we would make over the next week.

On September 30th we went to the international airport at Beijing to board the Air Koryo plane to Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea. It was at the Beijing Airport that the image of an isolated country truly began to dissolve. In the check-in line and afterwards on board the full plane we met our Canadian Saskatchewan consultant, a Swede who was going to help farmers learn how to handle cows, a couple of Congolese diplomats, British journalists, a Russian establishing art exchanges, a teacher from Liverpool and, from the sound of the different accents, people from several other countries.

At the airport in Pyongyang we waited for some time while bags were x-rayed coming into the country. One member reported much of her nervousness dissolve as she waited in line and watched guards laughing and joking with each other. It was not a highly charged and intimidating scene, and was more relaxed than most U.S. airport security.

We were met by Mr. Jo Chol Ryong and Mr. Bang Gum Chan of the Korean Democratic Lawyers Association and taken in a small bus to a large guesthouse just outside the city. It was grey and misty but we tried to take in everything we saw. Our first impression of the city was that it was large city of two million, green, fairly modern, quite beautiful in parts especially near the Taedong River. There were more cars than we had heard about, but their relatively low numbers meant quiet streets with primarily pedestrians and cyclists. People appeared active and heading home after a days work, as in most countries for that time of day.

The initial impression of some off the delegation was that there was a feeling of tension hanging in the air, as if they had been at war for a long time. We received some very questioning stares, but these would become mixed with smiles and inquisitiveness. Some delegates felt tense and a bit disoriented, but this proved to be a clash between our initial fears and concerns, and the stark reality of where we were. As we would tour the country and cities in the next few days, and have more human exchanges, this would dissipate.

Throughout the days ahead we were moved by the level of North Korean pride and determination to overcome obstacles, including diplomatic and economic ones by the United States, and sympathized with their need for perpetual readiness for war and their experience of centuries of invasions and occupations. The Korean experience must be viewed through this lens.

Some of the buildings we passed were impressive in size and style. But we noticed right away the complete absence of any old-style buildings. Nothing in the city was older than 50 years and most was much newer. The American planes had bombed the entire city multiple times in the Korean War and obliterated virtually everything in it. Indeed U.S. reports cite a general ordering a stop to the bombing of Pyongyang since “nothing worthy of a name” was left standing. A 1951 international women’s delegation reported U.S. bombers shooting fleeing civilians in the North Korean countryside.

The Delegation questions why such carpet-bombing of civilian urban areas is rarely prosecuted as a war crime. Clearly in light of the photographs we saw, the leveling of entire cities and civilian targets stands as a heinous act equivalent to the bombing of London, Coventry, Rotterdam, Dresden, Hamburg, Tokyo, and Hiroshima.

Upon arrival we had an unexpected experience. In the lobby of our guesthouse hotel was a large muscular fellow who was clearly not Korean. We asked where he was from and he said Hawaii. We were curious as to why there might be other Americans here and became more curious when he told us he was a Major with the U.S. Military. He was there with his unit on a joint project with the North Koreans to recover remains of U.S. soldiers during the Korean War. This seemed strange as we had been led to believe that we were on the verge of war with this country. Further discussions over the next few days with the soldiers in the unit served as important corroboration for our observations. The soldiers indicated that the DPRK was not what they had been led to expect, that people were very friendly to them and that they had traveled extensively in the countryside and the people appeared well fed. As we would also discover, they said. “Crops were growing everywhere,” In addition, it was surprising that the DPRK permitted the soldiers to install and use a radio to communicate with each other and the U.S. in our Pyongyang guest house.

III. The Role of Lawyers

After settling in we had a formal dinner with our hosts and a lawyer who was head of the Government Liaison for International NGOs, Mr. Ri Myong Kuk. He spoke of the DPRK’s Nuclear Deterrent Force being necessary in light of U.S. world actions. If the U.S. signed a peace treaty and non-aggression agreement with the DPRK, it would de-legitimize the presence of American troops in the South and lead to re-unification, he said. He then turned to all of our roles as lawyers, “It’s important that lawyers are gathering to talk about this as “lawyers regulate the social interactions within society and within the world.” He pointed out that our work parallels the responsibilities inherent on interactions between countries. He agreed that the path to peace includes “having to help open the heart.”

The delegation agree that lawyers have a key role to play in the current situation. The Korean standoff raises serious issues of international law that must be addressed. The history between the two nations is replete with promises and breached promises, something that lawyers deal with regularly. Simple promises, if they had been kept, could have changed the course of human history and despair on the peninsula. For example we read the armistice agreement signed at the DMZ in which Article IV promised, “within three months higher level meetings would be held to settle through negotiation the question of withdrawal of all foreign forces and peaceful settlement.” This was not accomplished because the U.S. refused to meet, despite requests over the years by the North Koreans to meet anywhere and anytime. Over fifty years later the troops remain and no peace treaty has been signed. South Korea never even signed the armistice agreement. The 1953 cease-fire agreement provided that both sides “shall not engage in any blockade of any kind of Korea.” This binding agreement appears to be violated by the U.S. conduct to intercept and discourage the transport of goods, food and other materials to the DPRK.

A lack of good faith in discussions, sometimes referenced in the law of contracts as a covenant of good faith and fair dealing, appears violated in many situations. Wendy Sherman, Clinton’s advisor on North Korea, had indicated that when they entered into the famous Agreed Framework of 1994, wherein the North Koreans would be trading their nuclear capability for two light water reactors and fuel oil, and in exchange for working toward normalizing political and economic relations, the Administration had no intention of complying with the agreement. The Clinton Administration believed the Kim Jong Il administration would collapse long before the U.S. had to provide the reactors. This lack of good faith in international relations surrounding a matter of such importance to the world would be against the common law if the breach of promises were between private parties.

Couple this with the Bush administration declaration of North Korea as a member of the “axis of evil,” and advocating regime change, and we realize that the U.S. must be held accountable for its failure to deal fairing and in good faith with the DPRK. Our research demonstrates that it was the United States that breached nearly all of its obligations under the 1994 Geneva Agreed Framework before the DPRK returned to its nuclear program. The delegation feels that the U.S. government cannot advocate the rule of law and democracy, when in fails to model it itself.

Clearly lawyers play an important part in pointing out breaches of agreements and violations of law, but more importantly we can help to demonstrate why trust has been violated by the conduct of the United States. Our group pondered what types of legal actions could be brought to illuminate the situation and bring peace. This will continue to be explored by the Project.

IV. War Crimes

On our first night we met in out hotel room to de-brief from arrival. The enormity of our task as North American lawyers in the DPRK at this moment in history was clear. As we shared our feelings and thoughts, suddenly the world faded to darkness. The power outage had us scrambling for flashlights, solar lamps supplied in our rooms and candles. It was a strange moment and the silence was a stunning reminder of the role technology plays in our lives. Before leaving we had read articles that claimed that this “hermit kingdom” had no power at night and was a dark spot from space. President Bush presents this map in speeches to claim that “the light of freedom” shines only in the South. Yet, we would learn over the next few nights, and even later that evening, that this too was an exaggeration. We had power throughout the other nights of our visit, and with the exception of an occasional rolling blackout for a few minutes, the lights do shine in Pyongyang. We also saw lights on in blocks of apartment buildings as we drove through Pyongyang at night. We suspect that the photo from space was taken during one of the blackouts.

The next day we were taken around Pyongyang by our hosts to the “Victorious Fatherland Liberation War Museum.” The first part of the Museum addresses the struggle against the Japanese from 1925 until liberation in 1945. The “second stage” of the war is devoted to the war against” U.S. Imperialist Aggressors” and the victory they assert the North Koreans achieved in the war. Clearly the North Koreans, along with some million-plus Chinese forces, did preserve their territory during the war, but at great costs.

Before leaving on the trip we researched extensively about the Korean War in an effort to better understand the feelings and motivations of the North Koreans. We had not realized the extent of the level of destruction and human suffering during the war. In Washington we have monuments to the 53,000 U.S. soldiers who died, but there were more than 3.5 million victims of the war, resulting in one in ten Koreans being wounded or killed. The New York Times reported that 17,000,000 pounds of Napalm were sent to Korea in the first 20 months of the war. The North also suffered years of US bombing that leveled nearly the entire Country. The U.S. commander halted the strikes near the end of the war because, he said, there was “nothing standing worthy of a name.” More bomb tonnage was dropped on Korea by the U.S. than they dropped on Japan in the entire Pacific action in World War II. One delegation member exclaimed before the trip “Can you imagine the pain, anger and mistrust of the equivalent to a twin towers attack in every neighborhood?”

The museum has a broad collection of documents, photos and physical evidence of war crimes committed by the United States and its U.N. allies in the Korean War. The museum holds many documents captured in the American embassy by North Korean forces when they overran South Korean defenses in Seoul. Assuming they are legitimate, which they appear to be, the documents are compelling evidence that the United States planned an attack on North Korea in 1950 and used the South Korean army to claim an attack by North Korea. This allowed the United States to persuade the UN Security Council to vote, in the absence of two of its permanent members, the USSR and China, for support for a UN action under US command to repel the “attack form the North.” The museum presented the vote as invalid because of the absence of the USSR and China, concluding that the U.S. manipulated the absences, rendering the entire “police operation” in Korea illegal. In addition, the conclusion was that the illegal action was a cover for the attempt by the United States to conquer and occupy North Korea with a view toward potential invasions of Manchuria and Siberia. Members of our group took notes of these documents and photographs.

We were later provided with the reports on US War Crimes committed in Korea compiled during the war itself by the International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in 1952 and the Report of the Committee of the Women’s International Democratic Federation in Korea in 1951. The National Lawyers Guild had been part of the IADL, which prepared their report in 1952. The reports are displayed prominently in the Museum and serve as important international legal corroboration of the DPRK positions.

The NLG delegation urges its membership to investigate further DPRK’s allegations that its protests of international law violations have been ignored by the United Nations. The international delegations in North Korea in 1951 and 1952 documented directly the violations, and DPRK evidence of biological and chemical warfare during the Korean War have been confirmed. The delegation urges that the 1951 and 1952 reports be reissued, offering the ill-informed people of the West another truth about the Korean War, and a means of understanding the reality of the fear Koreans live under every day, dreading and fearing a similar attack in the future.

It is important in international affairs to acknowledge and take responsibility for actions. The Japanese has had to express its “heartfelt apologies and remorse” over the pain inflicted in their occupation of Korea. The South African Truth and Reconciliation process has demonstrated that “without truth, you can have no reconciliation.” The atrocities committed under apartheid were exposed and the denial of the white community broken through the “truth” searching process.

The delegation concluded during this trip from their observations and the research already compiled that there were extensive violations of international law and possible war crimes committed during the Korean War that have never been prosecuted or exposed publicly. When the truth is more widely acknowledged, peace and understanding can follow.

The most graphic examples of war crimes became evident during over visit to the town of Sinchon in the province of Hwang Hoe. It was here that troops from the South and U.S. soldiers appear to have engaged in egregious war crimes. We strolled past rows of photographs and depictions of the attacks on civilians and photos of charred and decapitated bodies. Documentation seized from the South supported a policy of hunting and killing Communist party members “and their families.” We saw the documentary evidence of the over 500 people who had been forced into a ditch, doused with gasoline, and set on fire and left to burn to death. We stood in an air raid shelter with still walls blackened with burnt flesh where over 900 people, including, women and children huddled during the onslaught, while U.S. soldiers were seen pouring gasoline down the air vents of the “shelter” and setting it on fire. The murders were allegedly conducted and ordered by a U.S. officer named Harrison, who also dropped lit dynamite down a nearby shelter as well.

When we emerged from the shelter there were hundreds of North Korean soldiers being told the heartfelt story from a woman whose family had died at Sinchon. Her voice shook with emotion and the soldiers watched us carefully as we moved forward to place some flowers at the monument and mass grave site of Sinchon. Shame does not even begin to describe the feelings we experienced at Sinchon, but it has bolstered our commitment to work for peace and demonstrate that war cannot be an option.

V. The Demilitarized Zone (DMZ)

One of the most dramatic moments of the trip came at the DMZ and the infamous joint use bunkers of Panmunjom. However, the drama was not what was expected. Before coming to the DPRK, we had read about the DMZ being the most tense and dangerous place on the planet. We were ready for a highly charged military fortress flanked by machine guns, barbed wire and masses of military personnel. That was not what we discovered.

The standoff at the bunkers where soldiers stare each other down across an imaginary line seemed filled with showmanship and a certain level of absurdity. When we arrived, U.S. and South Korean soldiers, reportedly chosen for their size, watched us through field glasses as we approached the borderline. We met in the joint use shared space and in the building where the armistice agreement was signed. The beautiful hills of the DMZ, along with the five rivers that poor into the lush landscape, make it more suited for an eco-park than a war staging ground.

The drama came not from the military standoff, but from the heart-felt exchanges we had with military officers on the North side of this fractured land. When we arrived and descended the steps of the bus we were met by Major Kim Myong Hwan, the officer in charge of negotiations between the north and south in the DMZ. When he recognized one member of our delegation from a previous trip, they embraced him and a laugh and beautiful smile spread across his face. “Welcome my old friend,” he said. He and Peter then held hands as they laughed and reminisced through translation a short, but meaningful connection from two years prior that obviously had touched both of their hearts.

Major Kim smiled and shared his dreams of having wanted to be a writer or journalist, but described in more somber tones the story that led him and his five brother to “walk the line in the DMZ” as soldiers. He wanted to tell his story to us as Americans and as lawyers “because lawyers bare trust and justice in their hearts.” He softly assured us that their struggle is clearly “with the American Government, not the American people.” He described being “lonely for his family lost” at Sinchon – his grandfather strung up a pole and tortured, his grandmother dying from a bayonet in her belly. Tears welled up ion his eyes as he described his father being orphaned at six years old and his father’s inability as a young child to defend his family. “So we have to do it,” he said. Astutely, he declared that we “do not oppose the American People. We oppose U.S. hostile policy and its efforts to exercise control over the whole world and inflict calamity on other people.”

As we walked along an overlook he pointed to a South Korean outpost that still flew the United Nations Flag. To fly the UN flag, he said, is illegal, when they are not commanding nor funding the operation. The UN exists “to ensure peace,” not push to ignite a war. He regretted the UN supporting role in the war, but then stated that today most countries that took part in the UN operation now have formal diplomatic relations with the DPRK. He understood very well that “the UN is sometimes misused by the United States.”

At another location some miles away on the DMZ we met a Colonel who set up field glasses through which we could see across the divide. We could see a concrete wall built on the South side, a violation of truce agreements. The major described such a permanent structure as a “disgrace for the Korean people who are a homogenous people.” A loud speaker continuously blared propaganda and music from speakers on the south side. The irritating noise goes on for 22 hours a day, he said. Suddenly, in another surreal moment, the bunker’s loudspeakers began belting out the William Tell overture, better known in America as the theme from the Lone Ranger.

The Colonel urged us to help people see what is really going on in the DPRK, instead of basing their opinions on misinformation. He told us “We know that like us the peace loving people in America have children, parents and families.” We told him of our mission to return with a message for peace and that we hope to return someday and “walk with him together freely in these beautiful hills.” He paused and said, “I too believe it is possible.”

VI. The Countryside and Hours of Talk

Much is written about the alleged starvation, even referred to as intentional, of the North Korean people by their government. On our trips in the countryside, both north and south of Pyongyang, we covered nearly 500 kilometers. During that time we had the opportunity to see agricultural communities and small towns. We noticed that the people on the whole looked well dressed and active. We saw no one who looked malnourished or emaciated and our observations were confirmed by many of the foreigners we met who had dealings around the country. The DPRK has very little are able land and we saw crops being harvested everywhere it was possible to grow them. It appears every square inch of arable land is cultivated, and on the roofs of their country cottages people had planted vines of what looked like melons or squash. The people we passed on the road or in rural towns looked relaxed. The images of children heading to school or playing, or women sitting side saddle on bikes as their husbands pedaled, provided human moments that make war unthinkable. No one seemed dispirited or broken.

We noted that this was not the Orwellian society George Bush and much of the media is trying to portray. The countryside appeared to us to be more typical of the poorer part of Europe, for example rural Greece, or Spain or Portugal. Three members of the delegation who had experience in Africa noted that the country appeared much more prosperous than most places they had been in Africa. This was confirmed by the Congolese visitors we met, who indicated that people in many parts of the Congo would love to have the standard of living apparent in North Korea. The landscape, with its mountains in the background, and ravines, its trees, its rivers and arid parts, and houses with white walled, ochre tiled roofs was similar to southern parts of Europe.

Another surprise was the absence of a police presence throughout the country. We never saw a single policeman with a gun or even a club. The only police we saw were police officers, mainly women, directing traffic at certain intersections. There were occasional guard stations along the road down south as we approached the DMZ. We saw soldiers in many places, usually helping harvest crops or working in the fields or helping on a construction site. But we rarely saw a soldier armed. The contrast between North Korea and its lack of policemen and North America in which armed police in bulletproof vests are commonplace was more than striking – it was startling. If the presence or absence of armed policemen is a criterion for a free society then this speaks volumes about the nature of the two societies.

The towns we passed through although not rich by any means appeared prosperous enough and we could see factories in operation as well as farming. There was clearly a lack of farm machinery as most of the farming we saw was done by manual labor, but this is at least in part due to fifty years of sanctions, the inability to purchase the proper equipment, and fuel shortages related, in part, to shifts in policy by the DPRK in reliance upon the 1994 Agree Framework. We also saw several unrepaired bridges washed out and damaged during the floods in 1995-96 and more recently during a typhoon which devastated the country. We learned that the floods had been catastrophic, wiping out crops and homes, bridges and hydro-electric stations, and flooding mines. It is clear that they suffered from a series of calamities that would have left any country in devastation, regardless of its economic policies. It is to their credit that, despite these disasters, despite the continuing US economic embargo, and despite efforts among some nations to delay food and other aid in the hopes the current government will collapse, they have managed to survive and revive their economy and provide a basic standard of living. They freely admit that after the floods food shortages caused serious deprivations.

VII. The Circus

International relations can sometimes seem like a circus. So it was no surprise when we found ourselves one evening attending a circus performance in Pyongyang. It was a Cirque du Soleil type performance, with acrobats, ice-skating, and a live orchestra. The breathtaking spectacle was made more remarkable by the presence of a large number of soldiers and sailors in the audience who laughed loudly at the clowns and comics and oohed and aahed like the rest of us at the high wire acts. The monolithic robotic repressive army described in the western press became as it appears, a mere figment of the imagination, as we shared joy and laughter rather than threats and rhetoric. We realized that the governments of nations often forget that the alleged “enemy” is really made up of people with hearts and feelings, and that armies are often staffed by teenagers and young men and women. We are walking a tightrope in a nuclear standoff, but for a moment, all differences faded and smiling together at the folly of humanity ruled the day.

The circus also further dissolved the stories of North Korea’s isolation. People attending came from different parts of the world, and from everyday North Koreans as well. But most surprising was when a young man who asked in English where we were from approached us after the performance. It turned out he was with a group of tourists from… South Korea!

VIII. Human Exchanges

The key to the success of any delegation is to have as much human exchange as possible and to then encourage governments to address international relations through a human filter. Former Archbishop Desmond Tutu has eloquently stated that

Their humanity is caught up in our humanity, as ours is caught up in theirs…when I dehumanize you, I inexorably dehumanize myself….

One of our final contacts with people came picnicking along side groups of North Koreans along a crystal clear river in the mountains. We were surprised at the relaxed atmosphere among the people themselves and with us. After learning that there were Americans there, one group next to us sent us over a huge plate of clams. We spoke with them and exchanged hopes for peace and relayed greetings from the millions of peace-loving Americans. As we walked another group wanted to take our photos and to sing them a song. While the delegation disavows any notion of in-tune group harmony, we sang “We Shall Overcome” as the group clapped and smiled joyfully at this likely first for both of us. As we finished they surrounded us and joyfully filled our pockets with apples, as our eyes filled with tears of appreciation. Little did we know upon going to this country, where its populace was allegedly being starved, that we would have our pockets stuffed with produce!

When we returned to our hosts at our picnic site, we were entertained with beautiful Korean songs with each of them taking turns. Playfully each person would finish singing and they would point to another who had to step up and sing. We know that if the contest between the lawyers of each nation were singing that this would have ended with our defeat quite swiftly! We ended up singing old anti-war and protest songs by a creek in the woods of North Korea with pockets bulging with fruit. The threat of war seemed not only far away, but inconceivable.

On our way back to Pyongyang we stopped at a resort hotel in a valley below the picnic area to drop off our hostess who had prepared the food for our picnic, only to run into busloads of Chinese tourists. Isolation does not appear to be the objective of the DPRK. We remember that it was the government based Democratic Lawyers Group that had reached out and invited us to the DPRK.

On a side note, during these days with our hosts and with others we met we never got the impression that anyone felt afraid to talk to us or to approach us or to answer our questions. On the contrary, we were constantly impressed by the sincerity and directness of the Korean people. Our two hosts, Mr. Jo and Mr. Bang earnestly tried to answer all our questions on very aspect of society. No question seemed off limits or answered in an apparent desire to avert the truth. As trial lawyers we have substantial experience and training in telling when someone is being evasive or untruthful. As a group we concluded that we were not being misled, nor were answers intended to divert us from a deeper inquiry. We covered the gamut, including women’s involvement in the high levels of government, criminal justice, capital punishment, crimes against the state and nuclear weapons. Our hosts seemed eager to provide us information and share their experiences. We were treated to the sharing of family photos and laughter over children, ping-pong and the state of the world.

Others we encountered and spoke to also appeared to us to be sincere and direct in their responses to our questions and honestly were trying to make us understand them as a people and to understand their brand of socialism in Korea. We never felt we were being manipulated or used and we were not paraded in front of the media or used for any internal propaganda purposes. We felt like honored and respected guests.

IX. Particular Observations:

A. The Juche idea of socialism

Our delegation began an exploration of the Juche form of socialism developed by the North Koreans to better understand the goals and intentions for society in North Korea. An interesting expansion of socialist philosophy is present in the very symbol of the nation and Juche, wherein the hammer and sickle are joined by an artist’s calligraphy brush, symbolizing the intellegencia and artists, along with the industrial and agricultural workers.

In simple terms Juche is the Korean word for independence, which is the basis of their external and internal policies. The North Koreans consider that no country can maintain true independence of action unless they are truly sovereign. Having experienced multiple invasions over 5,000 years and believing that socialism can be constructed in a single country if the motivation is there, the North Koreans try to maintain as much independence as possible while recognizing their interdependency with the outside world. They also translate this into society itself. “Juche” is often translated as “self-reliance.”

For the North Koreans, Marx and Lenin were great revolutionaries insofar as analyzing capitalist society and its transformation into socialism is concerned, but they could not and did not understand what it meant for human beings to live in a socialist society. These 19th century philosophers could only speculate about what a socialist society would be like. The North Koreans believe that it was Kim Il Sung who developed a philosophy of a socialist society. While statutes and murals abound to the later founder of the Country, Kim Il Sung, we observed no references to Marx and other international socialist leaders.

The Koreans believe they have a way of looking at society that can maintain socialism and the revolutionary and humanistic forces that are needed too maintain and improve it. Kim Il Sung stated that individuals in the society must have independence, creativity and consciousness. If any one of those three is missing no one can be a complete progressive human being and no socialist society can exist. It is the North Koreans’ contention that the fall of the USSR can be primarily ascribed to the mistake of the Soviets in failing to create and sustain this idea and spirit in the USSR, the result being a loss of faith in the revolution in the USSR and a regressive slide back into capitalism.

This appears also to be their concern for China as well, that it has slipped into capitalism due to a complete misunderstanding of what a socialist society is and can be both for the collective society but also for the individual as well. Certainly our delegation’s observations in Mainland China supported that the market system is booming and that vestiges of Mao’s China appear hidden in the seams.

This notion of the role of the individual in socialist society and how it is actually being played out in North Korea will be one of the topics for further delegations to follow-up on. Whether the North Koreans can maintain their approach with increasing joint ventures with corporations and further tourism remains to be seen. Furthermore, unlike stated justifications for isolating other socialist regimes over the years, such as their desire to export revolution, similar concerns seem inapplicable in the North Korean context. We appear to be maintaining this state of war and isolation, not because they are a threat to the rest of the world, but soley because of their ideology.

B. The Role of Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il

The U.S. government and press have continually demonized the leadership of North Korea as “evil dictators,” the “last emperors”, “ruthless.” and murderers of their own people. In fact, the U.S. President G.W. Bush went so far as to make insulting and discriminatory comments, calling Kim Jong Il a “pygmy” and that “little” dictator. This attack on leaders that appear to harness great respect from within their country appear misguided and intended to thwart peace. The delegation voiced concerns as to whether efforts to demonize and dehumanize another country’s leader aids in preparing the American people for another war. Saving face in Korean society, called ch’emyon, is very important and we urge our leaders to understand Korean culture when they deal with this complex nation. We cannot be respected unless we respect others.

One afternoon we visited the birthplace of Kim Il Sung, the first leader of the DPRK. He appears highly respected and much loved here because he fought his entire life for the sovereignty, independence and dignity of the Korean people, first against the Japanese, then against the Americans. Despite the allegations made by some in the west that a “personality cult” exists in North Korea, that was not our impression. On the contrary we found that their former leader Kim Il Sung is regarded in much the same way as people regard, for example, Mao in China, Churchill in WW II Britain, or Washington in the United States. Our visit to the birthplace, as one delegation member noted, might have been a stroll around Mt. Vernon – the home of George Washington.

Kim Jong Il appears to be respected as someone who continues to fight for the same principles as his father. He was not immediately appointed after his father’s death, but took a long period of mourning. The Korean Workers Party and National Assembly took much time and allegedly engaged in extensive discussion before electing him. He had been heading the military for some time and continued in this role in the interim. However, there appears to have been some chaos and an actual vacuum of leadership during this time-period. This may have contributed to the economic struggles of the late 1990’s.

We learned that under the Juche principle, a strong leader is necessary to guide the will of the collective as represented in the Workers Party and the Assembly. However, as discussed below, the North Koreans have an elaborate system from the shop or farm level up to receive input on key national issues. How well this is utilized is a project for further delegations, but to assert that there is no democratic participation, only top-down decisions, in the DPRK appears an exaggeration.

We did not meet Kim Jong Il, something that appears possible on a later delegation. We also cannot on such a short trip have sufficient time to assess the basis of his apparent support. However, the absence of weapons and visible military intimidation makes the usual explanation of a brutal intimidating dictatorship suspect. We do know that a state of war leads to a nation rallying around its leadership and North Korea has had the threat of war hanging over it for over fifty years. Until there is peace, it is unlikely that we will fully understand the strengths and weaknesses of the current leadership.

From all observations, in light of the survival of their nation under great pressure and great obstacles, it appears that there are many positives that are overlooked by the simplistic rhetorical bashing of the media. We can only conclude that the people we met appear to have genuine respect for the insights and actions of the “Dear Leader” who is guiding their country. Yet, we questioned whether challenging him openly would result in prison or other penalty. From our own experiences in the U.S. or Canada, we have seen people in our own countries persecuted for their beliefs and opinions. We have watched while Muslims are attacked or detained without due process, teachers fired if they opposed the war and brutal attacks by police against those opposing the war in Iraq. Look at the reaction to Michael Moore as “disloyal” for calling the war fictitious and saying to President Bush “Shame on you, Mr. President.”

Our hosts answered that such challenges to the Leadership rarely happen. The reasons for this might be tied to the Juche philosophy, the reluctance to question a leader during a state of war (something Americans can relate to), peer social pressure or, as some in the West allege, fear of retaliation. We simply cannot know about a broad cross-section of DPRK citizens from our short trip. As more delegations travel to the DPRK, and a peace economy and society prevails, we will begin to understand this relationship more.

One morning we traveled to the north of the country to beautiful Mt. Myohyang and the Museum of Presidential Gifts. The museum itself is impressive in size and architecture, but its placement is stunning. One overlook where we enjoyed some ginseng tea took our breath away and several of the delegation noted it was one of the most beautiful spots they had ever seen. The museum contains all the gifts given to Kim Il Sung and Kim Jong Il by visitors and leaders of other countries. The stated purpose of the museum is to share the gifts with all of society, but it also serves to project to the people the respect given to their leadership by the international community. These gifts comprise all types of works of art and other objects from every country in the world including the United States. It was a spectacular display of fine artwork, furniture and even a car.

Some of the gifts were breathtaking, some surprising. For instance there were two gifts from Jimmy Carter and even one from the Reverend Billy Graham, described as “the religious leader of America.” Whether that is Mr. Graham’s description of himself or the Koreans’ misunderstanding or an exaggeration of his position was unclear. Yet, most Americans would not have realized in this world of myths and rhetoric that the North Koreans not only allowed Billy Graham to come to North Korea, but permitted him to preach in churches there.

The delegation came away from North Korea believing that the U.S. administration spends too much time demonizing the leadership of North Korea and forgetting that it is also a nation of millions of people who are peace-loving and, in the words of the North Korean Colonel we met at the DMZ, of people who “have children, parents and families.” Even our own experience shows that during times of threats and war, the best and worst in governmental leaders comes out. When former U.S. Jimmy Carter went to North Korea in 1994 it was in part because he was shocked that with a crisis brewing, no one was speaking with Kim Il Sung. Carter and Kim met, dined together, took a boat trip and lived the Winston Churchill declaration that it is always better to “talk, talk, talk than to fight, fight, fight.” From the understandings of the needs of each side in that meeting, an agreed framework was negotiated by the Clinton White House that reduced the threat of war.

It is clear that the North Korean leadership is willing to meet at anytime with the United States. Secretary State Madeline Albright found Kim Jong Il to be not what she had expected in her visit to Pyongyang. In fact, Kim Jong Il had invited Bill Clinton in 2000 and a trip was being discussed at the end of his administration, but the election debacle of 2000 and developments in the Middle East ended that dream.

The delegation is greatly saddened by the shift from a policy of dialogue to one of demonization and commits to work to reverse this dangerous and provocative trend. It welcomes quite recent moves in the Bush administration to reconsider signing a non-aggression agreement, but urge them to also establish formal diplomatic and economic relations and agree on a timetable to remove U.S. troops. It takes more than promises to be non-aggressive, as a nation’s actions must reflect their words.

C. The Legal System

We were told that the legal system is based on the Napoleonic Code, but it appears to be more in line with the German Civil code, as introduced by the Japanese. There is a structured court system in both the criminal and civil fields, and that there is a system of family and tort law as well. In our short trip we could not learn the details of the DPRK legal system and we need to go back to learn more. We asked to be taken to courts and law faculties to speak to professors and students, but due to the short nature of the trip, and a misunderstanding about our arrival date, it was not possible to arrange. We have also asked to visit courts, but it was not possible on this trip.

Through discussions and research de discovered that the law of criminal procedure provides that court proceedings shall be open, but also contains a clause that allows a hearing to be closed if “there is a fear of exercising a bad effect on society.” Such a provision could lead to abuses and to better understand it we need a sense as to how many proceedings are really open. Is it used more broadly than some of the privacy and national security claims made in the U.S., or the current military tribunals for alleged terrorists, to justify closed or secret hearings? However, our hosts assured those of us from the delegation who plan to return, that our future delegations would include visits to the courts and meetings with more lawyers and judges.

We were struck by the design of the DPRK criminal justice system. We even found in a bookstore the Criminal Procedures Act of the DPRK in English. Several principles seem quite progressive and reflect more of restorative justice, than retributive justice. The prime objective of the criminal justice system is rehabilitation or setting an example, not punishment,. There is an element of the latter, as there are jail terms for crimes, but this is not the major thrust of their system. In fact, they have codified a process by which those affected by the decision or the conduct of the accused have a real role in the process and those that contributed to the delinquent act or were involved in educating the person (i.e. a parent or friend) have to be available in the process to receive a “lecture” from the court. Penalties include submitting the accused to “social” or “public education.” Those arrested are required to have their families notified within 48 hours. A defense counsel is to be provided to represent the rights of the accused.

We were told that there was no death penalty and that the maximum penalty for any crime is 12 years, with the objective being to try to determine why the person committed the crime and to help that person become a productive member of society. A lack of a death penalty was seen by the delegation as a sign of a civilized nation. There appear to be labor camps where people work out their sentences. No effort was made to hide the presence of these camps. The U.S. media’s recent reports on the poor conditions, high mortality rate and lack of proper care or food, in the camps requires further investigation. In light of the false and exaggerated claims about starvation in the country in general, these reports must be viewed with a grain of salt. We will ask to visit these camps on future delegations.

We asked about the penalties for crimes against the state and whether there was a separate system for those crimes. There is not, but provisions are made for crimes that present a “social danger.” This seems consistent with a socialist society organized around the “common good,” but very general and could be subject to abuse. How it is applied remains to be discovered. However, the North Koreans we met with seemed professed to not understanding how someone would really formally challenge the decisions of the collective, as there is, according to them, an elaborate mechanisms for participation and input at various levels off society.

D. Education

As in Cuba, education is free up to Ph.D level. University students are paid a small stipend. Universities and specialty colleges have been established for all regions of the country and entry is by competitive examination. Any student can apply to go to any university or college as long as they pass the entrance examination. After the completion of their education DPRK tries to place the students in the field in which they are trained. Apparently the country has the capacity to enroll between 40 and 60% of the high school students in university at this time.

E. Health Care

Again as in Canada, Cuba, and much of Europe, health care is completely free of charge. Moreover, doctors make house calls in rural areas. Every city has a main hospital and there are specialty hospitals in the larger towns. The system is then composed of regional, district and local clinics all staffed by doctors and nurses so that no one in the country is without medical care. Further, doctor visits each village or city district to ensure preventive techniques are used and that people are doing their best to keep fit. There is an on-going keep fit program in place in the country in which the population has to maintain a certain level of fitness appropriate for age categories. However, in light of economic sanctions there is a shortage of medical supplies.

The floods and drought periods caused disruption of the food supply and caused malnutrition but this appears to have been overcome and the population generally appeared in good condition. Contrary to claims that the disabled are hidden away by the secret regime, we observed disabled people in public who needed canes or had amputated limbs. Further, a woman with a developmental disability was among the friendly picnickers we encountered. According to the North Koreans, parents of children born with chronic conditions receive an extra stipend for their care at home, so long as they are able to stay in the home.

F. Housing

Housing is also free and consists either of fairly modern high rises or traditional cottage style houses with brick walls and tile roofs. While many of the high rises looked in need of paint or plaster, they appeared well kept and clean. On an evening drive through Pyongyang one of our delegation observed beauty and barber shops on the ground floor of an apartment building. We also observed work crews working on refinishing buildings within Pyongyang. While the homes lack many modern conveniences, we saw TV antennae attached to many of them. Housing is allotted by local peoples’ committees in each area who decide who in the area gets which accommodation taking into account various family needs and availability. Young people who are single and not away at school generally live with their parents until marriage at which time they are provided free accommodation.

G. Work Conditions

Labor unions exist but strikes are almost unknown as the government consults with the unions and managers on all aspects of work including wages and work conditions on what seemed to be a consensual basis. More needs to be learned about this process and the issues of unions in socialist states with only governmental employers are very complex. The next delegation hopes to tour plants and meet with worker groups.

Miners and steel factory workers—those whose labor is most dangerous and difficult — earn more than lawyers or doctors. The professionals take their reward out of the mental satisfaction of the job itself and the prestige which comes with it. So, unlike our society, it is those who work the hardest physically who make the most. Workers are encouraged to speak out if they have ideas on improving things and committees exist at the shop levels for input.

We received some magazines showing the foreign trade of the DPRK. One publication asserts that it has trade with over 100 countries and the government claims as a basis of trade policy that it is based on “the principle of independence, equality and mutual benefit.” The manufacturing sector produces generators, compressors, pumps, automobiles and trains; mines include lead, zinc, cadmium and steel. We saw photos taken within plants of very modern looking equipment, but did not have time to tour facilities. The textile plants and silk mills produce items and the many rivers make fisheries a growing business. Of interest was their development of solar battery production, seawater plants for health and longevity, peppermint oil, Insam ginseng and medicinal herbs.

H. Political System

As in Cuba and other one party socialist societies, North Korea has a system of direct democracy in which elections are held for local peoples committees, district and provincial committees and to the Supreme People’s Assembly. The absence of other parties is not considered a failing, as the entire society is socialist. The question of multiple parties did not even seem understandable to those we spoke to. The delegation questioned whether within that system, there is in fact more participatory democracy than in the American federal system or the parliamentary system in which democracy ceases to operate once the elections are over. It is more circular, with local committees sending up to the next level requests, complaints and so on and so on up to the national level with discussion, at least in theory at these levels and then feedback to the local level until an agreement is reached based on resources available and circumstances.

However, the issue is not whether we agree with DPRK’s system or feel that our democracy is better or more just. The sharing of ideas, principles and approaches can only come after establishing trust and building relationship. The delegation feels that it is incumbent on the United States to commit to peace and demilitarization of Korea and to agree to more exchanges. Through these exchanges ideas also change hands and both societies can benefit from the dialogue. Certainly we cannot say that only one political system is successful and generates a participatory and healthy society. We hope that future delegations can learn more about political dialogue within the DPRK system and share the pros and cons of our system without blame or judgment.

I. Military Service

Military service is compulsory for young men and lasts for three years. Young men can choose to defer their service until after university. Women are not obliged to serve in the armed forces, but a significant number do so out of a feeling of duty to the defense of the country. Substantial pride was evident in the manner in which troops appeared to hold themselves in public and through our personal contacts with officers at the DMZ as discussed above.

J. Reunification

The goal of the DPRK and the Republic of Korea (ROK) has been to reunify the country. Kim Il Sung, just prior to his death in 1994, wrote a statement that declared that the two countries must make all efforts to achieve reunification. A monument to that historic document is found on the north side of DMZ. The country has been one for 1300 years, and two for only 58. In 2000, a joint declaration arose after a meeting between the Presidents of the two splintered nations to use respective proposals for a confederation to promote reunification. They agreed to economic cooperation and exchanges in “civic, cultural, sports, public health, environment and all other fields.” The delegation urges the U.S. to support, rather than continue to frustrate, these efforts and exchanges. If the South Koreans can commit to such relations isn’t it incumbent upon the U.S. to follow its lead?

The DPRK officials provided us with their written proposal for unification that calls for a Federation with a joint Supreme Assembly to pass laws for the federation, but one that allows each side to maintain its systems of government. Whether this is achievable remains uncertain, but the point remains that both sides want to have a united and peaceful nation. Therefore, it is our observation that the U.S. “defenses” may be doing more than “protecting” the South Koreans.

In fact, a unified and peaceful Korea, with a combined population of 77 million people, coupled with the growing economic power of China and the increased trade with Japan, makes Asia an increasing threat to the economic prowess of the United States. Already China is the largest manufacturing country in the world and has had an unparalleled growth rate of 10-15% per year for over twenty years. It was the opinion of the delegation that by maintaining instability in Asia, the U.S. can maintain a massive military presence and keep China at bay in its relations with South and North Korea and Japan and use it as a lever against China and Russia.

With the pressure to remove the U.S. bases in Okinawa, the Korean military operation remains a central point of American efforts to dominate the region. Furthermore, when read in light of the Cheney/Rumsfield and right wing pronouncements for a New American Century and the Clash of Civilizations, wherein they plan to fight several simultaneous theatre wars to preserve Western culture against Islam and then Asia, it is clear there is more at work here than we are being told.

K. The Role of Women

Most of people we spent extensive time with were men. We asked about the Supreme Assembly and saw photos of it. Women had not achieved proportional representation there In talks about gender issues there appears to be a great deal of respect for women, and an indication that they are recognized as capable for any job. However, whether this translates into a cultural paternalism was not clear. Clearly the dress is conservative and women did not appear objectified in the same ways they sometimes are as in the west. We met several very strong assertive women who were guides at some of our stops and who clearly and strongly put forth the Country’s positions. However, our nightly dinners with DPRK lawyers were all male. Further, the women entertainers and guides we encountered were often in “traditional” dress of organza in stark contrast to the garb of women in other jobs. The North Koreans have invited us to send a woman’s attorney delegation this next year and assured us that they would make arrangements to have the delegation meet with women lawyers and judges.

X. War and Peace

The U.S. military estimates that a new Korean war would lead to as many as I million people killed, including 80-100,000 Americans, out of pocket expenses of over $100 billion and an impact on the region of over 1 trillion dollars. Therefore, war is not a viable or civilized option. Yet, the U.S. continues to spend from 20-30 million dollars a year to maintain equipment and the military in South Korea. The delegation feels that this money could easily be diverted to the U.S. for health care or other important social functions.

The fundamental foundation of North Korean policy is to achieve a non-aggression pact and peace treaty with the United States. The North Koreans repeatedly stated that they did not want to attack anyone, hurt anyone or be at war with anyone. But they have seen what has happened to Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq and they have no intention of having that happen to them. It is clear that any U.S. invasion would be defended vigorously and that the nation can endure a long, arduous struggle.

The DPRK has given mixed signals on whether or not it has nuclear weapons. It refers to a “nuclear deterrent force.” One officer told us that they do not have such weapons and other officials indicated that they did. So one can conclude nuclear deterrent force exists, though it may be bluster to make the US think twice about an attack.

Nevertheless, the question is not whether the DPRK has such weapons, but whether the U.S., which has nuclear arm capability on the Korean peninsula, is willing to work with the North toward a peace treaty. In the end the cat and mouse game of “do they or don’t they” begs the question. We found North Koreans avid for peace and not attached to having nuclear weapons if peace can be established. However, in this age of “regime change” in Iraq, “pre-emptive war” doctrines, the U.S. efforts to develop low yield nuclear weapons and its abandonment of international treaties, it was not surprising to us that the DPRK would play the nuclear card. The tragedy is how can the American people fail to demand that their leaders exhaust all avenues of dialogue and peacemaking before even contemplating aggression and the continual deceptions being spun to justify maintaining a state of militarism on the Korean Peninsula.

XI. Final Observations and Future Activities.

Multiple reasons exist for having international delegations such as ours. First, we can be witnesses for peace and observe what is going on in another country. Second, we can carry messages of peace and friendship to countries under attack by our policies. Finally, we can carry back information to our country to have people better understand what is going on. We have engaged in all of these tasks and will continue to perform them. The above report seeks to share our observations and activities.

We are currently planning three delegations in the year 2004 and have invited DPRK to the National Lawyers Guild Convention in October 2004. One of the delegations will focus on women’s issues and one will combine the trip with a visit to South Korea for a regional progressive lawyers conference.

As to messages of peace we have taken steps to share them at every opportunity. Congressman Dennis Kucinich told the delegation to carry a message to Kim Jong Il that “there is someone running for President who won’t demonize him, genuinely believes in peace between our nations and will stop all the rhetoric.” At Mt. Myohyang we left a written message for all visitors to see that was immediately written out and translated in Korean:

To the People of the DPRK:

Thank you for the many inspirations from our trip to Mt. Myohyang and across the country. We carry you in our hearts as we head back to the United States and Canada to work for Peace, Friendship and a positive future for our nations and the our world.

The USA/CANADA NLG Peace Delegation October 2003

When we met with groups of people in parks or at gatherings, or even with soldiers along the DMZ, we let them know that there are millions of peace-loving Americans who are supportive of a peaceful co-existence with the DPRK. As with Americans before we left, the Koreans seemed relieved and hopeful that our trip can play a part in healing this conflict.

Upon leaving we left our hosts and the government with a message of thanks for their warm hospitality and declared:

We will return to America and Canada and join in the struggle to have the U.S. ends is aggression, establish full diplomatic relations and remove U.S. troops from Korea, thereby leaving the Koreans free to establish a peaceful unification.

On the nuclear issue, we believe that both sides should destroy all weapons of mass destruction and model for the world a peaceful relationship based upon respect, understanding and the principles of international law.

Already since our return we have appeared on television and radio, written articles, talked in Peace Centers, schools and meeting halls. We’ve held meetings with Presidential candidates and are drumming up support for further peace activities. Talks in the first few weeks have been given in Toronto, New Hampshire, Boston, Albuquerque, Los Angeles and Minneapolis.

The night before we left, one member from the delegation ran into the Congolese diplomats who had entered the country with us. They were asked what their experience of the country had been. They stated that they were shocked. That everything they had heard about North Korea, all the negative propaganda, was false. They added that it would be a dream for most Africans to have the life that people in North Korea had. They repeated that they were shocked and were intent on telling people so. It takes each of us to get the word out.

Upon leaving the country we met a Scottish businessman from Edinburgh who was enthusiastic about the country and was hoping to get in on the ground floor, a British journalist who was teaching web techniques and training on international stock markets to journalism students and government officials, and a Finnish nurse who had been there for three years. All had positive feelings for the country and its people, none wanted war and all hoped that the people of America would learn the truth. We carry their hopes and aspirations with us.

The people of the world have to be told the complete story about Korea and our government’s role in fostering imbalance and conflict. Action must be taken by lawyers, community groups, peace activists and all citizens of the planet, to prevent the U.S. government from successfully generating a propaganda campaign to support aggression in North Korea. The American people have been subjected to a grand deception. There is too much at stake to get fooled again. This peace delegation learned in the DPRK a significant piece of truth essential in international relations. It’s how broader communication, negotiation followed by maintained promises, and a deep commitment to peace can save the world – literally – from a dark nuclear future. Experience and truth free us from the threat of war. Our foray into North Korea, this report and our on-going project are small efforts to make and set us free.

Submitted by the 2003 NLG Korea Peace Project Delegation

Neil Berman
Christopher Black
Peter Erlinder
Jennie Lusk
Eric Sirotkin

To contact the delegation call 505-266-2753 in the United States or email us at sirotkin@igc.org. Our web site will be at http://www.nlg.orgbeginning in November 2003.


http://www.uwpep.org/Index/DELEGATIONS/Entries/2003/11/20_DPRK_NLG_Delegation_Report_2003.html

Posted in 4th Media, Canadian and American Holocausts, Capitalism and Psycho-Sociopathy, China, China-U.S. Relations, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND U.S., DPRK AND WAR WITH US, Economic Development, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, Genocide in and From America, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, iNTERVIEWS ON CRITICAL ISSUES OF THE TIMES, Korean Issues, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Political Economy, Psychopaths and Sociopaths in Politics, Psyops, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Uncategorized, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | Leave a comment

INTERVIEW ON THE DPRK WITH DR. KIYUL CHUNG (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

NOTE OF DISCLOSURE:

THIS IS AN IMPORTANT INTERVIEW FROM SOMEONE WHO KNOWS KOREA ON BOTH SIDES OF THE 38TH PARALLEL WELL. DR. KIYIL CHUNG, WHO IS ALSO A CLOSE AND TRUSTED FRIEND, AND WHO ASKED ME TO WRITE FOR 4TH MEDIA AND TO BE ON ITS INTERNATIONAL ADVISORY BOARD. DR. CHUNG, A KOREAN-AMERICAN, HAS BEEN TO THE DPRK NEARLY 100 TIMES.

Kiyul Chung-big
Kiyul Chung
Dr. Kiyul Chung, Editor-in-chief at the 4th Media, is a Visiting Professor at Tsinghua University since 2009. He was a Visiting Professor at Chinese Academy of Social Science as well from 2006 to 2009. Since 2010, Prof. Chung’s been sitting on several international media outlets such as CCTV, Russia Today TV, Chinese Blue Ocean Network TV, & China Radio International. Since 1990s, his Korean articles, columns and academic papers have been published in several Korean media outlets. Since 2009, his English articles, columns and academic papers have been translated into Chinese, Japanese and Spanish languages, and published in Canada, China, Japan, US and other nations around the world including some of the Spanish-speaking Latin American nations.

Exclusive Interview with Dr. Kiyul Chung on the DPRK Situation

FROM 4TH MEDIA:

Post Categories: Opinion > Kiyul Chung
by The 4th Media | Wednesday, March 20, 2013, 14:48 Beijing

Share on linkedin Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on print

Share on gmail Share on stumbleupon More Sharing Services

The DPRK on March 5 declared the 1953 Armistice Agreement void. The day after, M4 Intel, April Media’s own video program, interviewed DPRK specialist Dr. Kiyul Chung to analyze the situation. Chung is convinced that given the circumstances have fundamentally changed, this latest statement will have far-reaching implications compared to a similiar announcement by Pyongyang in 2009.

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTIzNTY3MDQw.html

http://v.youku.com/v_show/id_XNTIzNTY3MDQw.html?firsttime=0

Host: Welcome to today’s M4 Intel. With us here today is Dr. Kiyul Chung, a Visiting Professor at the School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University who has been participating in the Korea’s self-determined and peaceful reunification movement for decades. He has unique access in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and has personally visited the country close to 100 times, which is rare, to the say the least, for any foreign national, let alone a US citizen.We’re honored to have you here today, Dr. Chung.

We’re honored to have you here today, Dr. Chung.

Chung: Thank you very much. I’m happy to be here.

Host: Thank you. Sir, I’m just going to be blunt here. The DPRK on Tuesday night declared the 1953 Armistice Agreement void. Now, earlier, on May 27, 2009, just two days after its second nuclear test, the DPRK said pretty much something along similar lines about the same agreement; it said it was no longer bound by it. In what ways do you think these two statements, the one in 2009 and the one on Tuesday night, different?

Chung: In essence, I believe the 2009 statement and the 2013 statement are the same. That is, (the DPRK) is not bound by the Armistice Agreement which has been repeatedly violated by the other end, meaning the United States of America.

All this is coming from a country so isolated that it was blockaded for over 60 some years by the United States unilaterally, and a so-called Stalinist nation where nothing is there but the “Stalinist, Communist regime”. Their successful launching of their own satellite, including the third underground nuclear test surprised the world and left it speechless.

The point is this: in 2009, the DPRK did not have any tangible, material, physical proof to the world that it had a military or technological capacity to deter or counter the US “attack first” nuclear policy towards even non-nuclear states.

Now, what is different is that the DPRK has proven to the world that it does have intercontinental ballistic missile technology, and it’s not just nuclear weapons, hydrogen and neutron bombs, including EMP, or electromagnetic [pulse] power are also things they seem to have.

So the statement last night from the Spokesman for the army’s Supreme Command that the armistice agreement would be void as of March 11 means that it seems the DPRK’s wording is not anymore “language only”. It feels real. Something is coming.

The US has even further stepped up anti-DPRK demonization and isolation, and now there’s about 200,000 South Korean troops and 10,000 US troops with every possible sophisticated US war machines there in the region. Their military drill is a war drill and can be turned into a real war within five minutes, as many experts argue.

So the DPRK seems to have no choice but to do something to defend itself. Since last year, Kim Jong-un, the new leader of DPRK, has declared that they would not wait any longer, and that they would wage all-out war. With the declaration of this all-out war approach, and including last night’s void of the armistice agreement as of March 11, many people in this field feel that something is genuinely different from 2009.

Host: Right. But in terms of the language, in terms of the statements themselves, it seems to you that the wording is not much…

Chung: Essentially, in my own interpretation, they’re not much different. But the situation is fundamentally different, I would say.

Host: Professor, people say that the DPRK is sending mixed signals. Tuesday’s announcement came just days after former NBA superstar Dennis Rodman led a team of American basketball players on a historic visit to Pyongyang. Also recently, we have learned that the DPRK has offered virtual asylum to the vastly influential BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay. Both of these events have surprised many throughout the world. Why did this statement come now?

Chung: I think we need to pay more attention to the timing (of Tuesdays’ statement), which is right before the UN Security Council was about to meet to talk about the DPRK’s third nuclear test. So from the timing of this, it seems that the DPRK wanted to a send a clear message to the United States of America: We’re not playing by words. It is real, what we say now.

Dennis Rodman’s visited Pyongyang, and the Google power figure visited at the end of last year. Many people do not know that now in Pyongyang, some of the world’s largest media companies, AP, the Associated Press, and Reuters, have their branches. And so does Kyodo, the Japanese news agency, also has a branch there, and so does CCTV and Xinhua News Agency.

With Kim Jong-un’s new leadership, it seems that compared to the past, the DPRK is ready not only militarily, but also economically. Or, there is a sense of confidence in their own way of development, of their own domestic economic development, and they continue to reach out to the international community, and to relate to other people by bringing in people like Dennis Rodman, Google’s former president, or AP or Reuters.

The message is that while it is engaging in real, serious, life-and-death situation to fight with the US in a 70-year-long and still ongoing hard struggle, the DPRK is at the same time wide open. We are part of the international community; don’t make us look like “demons”. We are part of the world.

I hope that the Chinese leadership can take the proper measures and decisions, sitting as one of the permanent UNSC powers in the UNSC structure, and not be manipulated again by the United States of America, while China itself is being militarily encircled, and while the US is using the South China Sea issue to divide China from its neighboring nations including the Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia. The same thing applies to Russia’s situation.

60 years the DPRK has been blockaded, isolated and demonized. Now, they would be all by themselves if China and Russia join the US.

It also reminds me, and I often mention that in my articles, that in the mid-1960s China was in exactly the same situation as the DPRK is now. It was threatened by the United States and British. Robert McNamara, former Defense Secretary in the US, threatened to bomb Beijing if China pursued its own independent nuclear program. And then, its closest “socialist” neighbor, the Soviet Union, joined the US and Britain in threatening to isolate China and demonize China. Chairman Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, then Chinese leaders, decided to build their own independent nuclear power anyway by any means necessary. Then New China, soon after its founding, had called for bilateral relations with all nations around the world, including the West. But China had been ruled out. It had not been respected. The US and the West had not agreed to build bilateral relations. It changed only until when China became a nuclear power in 1964. France came first, and then the US came. So that by 1979, China was able to develop its reform and opening up policy.

The DPRK does not have bilateral relations with the West or with the United States. The DPRK has called for over 50 some years to sign the Peace Treaty to replace the armistice agreement, which has been refused by the United States. What else can this small, divided nation do in the face of weeks, months and all 67 years of threatening by a global superpower with nuclear weapons?

I hope, since I’m here, and I’m told by my Chinese friends in the government, that the Chinese government can do everything possible to not let the harshest sanctions be passed at the UNSC structure. I know the Chinese government does its best to make things better and stable and peaceful. But again, it seems still that the US-led global manipulation and the divide-and-conquer strategy is ongoing as of today at the United Nations Security Council discussions on the DPRK.

Host: But professor, you said you believe there are tangible things that Russia and China can do to deter or balance this manipulation of powers.

Chung: Unless if China and Russia agree, there is no way the US or the West can go along to further isolate or sanction the DPRK. Before the Iraq War, they didn’t get any support from China and Russia, or from Germany and France. So the G. W. Bush invasion of Iraq became a disaster.

When the US and NATO invaded Libya in March 17, 2011, unfortunately, China and Russia allowed them to go ahead with the “No-Fly Zone”. And after eight months, a sovereign, independent nation was destroyed. It was gone.

In the UN structure, China and Russia still hold a fundamental, determining power not to allow the US-led NATO powers to violate an independent nation’s sovereignty in the region and around the world.

I do sincerely hope that China and Russia’s national leaders take the proper, balanced measures not just for the sake of the DPRK, but for the sake of their own nations, the region and the world.

Host: Welcome to today’s M4 Intel. With us here today is Dr. Kiyul Chung, a journalism professor at Tsinghua University who has been leading Korea’s reunification movement for decades. He has unique access in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea and has personally visited the country close to 100 times, which is rare, to the say the least, for any foreign national, let alone a US citizen.

Chung: Thank you very much. I’m happy to be here.

Host: Thank you. Sir, I’m just going to be blunt here. The DPRK on Tuesday night declared the 1953 Armistice Agreement void. Now, earlier, on May 27, 2009, just two days after its second nuclear test, the DPRK said pretty much something along similar lines about the same agreement; it said it was no longer bound by it. In what ways do you think these two statements, the one in 2009 and the one on Tuesday night, different?

Chung: In essence, I believe the 2009 statement and the 2013 statement are the same. That is, (the DPRK) is not bound by the Armistice Agreement which has been repeatedly violated by the other end, meaning the United States of America.

All this is coming from a country so isolated that it was blockaded for over 60 some years by the United States unilaterally, and a so-called Stalinist nation where nothing is there but the “Stalinist, Communist regime”. Their successful launching of their own satellite, including the third underground nuclear test surprised the world and left it speechless.

The point is this: in 2009, the DPRK did not have any tangible, material, physical proof to the world that it had a military or technological capacity to deter or counter the US “attack first” nuclear policy towards even non-nuclear states.

Now, what is different is that the DPRK has proven to the world that it does have intercontinental ballistic missile technology, and it’s not just nuclear weapons, hydrogen and neutron bombs, including EMP, or electromagnetic power are also things they seem to have.

So the statement last night from the Spokesman for the army’s Supreme Command that the armistice agreement would be void as of March 11 means that it seems the DPRK’s wording is not anymore “language only”. It feels real. Something is coming.

The US has even further stepped up anti-DPRK demonization and isolation, and now there’s about 200,000 South Korean troops and 10,000 US troops with every possible sophisticated US war machines there in the region. Their military drill is a war drill and can be turned into a real war within five minutes, as many experts argue.

So the DPRK seems to have no choice but to do something to defend itself. Since last year, Kim Jong-un, the new leader of DPRK, has declared that they would not wait any longer, and that they would wage all-out war. With the declaration of this all-out war approach, and including last night’s void of the armistice agreement as of March 11, many people in this field feel that something is genuinely different from 2009.

Host: Right. But in terms of the language, in terms of the statements themselves, it seems to you that the wording is not much…

Chung: Essentially, in my own interpretation, they’re not much different. But the situation is fundamentally different, I would say.

Host: Professor, people say that the DPRK is sending mixed signals. Tuesday’s announcement came just days after former NBA superstar Dennis Rodman led a team of American basketball players on a historic visit to Pyongyang. Also recently, we have learned that the DPRK has offered virtual asylum to the vastly influential BitTorrent site The Pirate Bay. Both of these events have surprised many throughout the world. Why did this statement come now?

Chung: I think we need to pay more attention to the timing (of Tuesdays’ statement), which is right before the UN Security Council was about to meet to talk about the DPRK’s third nuclear test. So from the timing of this, it seems that the DPRK wanted to a send a clear message to the United States of America: We’re not playing by words. It is real, what we say now.

Dennis Rodman’s visited Pyongyang, and the Google power figure visited at the end of last year. Many people do not know that now in Pyongyang, some of the world’s largest media companies, AP, the Associated Press, and Reuters, have their branches. And so does Kyodo, the Japanese news agency, also has a branch there, and so does CCTV and Xinhua News Agency.

With Kim Jong-un’s new leadership, it seems that compared to the past, the DPRK is ready not only militarily, but also economically. Or, there is a sense of confidence in their own way of development, of their own domestic economic development, and they continue to reach out to the international community, and to relate to other people by bringing in people like Dennis Rodman, Google’s former president, or AP or Reuters.

The message is that while it is engaging in real, serious, life-and-death situation to fight with the US in a 70-year-long and still ongoing hard struggle, the DPRK is at the same time wide open. We are part of the international community; don’t make us look like “demons”. We are part of the world.

I hope that the Chinese leadership can take the proper measures and decisions, sitting as one of the permanent UNSC powers in the UNSC structure, and not be manipulated again by the United States of America, while China itself is being militarily encircled, and while the US is using the South China Sea issue to divide China from its neighboring nations including the Philippines, Vietnam, Myanmar, Malaysia and Indonesia. The same thing applies to Russia’s situation.

60 years the DPRK has been blockaded, isolated and demonized. Now, they would be all by themselves if China and Russia join the US.

It also reminds me, and I often mention that in my articles, that in the mid-1960s China was in exactly the same situation as the DPRK is now. It was threatened by the United States and British. Robert McNamara, former Defense Secretary in the US, threatened to bomb Beijing if China pursued its own independent nuclear program. And then, its closest “socialist” neighbor, the Soviet Union, joined the US and Britain in threatening to isolate China and demonize China. Chairman Mao Zedong and Prime Minister Zhou Enlai, then Chinese leaders, decided to build their own independent nuclear power anyway by any means necessary. Then New China, soon after its founding, had called for bilateral relations with all nations around the world, including the West. But China had been ruled out. It had not been respected. The US and the West had not agreed to build bilateral relations. It changed only until when China became a nuclear power in 1964. France came first, and then the US came. So that by 1979, China was able to develop its reform and opening up policy.

The DPRK does not have bilateral relations with the West or with the United States. The DPRK has called for over 50 some years to sign the Peace Treaty to replace the armistice agreement, which has been refused by the United States. What else can this small, divided nation do in the face of weeks, months and all 67 years of threatening by a global superpower with nuclear weapons?

I hope, since I’m here, and I’m told by my Chinese friends in the government, that the Chinese government can do everything possible to not let the harshest sanctions be passed at the UNSC structure. I know the Chinese government does its best to make things better and stable and peaceful. But again, it seems still that the US-led global manipulation and the divide-and-conquer strategy is ongoing as of today at the United Nations Security Council discussions on the DPRK.

Host: But professor, you said you believe there are tangible things that Russia and China can do to deter or balance this manipulation of powers.

Chung: Unless if China and Russia agree, there is no way the US or the West can go along to further isolate or sanction the DPRK. Before the Iraq War, they didn’t get any support from China and Russia, or from Germany and France. So the G. W. Bush invasion of Iraq became a disaster.

When the US and NATO invaded Libya in March 17, 2011, unfortunately, China and Russia allowed them to go ahead with the “No-Fly Zone”. And after eight months, a sovereign, independent nation was destroyed. It was gone.

In the UN structure, China and Russia still hold a fundamental, determining power not to allow the US-led NATO powers to violate an independent nation’s sovereignty in the region and around the world.

I do sincerely hope that China and Russia’s national leaders take the proper, balanced measures not just for the sake of the DPRK, but for the sake of their own nations, the region and the world.

Posted in 4th Media, China, China-U.S. Relations, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND WAR WITH US, Epistemology, Faces of Fascism, Fascism in America, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Korean Issues, Logic of Capitalism and Imperialism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, NED and other Fronts of Imperialism, Neoclassical Economics and Neoliberalism as Neo-Imperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism, Veterans issues | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 1 Comment

DPRK’S “STATE-OF-WAR” DECLARATION IS A FAULTY TRANSLATION AND NOT AN OFFICIAL POLICY STATEMENT FROM KIM JUNG UN (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

DPRK’s “State of War” Declaration Is a Faulty Translation: NOT Official Policy Statement from Kim Jung Un

Post Categories: Asia
Scott Creighton / The 4th Media News

Monday, April 1, 2013, 12:20 Beijing

“from that time” becomes “from this time on” and “from this moment“… little change, big difference

As much as our leaders would like them to have taken the bait, North Korea has not declared war on the South or the U.S. in response to our unprecedented provocations. So when all else fails, leave it to yellow journalism like this piece of work from the New York Times or this obviously Photoshopped image that came out this past week.

The much touted “state of war” declaration is not a declaration of war from Kim Jung Un but rather a statement of support for whatever decision he has too make from the “the government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK.” It claims only they will declare themselves in a state of war WHEN their leader makes that decision showing they are completely behind him. It is a statement of support from the people and perhaps a warning to the South that the North will not fold under their attack. But not a declaration of war from Kim Jung Un.

There is a campaign of propaganda underway this week in Korea and I will show you that this latest crisis is nothing more than a continuation of that warmongering effort.

It’s being reported across the globe that “North Korea” made these statements in a recent official release via state media Korean Central News Agency :

“From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,”Ria Novoski

“Now that the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK have entered into an actual military action, the inter-Korean relations have naturally entered the state of war,” Huffington Post

“From this time on, the North-South relations will be entering the state of war and all issues raised between the North and the South will be handled accordingly,”Reuters via Prison Planet

As you can see, this rhetoric spans quite a wide political divide from the fake alternative left to the equally fake alternative right and very thing in between. CNN, Fox, NBC News all of them are reporting this crucial development as fact.

Trouble is, it may be another lie. It’s hard to say because no one links to the actual original source of this statement. Also important to note, which is not being covered by most outlets, the statement is NOT from the usual official offices of the North Korean government but rather from “the government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK” and what that means is, it’s not so much a declaration of war as it is a statement to show the unified resolve of the North Korean people against the aggressive stance and provocations undertaken by the South Koreans and their masters, the United States.

But with that in mind, it may not even be an accurate translation of the statement.

Ria Novosti, to their credit, caught the “mistake” from the AFP and published a retraction calling it a “faulty translation”. A noncommittal way of saying a “lie” I suppose. “Faulty” is right.

Later on Saturday, however, Russian media reported that a faulty translation might have been to blame for this apparent uptick in bellicose rhetoric.

The North Korean original statement apparently stressed that the country would act “in accordance with wartime laws” if attacked, and that “from that time, North-South relations will enter a state of war.” Ria Novosti

What they are saying is if they are attacked they will be ready to enter “the state of war” with the South and their puppet masters the United States.

Seems quite rational when you consider the fact that the Unites States is running practice drills dropping dud tactical nukes on islands off the shores of North Korea. Were the North Koreans to have done that off our shores, Shock and Awe would have already begun. Hell, we claim the “right” to “pre-emptive warfare” on other countries and millions of people are dead and suffering as a result right now.

This interpretation of their quote also blends seamlessly into what appears to be the North Korean’s official position gleaned from several other quotes released on the official media site.

“He declared the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK would react to the U.S. nuclear blackmail with a merciless nuclear attack, and war of aggression with an all-out war of justice.”

“The army and people of the DPRK are full of the spirit to defend the country as was displayed in the 1950s.” KCNA

“The powerful countermeasures of the DPRK to defend the sovereignty are a manifestation of the firm will of its army and people to defend the country and socialism at the cost of their lives from the hostile forces’ aggression moves.” KCNA

“If the enemies finally ignite a war of aggression, they will turn to ashes without having time to regret themselves over not paying due heed to the significant warning issued by the Supreme Command of KPA that they will have hardest time with their destiny at stake the moment they make a provocation.

The strong countermeasures taken by the DPRK are not to threaten others but to defend the dignity and the sovereignty of the country and the nation.

No one on earth can check the people turned out for just cause.” KCNA

In this article, the leadership of North Korea calls on progressives to stand against the U.S.’s globalist expansion of late and in this article the state run news agency points out the fact that the South Korean leadership is attacking their own progressives who are still trying to push the reunification agenda that came so close to succeeding not that long ago.

“A battle to be fought by the DPRK against the U.S. will become a war for national liberation to defend the sovereignty and dignity of the country and, at the same time, a revolutionary war to defend the human cause of independence and the justice of the international community.” KCNA

As to the mystery of the misquote: The AFP quote about the statements made by the North Korean leadership seem to come from a website called North Korean Leadership Watch. They cite the statement as being published by KCNA, but AGAIN, like all the others, NKLW doesn’t provide a link to that KCNA article.

However, they do make this statement:

“DPRK state media published a statement (tamhwa) on 30 March (Saturday) from “the government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK.” Unlike the recent volley of statements, or indeed most communications published and broadcasted in state media, the 30 March 2013 statement was not issued under the name of any specific organization (s). The statement is not cited as the work of the DPRK National Defense Commission, the KPA Supreme Command or Ministry of the People’s Armed Forces from the DPRK national security community…” NKLeadershipWatch

According to the origin of the quote, the statement isn’t directly from the government of North Korea and I am having a hell of a time finding the original source. You can find the statement here at Rodong and a few other sites as well.

Take a look at how it is written in the context of what is said:

… The government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK solemnly declare as follows reflecting the final decision made by Kim Jong Un at the operation meeting of the KPA Supreme Command and the unanimous will of all service personnel and people of the DPRK who are waiting for a final order from him.

1.From this moment, the north-south relations will be put at the state of war and all the issues arousing between the north and the south will be dealt with according to the wartime regulations.

The state of neither peace nor war has ended on the Korean Peninsula.

They are declaring they are at a state of war BEFORE given the order from Kim Jong Un?

Now substitute what Ria Novosti thinks is the actual translation:

… The government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK solemnly declare as follows reflecting the final decision made by Kim Jong Un at the operation meeting of the KPA Supreme Command and the unanimous will of all service personnel and people of the DPRK who are waiting for a final order from him.

1.from that time, North-South relations will enter a state of war and all the issues arousing between the north and the south will be dealt with according to the wartime regulations.

The state of neither peace nor war has ended on the Korean Peninsula.

If you look at the other statements issued by the official parties of NK you see a certain pattern. They have not declared war on the South though they fully expect the U.S. to instigate the conflict even more.

They also clearly identify their posture as being in “defense” of their nation and not the aggressor, which given the circumstances, is rational.

This statement which appears to say the North has declared war, is nothing of the sort, even if the Reuters translation is accurate. It is merely a statement of solidarity with their president at a difficult time.

But at worst, this deliberate mistranslation is someone’s opportunistic attempt to create a narrative and a history that mistakenly directs the blame for yet another war on the leadership of North Korea. It is in that sense, blackmail, just of the sort the North Koreans have been complaining about.

And given the fact that the leadership of the organizations signed onto the statement would NEVER openly declare war BEFORE given that order by their president, more than likely the Ria Novosti translation make much more sense.

Therefore, given all of this, I conclude (until such time as I can read the KCNA article myself) that the much touted “state of war” declaration being presented to the American people is in fact a “faulty translation”

The probably mistranslated statement reprinted below.

DPRK state media published a statement (tamhwa) on 30 March (Saturday) from “the government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK.”

The moves of the U.S. imperialists to violate the sovereignty of the DPRK and encroach upon its supreme interests have entered an extremely grave phase. Under this situation, the dear respected Marshal Kim Jong Un, brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu, convened an urgent operation meeting on the performance of duty of the Strategic Rocket Force of the Korean People’s Army for firepower strike and finally examined and ratified a plan for firepower strike.

The important decision made by him is the declaration of a do-or-die battle to provide an epochal occasion for putting an end to the history of the long-standing showdown with the U.S. and opening a new era. It is also a last warning of justice served to the U.S., south Korean group and other anti-reunification hostile forces. The decision reflects the strong will of the army and people of the DPRK to annihilate the enemies.

Now the heroic service personnel and all other people of the DPRK are full of surging anger at the U.S. imperialists’ reckless war provocation moves, and the strong will to turn out as one in the death-defying battle with the enemies and achieve a final victory of the great war for national reunification true to the important decision made by Kim Jong Un.

The Supreme Command of the KPA in its previous statement solemnly declared at home and abroad the will of the army and people of the DPRK to take decisive military counteraction to defend the sovereignty of the country and the dignity of its supreme leadership as regards the war moves of the U.S. and south Korean puppets that have reached the most extreme phase.

Not content with letting B-52 make sorties into the sky over south Korea in succession despite the repeated warnings of the DPRK, the U.S. made B-2A stealth strategic bomber and other ultra-modern strategic strike means fly from the U.S. mainland to south Korea to stage a bombing drill targeting the DPRK. This is an unpardonable and heinous provocation and an open challenge.

By taking advantage of the U.S. reckless campaign for a nuclear war against the DPRK, the south Korean puppets vociferated about “preemptive attack” and “strong counteraction” and even “strike at the commanding forces”, openly revealing the attempt to destroy monuments symbolic of the dignity of the DPRK’s supreme leadership.

This clearly shows that the U.S. brigandish ambition for aggression and the puppets’ attempt to invade the DPRK have gone beyond the limit and their threats have entered the reckless phase of an actual war from the phase of threat and blackmail.

The prevailing grim situation more clearly proves that the Supreme Command of the KPA was just when it made the judgment and decision to decisively settle accounts with the U.S. imperialists and south Korean puppets by dint of the arms of Military-First politics (So’ngun), because time when words could work has passed.

Now they are openly claiming that the B-2A stealth strategic bombers’ drill of dropping nuclear bombs was “not to irritate the north” but “the defensive one”. The U.S. also says the drill is “to defend the interests of its ally”. However, it is nothing but a lame pretext to cover up its aggressive nature, evade the denunciation at home and abroad and escape from the DPRK’s retaliatory blows.

The era when the U.S. resorted to the policy of strength by brandishing nuclear weapons has gone.

It is the resolute answer of the DPRK and its steadfast stand to counter the nuclear blackmail of the U.S. imperialists with merciless nuclear attack and their war of aggression with just all-out war.

They should clearly know that in the era of Marshal Kim Jong Un, the greatest-ever commander, all things are different from what they used to be in the past.

The hostile forces will clearly realize the iron will, matchless grit and extraordinary mettle of the brilliant commander of Mt. Paektu that the earth cannot exist without Military-First (So’ngun) Korea.

Time has come to stage a do-or-die final battle.

The government, political parties and organizations of the DPRK solemnly declare as follows reflecting the final decision made by Kim Jong Un at the operation meeting of the KPA Supreme Command and the unanimous will of all service personnel and people of the DPRK who are waiting for a final order from him.

1.From this moment, the north-south relations will be put at the state of war and all the issues arousing between the north and the south will be dealt with according to the wartime regulations.

The state of neither peace nor war has ended on the Korean Peninsula.

Now that the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK have entered into an actual military action, the inter-Korean relations have naturally entered the state of war. Accordingly, the DPRK will immediately punish any slightest provocation hurting its dignity and sovereignty with resolute and merciless physical actions without any prior notice.

2. If the U.S. and the south Korean puppet group perpetrate a military provocation for igniting a war against the DPRK in any area including the five islands in the West Sea of Korea or in the area along the Military Demarcation Line, it will not be limited to a local war, but develop into an all-out war, a nuclear war.

It is self-evident that any military conflict on the Korean Peninsula is bound to lead to an all-out war, a nuclear war now that even U.S. nuclear strategic bombers in its military bases in the Pacific including Hawaii and Guam and in its mainland are flying into the sky above south Korea to participate in the madcap DPRK-targeted nuclear war moves.

The first strike of the revolutionary armed forces of the DPRK will blow up the U.S. bases for aggression in its mainland and in the Pacific operational theatres including Hawaii and Guam and reduce not only its military bases in south Korea but the puppets’ ruling institutions including Chongwadae and puppet army’s bases to ashes at once, to say nothing of the aggressors and the provokers.

3. The DPRK will never miss the golden chance to win a final victory in a great war for national reunification.

This war will not be a three day-war but it will be a blitz war through which the KPA will occupy all areas of south Korea including Jeju Island at one strike, not giving the U.S. and the puppet warmongers time to come to their senses, and a three-dimensional war to be fought in the air, land and seas and on the front line and in the rear.

This sacred war of justice will be a nation-wide, all-people resistance involving all Koreans in the north and the south and overseas in which the traitors to the nation including heinous confrontation maniacs, warmongers and human scum will be mercilessly swept away.

No force on earth can break the will of the service personnel and people of the DPRK all out in the just great war for national reunification and of all other Koreans and overpower their might.

Holding in high esteem the peerlessly great men of Mt. Paektu, the Korean people will give vent to the pent-up grudge and realize their cherished desire and thus bring a bright day of national reunification and build the best power on this land without fail.

http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2013/03/31/north-korean-state-of-war-declaration-is-a-faulty-translation-and-not-official-policy-statement-from-kim-jung-un/by Scott Creighton

Posted in 4th Media, China, China-U.S. Relations, CIA past, CIA Terrorism, Decline of the American Imperium, DPRK AND WAR WITH US, Faces of Fascism, IMPERIAL HUBRIS AND INTRIGUE, International Law and Nuremberg Precedents, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, Meme Warfare and Imperialism, MEMEONOMICS: Economics and EconomistS;: Capitalism and its Theories, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Neoliberalism as Neoimperialism, New World Order, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, Science and Method, Social Systems Engineering Campaigns, Theorists and Meme Merchants, U.S. IMPERIAL DECLINE, U.S. Terrorism | Tagged , , , , , , | 1 Comment

EX-CNN REPORTER: ” I RECEIVED ORDERS TO MANIPULATE NEWS TO DEMONIZE SYRIA AND IRAN ” (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

EX-CNN REPORTER: “I RECEIVED ORDERS TO MANIPULATE NEWS TO DEMONIZE SYRIA AND IRAN” (FROM 4TH MEDIA)

by jimcraven10

FROM 4TH MEDIA

Regional and International News>>Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran

Ex-CNN Reporter: I Received Orders to Manipulate News to Demonize Syria and Iran

Mar 30, 2013

cnn reporter 20130330-153201_h475112

PRAGUE, (SANA)- Ex-CNN reporter Amber Lyon revealed that during her work for the channel she received orders to send false news and exclude some others which the US administration did not favor with the aim to create a public opinion in favor of launching an aggression on Iran and Syria.

Lyon was quoted by the Slovak main news website as saying that the mainstream US media outlets intentionally work to create a propaganda against Iran to garner public opinion’s support for a military invasion against it.

She revealed that the scenario used before launching the war on Iraq is being prepared to be repeated where Iran and Syria are now being subject to constant ‘demonization’.

The former reporter clarified that the CNN channel manipulates and fabricates news and follows selectiveness when broadcasting news, stressing that the Channel receives money from the U.S. government and other countries’ governments in exchange for news content.

H. Said

Posted in 4th Media, Faces of Fascism, Mainstream Media (MSM) Shills, MSM Mainstream Media Sycophancy, Nuremberg Precedents, Psyops, Science and Method | 1 Comment