Tales of North Korean Abuses: No Facts, All Fiction

June 16, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - Claims of North Korean human rights abuses spearheaded attempts to undermine US-North Korean negotiations in Singapore. While the talks are unlikely to change the long-laid agendas of special interests across the West who have cultivated and profit from the ongoing conflict, it is important to confront these claims and diminish the intended effect they are meant to have in buttressing the notion of American exceptionalism and justifying American interventionism. 

Tales of North Korean human rights abuses are so pervasive and persistent that even those opposed to US exceptionalism and interventionism have shied away from confronting and refuting them. 

Rumors Built Upon Rumors 

One would expect such significant accusations to be backed up by an equally significant amount of evidence. Yet - like most of what the Western media produces and spreads among the public consciousness - there is little evidence at all. 

In most cases, tales of North Korean abuses are derived from hearsay by alleged witnesses and supposed defectors who no longer reside in North Korea.

The New York Times provides a prime example of the sort of abuses unquestioningly cited and repeated by pundits, politicians, and political "experts" alike. In its recent article, "Atrocities Under Kim Jong-un: Indoctrination, Prison Gulags, Executions," the New York Times would claim:

Mr. Kim rules with extreme brutality, making his nation among the worst human rights violators in the world. 

In North Korea, these crimes “entail extermination, murder, enslavement, torture, imprisonment, rape, forced abortions and other sexual violence, persecution on political, religious, racial and gender grounds, the forcible transfer of populations, the enforced disappearance of persons and the inhumane act of knowingly causing prolonged starvation,” concluded a 2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea.

The source of the New York Times' assertions is admittedly a "2014 United Nations report that examined North Korea," officially titled the, "Report of the detailed findings of the commission of inquiry on human rights in the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea" (PDF).

The 372-page report - however - admits under an introductory section titled, "Methods of work," that (emphasis added):

In the absence of access to witnesses and sites inside the DPRK, the Commission decided to obtain first-hand testimony through public hearings that observed transparency, due process and the protection of victims and witnesses. Victims and witnesses who had departed the DPRK, as well as experts, testified in a transparent procedure that was open to the media, other observers and members of the general public. More than 80 witnesses and experts testified publicly and provided information of great specificity, detail and relevance, sometimes in ways that required a significant degree of courage.   

In other words, the entirety of the UN's 372-page report - cited as "evidence" of North Korean "atrocities" by prominent media organizations like the New York Times - is based on hearsay gathered by an investigation that never stepped foot once inside North Korea. Despite a lack of actual evidence to substantiate these claimed abuses, the New York Times depicts the UN report's conclusions as fact.

US Presence in Korea Drives Instability

March 25, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - US and European interests continue to portray the government and nation of North Korea as a perpetual security threat to both Asia and the world. Allegations regarding the nation's nuclear weapon and ballistic missile programs are continuously used as justification for not only a continuous US military presence on the Korean Peninsula, but as justification for a wider continued presence across all of Asia-Pacific. 

In reality, what is portrayed as an irrational and provocative posture by the North Korean government, is in fact driven by a very overt, and genuinely provocative posture by the United States and its allies within the South Korean government.

During this year's Foal Eagle joint US-South Korean military exercises, US-European and South Korean media sources intentionally made mention of  preparations for a "decapitation" strike on North Korea. Such an operation would be intended to quickly eliminate North Korean military and civilian leadership to utterly paralyze the state and any possible response to what would most certainly be the subsequent invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea.

The Business Insider in an article titled, "SEAL Team 6 is reportedly training for a decapitation strike against North Korea's Kim regime," would report:

The annual Foal Eagle military drills between the US and South Korea will include some heavy hitters this year — the Navy SEAL team that took out Osama bin Laden, Army Special Forces, and F-35s — South Korea's Joon Gang Daily reports. 

South Korean news outlets report that the SEALs, who will join the exercise for the first time, will simulate a "decapitation attack," or a strike to remove North Korea's leadership.

To introduce an element of plausible deniability to South Korean reports, the article would continue by stating: 

Pentagon spokesman Cmdr. Gary Ross later told Business Insider that the US military "does not train for decapitation missions" of any kind. 

Yet this is a categorically false statement. Throughout the entirety of the Cold War, US policymakers, military planners and operational preparations focused almost solely on devising methods of "decapitating" the Soviet Union's political and military leadership.

In more recent years, policy papers and the wars inspired by them have lead to documented instances of attempted "decapitation" operations, including the 2011 US-NATO assault on Libya in which the government of Muammar Qaddafi was targeted by airstrikes aimed at crippling the Libyan state and assassinating both members of the Qaddafi family as well as members of the then ruling government.

Similar operations were aimed at Iraq earlier during the 2003 invasion and occupation by US-led forces.

Regarding North Korea more specifically, entire policy papers have been produced by prominent US policy think tanks including the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) devising plans to decimate North Korea's military and civilian leadership, invade and occupy the nation and confound North Korea's capacity to resist what would inevitably be its integration with its southern neighbor.

North Korean Paranoia is Well-Founded

February 15, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - North Korea is depicted across US and European media as a backward nation run by a despotic, delusional leader encircled by advisers suffering from irrational, militant paranoia. The nation is also depicted as a prominent security threat in Asia-Pacific despite North Korea waging no wars in the region since an armistice in 1953 effectively ended the Korean War.

A despotic, delusional leadership, however, most likely would not possess nuclear weapons, ballistic missiles and a large conventional army and yet restrain its use regardless of decades of provocations engineered along its borders by the United States and its allies within the South Korean government. Likewise, a nation governed by the entirely irrational would be incapable of maintaining, even expanding ties with neighboring states like China.

Yet in reality, North Korea has done all of this.

Much of the US and Europe's accusations are predicated on the continued development of North Korea's defense programs including advances in nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles. Strategically omitted from US and European rhetoric are the provocations the West itself is guilty of, spurring along North Korea's expanding militarization.

What if, then, North Korea's allegedly irrational paranoia was well-founded?

As former North Korean leader Kim Jong-il's health deteriorated, the United States and its regional allies began planning quite openly for an opportunity to overturn the North Korean state.  US-based think tank, the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), would publish a 2009, 60-page report titled, "Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea," in which scenarios for the full-scale invasion, occupation and subjugation of North Korea were laid out.

The report included recommendations for an invasion and occupation force it called a "stabilization force," of up to 460,000 US and allied troops.

Considering that, by 2009, the United States had already successfully invaded, occupied and destroyed the nations of Iraq and Afghanistan, it would not be "irrational" at all for North Korean paranoia to reach new heights.

The missing ingredients Iraq and Afghanistan had in facing US invasion were substantial defense programs that could deter US aggression. North Korea's possession of increasingly sophisticated nuclear warheads and ballistic missiles means that the price, each year, rises for any attempted implementation of the plans included in the CFR's 2009 report.

Who is Driving Tensions on the Korean Peninsula?

October 5, 2016 (Joseph Thomas - NEO) - With North Korea's recent nuclear weapon test, it appears the East Asian state is transitioning from possessing a demonstration capability toward hosting a functional nuclear arsenal. While analysts believe North Korea has yet to miniaturise its nuclear weapons to fit in rocket-launched warheads, the frequency and size of the nation's nuclear tests indicate expanding capabilities in both research and development as well as in fabrication and deployment.

BBC's article, "North Korea's nuclear programme: How advanced is it?," would claim:

North Korea has conducted several tests with nuclear bombs.

However, in order to launch a nuclear attack on its neighbours, it needs to be able to make a nuclear warhead small enough to fit on to a missile.

North Korea claims it has successfully "miniaturised" nuclear warheads - but this has never been independently verified, and some experts have cast doubt on the claims.

And despite Western commentators and their counterparts in South Korea and Japan's claims that North Korea's nuclear weapons programme is a proactive, provocative policy, closer scrutiny reveals that Pyongyang's defence policy may be instead predicated on legitimate fears reflecting and reacting to American and South Korean foreign policy.

Key to Peace in Korea - Remove US Presence

April 14, 2013 (AltThaiNews-Tony Cartalucci) - On March 26, 2010, the ROKS Cheonan is hit by what appears to be a German-made torpedo, sinks while claiming the lives of 46 South Korean sailors. The world, America at the lead, was quick to point its finger at North Korea before South Korea itself ruled them out as a suspect. North Korea adamantly insisted it was not behind the attack, and despite their paranoid and isolated posture, little beyond insanity could serve as a motive.

Despite evidence adding up otherwise, to no one's surprise a joint "international" investigation by the US, UK, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Sweden would later conclude that a North Korean submarine was the culprit, leaving even most South Koreans skeptical.

During this period of time, America's position in Asia Pacific was already waning. Endless war in Central Asia and the Middle East, along with a deepening economic crisis in the West allowed other actors to begin eying the seemingly inevitable void soon to be left. Japan under then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, began reasserting itself over unpopular US military installations scattered throughout the nation. China was continuing to expand its economic and diplomatic influence in the region, luring in even America's traditional allies like Australia and Thailand.

The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan then "serendipitously" served as a reminder as to why America claims their troops and influence are needed in the region for "peace and security." The Korean Won tumbled as the US Dollar was temporarily bolstered and Japanese PM Hatoyama not only conceded to US demands regarding US installations, but would also resign over the matter. Literally citing the mysterious, still unsolved sinking of the Cheonan, Washington insisted its need to reassert itself in Asia to counter North Korea, if not for any other reason.

North Korea, either out of shadowy complicity or because of its paranoid predictable nature, became America's greatest ally in many ways.

November 2010, a similar scenario played out after an artillery exchange between North and South Korea which claimed several lives. America was again bolstered in its highly tenuous position not only in Asia as a whole, but on the Korean Peninsula itself, having been rebuffed on the US-Korean FTA and facing the possibility of US banking interests meeting with Tobin taxes in Korean markets.

South Korean leadership now admits they were conducting joint US-Korean live fire exercises close to highly contested waters in the Yellow Sea before the exchange took place. North Korea maintains this incident was intentionally provoked, as was the sinking of the Cheonan, as contrived incidents of opportunity for the waning American empire to reassert itself.

And like the sinking of the Cheonan, America once again renewed the rhetorical lease on its presence in Asia Pacific.

The Dangers of North Korea’s Nuclear Test (Op-Ed)

February 12, 2013 (Nile Bowie) - Author’s Note: On February 12, 2013, news surfaced of man-made seismic activity measuring at 4.9 on the Richter scale in North Korea, likely the result of the third nuclear test Pyongyang promised to carry out. The contents of this article examine the various dimensions of the situation, and the consequences it could hold for the region.

Tensions on the Korean Peninsula have ignited once again, marking the most-unstable period of inter-Korean relations since Kim Jong-un began his tenure in December 2011. Following the successful launch of an indigenous satellite into orbit using a long-range missile in December 2012, the UN Security Council recently tightened sanctions on the DPRK that impose asset freezes and travel bans on individuals involved in state companies and North Korea's space agency. Although talk of Pyongyang conducting a highly controversial nuclear test has been in the cards for months, the DPRK has recently threatened to respond to tightened UN sanctions using “stronger measures” than a nuclear test. While bellicose rhetoric is to be expected from Pyongyang, recent statements against the United States and South Korea are unusually high on the richter scale of belligerence. "We are not disguising the fact that the various satellites and long-range rockets that we will fire and the high-level nuclear test we will carry out are aimed at the United States," stated North Korea's National Defense Commission.

Pyongyang has also warned of “physical countermeasures” against South Korea if they participate in the UN sanctions against the North, stating, "as long as the South Korean puppet traitors' regime continues with its anti-DPRK [North Korea] hostile policy, we will never sit down with them." Reports claim that North Korea has allegedly been placed under martial law and its people told to “prepare for war” with the South. South Korean sources have reported that Kim Jong-un has issued a secret order to “complete preparations for a nuclear weapons test and carry it out soon.” Seoul-based military sources have also claimed that Pyongyang plans to conduct two simultaneous nuclear tests at once, or in quick succession, based on satellite data monitoring the North's Punggye-ri nuclear test site.

Continue reading at NileBowie.blogspot.com...

South Korea’s Elections

Hardline Conservatism with a Liberal Smile.

December 21, 2012 (Nile Bowie) - The ever-changing political landscapes of the Korean Peninsula never fail to offer stark contrasts. To the north, a somber December is spent mourning the forefathers of the communist dynasty under the helm of a boy-king and his advisers. To the south, voters have elected the nation’s first female president, the daughter of South Korea’s iconic former leader, Park Chung-hee. While their circumstances and rise to power cannot be more dissimilar, both Kim Jong-un and Park Geun-hye both derive some degree of public support through channeling the nostalgia of their parent’s legacies. In South Korea, one of the world’s most rapidly ageing societies, Park relied heavily on the elderly for her support base, who associate her with the economic prosperity brought in under her father’s rule, in much the same way as northerners regard the times of Kim il-Sung. As the new president prepares to take office in February 2013, many among South Korea’s left leaning youth see Park Geun-hye as an enabler of status quo conservatism veiled behind a thin liberal facade.

Park is widely credited with resuscitating legitimacy back into the ruling Saenuri party, which has garnered record-setting disapproval ratings under incumbent President Lee Myung-bak. Money laundering scandals, tax evasion, and accusations of embezzlement have followed the outgoing President Lee, who has come down hard on dissenters by jailing activists and artists who have criticized his rule. Lee is most responsible for dismantling Seoul’s liberal approach to North Korea as seen through the “Sunshine Policy” of previous administrations, at the cost of nearly reigniting the Korean war after a series of provocative live fire exchanges in disputed territorial waters in 2010 that saw the North shell the South’s Yeonpyeong island, and the sinking of a South Korean naval vessel. Despite running on the conservative ticket, Park has steered clear of openly advocating Lee’s hardline policies toward Pyongyang in her campaign rhetoric. Although an unpredictable North Korea looms just 70km from Seoul, domestic economic issues are the most immediate focus of the South Korean voter.

North Korea’s Socialist Winter: Engagement or isolation?

A view of downtown Pyongyang in early December, centered on the 150m high Juche Tower, built to commemorate North Korea’s principle philosophy of humanism and self-sufficiency developed by the nation’s late founder, Kim il Sung. 

December 16, 2012 (Nile Bowie for RT) - Pyongyang's recent rocket launch has placed North Korea in the cross-hairs of the international community. The current standoff with the "Hermit Kingdom" threatens to stifle very real reforms already underway, as well as peace in the region.

The world’s attention has once again focused on North Korea following its controversial missile launch on December 12th, 2012 that successfully put a satellite into orbit to study crops and weather patterns. While Pyongyang maintains its right to develop a peaceful civilian space program, the launch has wrought condemnation from the international community and its biggest ally, China, for defying UN resolutions that ban it from operating ballistic missile technology. While the launch coincides with upcoming elections in both Japan and South Korea, it is domestically perceived as the centerpiece of the North’s efforts to commemorate the year 2012 as the one-hundredth- anniversary of Kim Il-sung’s birth, the deceased nation’s founder who holds the title of “Eternal President.”

Covert Ops & Washington’s Contingency Plans for North Korea

Nile Bowie
NileBowie.blogspot.com
June 1, 2012

As the long-standing tensions between Washington and Pyongyang remain enflamed, a media report accusing South Korean and US Special Forces of parachuting into North Korea to spy on underground military facilities has sparked further controversy. Journalist David Axe attended the Special Operations Forces Industry Conference in Florida, and claims to have heard Army Brigade General Neil Tolley discussing the difficulties of conducting human surveillance operations in North Korea, while speaking in the present tense, referring to current operations. Axe’s story “U.S. Commandos Spy on North Korea” was pulled from The Diplomat, which later posted a clarification suggesting that Tolley was referring to future plans, rather than current operations. Washington has vehemently denied these allegations and has accused Axe of fabricating the quotes. Brigade General Neil Tolley has since reviewed his presentation at the Special Forces Industry Conference and claims that he was “accurately quoted” by David Axe of The Diplomat.

While the details of future US-led reconnaissance operations on North Korean soil remain questionable, Washington’s legal doctrine and policy initiatives toward Pyongyang offer further insight into future US-led directives aimed at ultimately extinguishing the North Korean threat by force. A 2009 policy-paper authored by The Council on Foreign Relations entitled “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea” advocates the deployment of up to 460,000 foreign soldiers into a post-regime North Korea to maintain security and capture Pyongyang’s WMDs. The March 2005 “Doctrine for Joint Nuclear Operations” released by the Joint Chiefs of Staff envisages “contingency plans” for an offensive first strike use of nuclear weapons against both Iran and North Korea, providing the legal framework to carry out pre-emptive nuclear war, both in terms of military planning as well as defense procurement and production; the document cites:

“The lessons of military history remain clear: unpredictable, irrational conflicts occur. Military forces must prepare to counter weapons and capabilities that exist in the near term even if no immediate likely scenarios for war are at hand. To maximize deterrence of WMD use, it is essential US forces prepare to use nuclear weapons effectively and that US forces are determined to employ nuclear weapons if necessary to prevent or retaliate against WMD use.”

 ....

Nile Bowie is an independent writer and photojournalist based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia; he regularly contributes to Professor Michel Chossudovsky's Global Research and has provided analysis on Russia Today. Twitter: @NileBowie

US Penalizing Progress in North Korea

Tension ahead of Pyongyang Missile Test

Nile Bowie
NileBowie.blogspot.com
April 8, 2012

As China declares fresh warnings of retaliation against any strike on Iran [1], the regime in Pyongyang shows no signs of aborting its upcoming controversial satellite launch, scheduled to take place on April 12th through to April 16th. The Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite will be launched southward from the Sohae satellite launch station in Cholsan County, North Phyongan Province, using a long-range Unha-3 rocket; North Korean officials assured the international community that it would "strictly abide by relevant international regulations and usage concerning the launch of scientific and technological satellites for peaceful purposes." [2] As Barack Obama and South Korean President Lee Myung-bak insinuate that Pyongyang’s upcoming satellite launch is a pretext to expand a program of nuclear terrorism [3], North Korea has invited the space agencies of eight countries, including Japan, the United States, China and Russia, and the European Space Agency to observe the launch [4].

While North Korea attempts to assure the transparency of its space program to the international community, the U.S. National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Japan Aerospace Exploration Agency have both declined the invitation from Pyongyang [5]. Additionally, Japan has announced the extension of unilateral sanctions on North Korea for another year [6], including a trade freeze and visa ban, while the US has announced a suspension of 240,000 tones of food aid to North Korea, reportedly allocated for children and pregnant women [7]. While the feasibility of the proposed $850 million satellite launch is questionable given North Korea’s economic instability in recent times [8], the Washington consensus has used UN Resolution 1874 to impede what may rightfully be a peaceful technological investment to monitor the country's crops and natural resources, in a move to prevent further food insecurity.

UN Resolution 1874 was passed unanimously following the underground detonation of a nuclear device conducted on May 25th, 2009 in North Korea, imposing further economic sanctions on the country and authorizing UN member states to inspect North Korean cargo and destroy any materials suspected to be involved with the Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program [9]. While the 2009 test produced seismic activity measured at magnitude 4.7 [10], the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization’s (CTBTO) announcement that no radionuclides had been detected following Pyongyang’s test makes it difficult to prove that nuclear technology was in fact used at all [11]. Following a 2004 visit to North Korea’s Yongbyon Nuclear facility, US nuclear scientist Siegfried Hecker testified before US Congress that he saw no evidence of a nuclear bomb [12]; after visiting the facility again in November 2010, Hecker acknowledged the system’s increased capability, however noting that the experimental light-water reactor he was shown was still in the early stages of construction [13].

The accusations of North Korea’s ill-intentioned nuclear program appear highly suspect when tracing back the routes of technology it is accused of possessing. In 1994, the Swiss multinational giant Asea Brown Boveri (ABB) was awarded a $200 million contract with the North Korean government to install two light water nuclear power stations on the nation’s east coast following a deal with the US to freeze Pyongyang’s nuclear weapons program [14]. Donald Rumsfeld, one of the Bush administration's most vocal opponents to North Korea, presided over the contract with Pyongyang when he was an executive director of ABB [15]. Although the US State Department claimed that the light water reactors could not be used to produce weapons-grade plutonium, Henry Sokolski, head of the Non-proliferation Policy Education Centre in Washington disputed the claims of the US Government, offering, “These reactors are like all reactors, they have the potential to make weapons. So you might end up supplying the worst nuclear violator with the means to acquire the very weapons we’re trying to prevent it acquiring.” [16] In 2002, the Bush Administration released $95 million US taxpayer dollars to begin construction of Pyongyang’s light water reactors, as part of the Agreed Framework [17].

The upcoming satellite test follows the failed launch of the Kwangmyongsong-2, which had fallen into the Pacific Ocean in April 2009 [18]. Mirroring the present day scenario, the United States, South Korea and Japan then accused the launch of being an opportunity to test technology that could be used in the future to launch an intercontinental ballistic missile [19]. Following a Presidential Statement issued by the United Nations Security Council condemning the launch [20], North Korea withdrew from the Six Party Talks [21], claiming that the UNSC infringed its right to peaceful space exploration embodied in the Outer Space Treaty of 1967 [22]. The upcoming launch of the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite coincides with the 100th anniversary of North Korea’s founding deity, Kim il-Sung. Both Japan [23] and South Korea [24] have vowed to intercept the Unha-3 rocket using AEGIS warships if it flies over the country’s territories. Pyongyang insists the launch does not violate any UN resolutions, following a Foreign Ministry spokesman who assured the international community that “North Korea will never give up the launch of a satellite for peaceful purposes." [25]


The double standards imposed on North Korea remain ever apparent, as the international community remains silent as South Korea expands its arsenal of advanced military technology in an effort to become the world’s seventh largest arm exporter [26]. South Korea intends to import 60 fighter jets from Boeing with an enormous budget of $7.3 billion [27] and has recently agreed to an American Bunker Buster explosives arms agreement valued at $71 million [28], while North Korean ballistic technology appears to be constructed from components of Soviet origin suspected to be largely obsolete; analysts such as David Wright of the Union of Concerned Scientists' point out that the engines on the North’s Unha-2 launcher are based on Soviet technology developed in 1964 [29]. Upon closer examination, the threat on the Korean Peninsula is not as one-sided as the Washington consensus claims.

Following Pyongyang’s announcement in February assuring its readiness for “total war” with South Korea and the United States during joint war drills conducted near North Korea’s border and territorial waters [30], the isolated nation has yet again warned against the interception of its missile, “Nobody should dare encroach upon the sky above Pyongyang, sacred capital of the DPRK, and they are gravely mistaken if they think they can survive after attacking Pyongyang. Whoever intrudes into the territorial air and seas even an inch under any pretext and intercepts the DPRK satellite or collects its debris will meet immediate, resolute and merciless punishment by the DPRK” [31]. Furthermore, Pyongyang has accused Obama of exploiting instability on the Korean Peninsula to strengthen his re-election campaign, citing the Korean threat as a pretext to allow the US Congress to mandate further executive expansion in the Asia-Pacific region, despite the Pentagon’s serious budget shortage [32].

By allowing international experts to observe the planned launch of the Kwangmyongsong-3 satellite, Pyongyang’s attempt to legitimize its peaceful intentions should be acknowledged. Although the Obama administration would like to appear as if they are in command of the situation on the Korean Peninsula, their actions indicate the limited leverage they have to affect the situation. The threat of North Korea has proven itself to be a valuable pretext for the continued presence of US military personnel in both South Korea and Japan. The US has worked to further marginalize North Korea to contain China, as construction begins for a controversial $970 million joint military base on South Korea’s Jeju Island [33], which would host up to 20 American and South Korean warships, including submarines, aircraft carriers and destroyers once completed in 2014.

Washington’s decision to suspend food aid to North Korea ultimately works against its objectives of weakening the regime, as many citizens would further rely on Pyongyang’s food distribution system – irrespective to the moral argument of barring nutritional necessities to a nation that has previously experienced famine and cases of cannibalism [34]. An influx of foreign currency has ensured Pyongyang’s stability under its new leadership as China secures contracts to extract North Korea’s vast natural resources such as iron ore and coal, roughly valued at $6.1 trillion as of 2008 [35]. The US will continue to exploit the new regime’s eagerness to prove itself to the populace, as reports issued by the Council on Foreign Relations indicate its long-term program. The 2009 document entitled “Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea” [36] advocates a military contingency plan involving the stationing of up to 460,000 foreign soldiers into a post-regime North Korea to its capture nuclear arms and ballistic missiles. The document also highlights the need to form a compliant transitional government acquiescent to market liberalization and privatization. As the potential for debilitating conflict on the Korean Peninsula remains ever present, the international community must approach Pyongyang with increased diplomacy and embrace its attempts at transparency in whichever medium.

Notes

[1] China steps up pressure to prevent any attack on Iran, Reuters, April 6, 2012

[2] Department of Defense: Satellite Launch Would Be A Destabilizer (Launch), Satnews, March 19, 2012

[3] World leaders: Nuclear terrorism a ‘grave threat’, BBC, March 27, 2012

[4] N. Korea invites 8 nations, Europe to observe satellite launch, The Mainichi, April 5, 2012

[5] Ibid

[6] Japan won’t send observers to N. Korea rocket launch, Russia Today, April 3, 2012

[7] US confirms it has suspended North Korea food aid plans, BBC, March 28, 2012

[8] Satellite shows $850 mln NK rocket launch imminent? Russia Today, April 2, 2012

[9] Resolution 1874 (2009), United Nations, June 12, 2009

[10] Earthquake Details: Magnitude 4.7 - NORTH KOREA, United States Geological Survey, May 28, 2009

[11] Verification Experts Puzzled Over North Korea's Nuclear Test, Science, June 19, 2009

[12] Visit to the Yongbyon Nuclear Scientific Research Center in North Korea, Los Alamos National Laboratory, University of California, January 21, 2004

[13] North Korea's Yongbyon Nuclear Complex: A Report by Siegfried S. Hecker, Center for International Security and Cooperation, University of Stanford, November 20, 2010

[14] Rumsfeld was on ABB board during deal with North Korea, Swissinfo, February 24, 2003

[15] Rummy's North Korea Connection What did Donald Rumsfeld know about ABB's deal to build nuclear reactors there? And why won't he talk about it?, CNN Money, May 12, 2003

[16] US grants N Korea nuclear funds, BBC, April 23, 2012

[17] Ibid

[18] North Korea space launch 'fails', BBC, April 5, 2009

[19] Obama Condemns North Korea Launch, Calls for Nuclear Free World, Voice of American News, April 5, 2009

[20] Statement by the President of the Security Council, United Nations, April 13, 2009

[21] DPRK Foreign Ministry Vehemently Refutes UNSC's "Presidential Statement", Korean Central News Agency, April 14, 2009

[22] Treaty on Principles Governing the Activities of States in the Exploration and Use of Outer Space, including the Moon and Other Celestial Bodies, United Nations Office for Outer Space Affairs, October, 1967

[23] Japan issues destroy order as NK rocket launch looms, Russia Today, March 31, 2012

[24] S. Korea threatens to gun down North’s rocket, Russia Today, March 26, 2012

[25] N. Korea: We will never give up satellite launch, Russia Today, March 27, 2012

[26] Drifting apart? The U.S. - ROK alliance at risk, The Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group, March 2009

[27] Boeing backtracks on stealthy jet offer, February 14, 2012

[28] US Approves Sale of Earth Penetrator Bombs to South Korea, NTI, December 7, 2011

[29] A post-launch examination of the Unha-2, Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, June 29, 2009

[30] N. Korea 'ready for war' as South Korea, US stage war games, Russia Today, February 27, 2012

[31] Interception of Satellite Would Be Regarded as Act of War: CPRK Spokesman, Korean Central News Agency, April 5, 2012

[32] Voice of Russia Snubs Reaction of U.S., Japan and S. Korea to DPRK's Projected Satellite Launch, Korean Central News Agency, April 6, 2012

[33] Island’s Naval Base Stirs Opposition in South Korea, The New York Times, August 18, 2011

[34] Alleged N. Korean police document reports case of cannibalism, The Korea Herald, June 20, 2011

[35] South losing race for the North’s resources, Korea JoongAng Daily, January 18^, 2011

[36] Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea, The Council on Foreign Relations, January 2009

West Poised to Exploit Potential Korean Crisis

US prepared for "Sudden Change" in North Korea since 2009.
by Tony Cartalucci

December 19, 2011 - The Council on Foreign Relations, a corporate-financier funded think-tank that represents the collective interests and agenda of Wall Street and London, had in 2009 published an extensive, 52 page report titled, "Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea."

CFR's 2009 "Preparing for Sudden Change in North Korea" .pdf
....

The report covered "Scenarios for Change in North Korea" and included "managed," "contested," and "failed successions." The report makes no secret of US foreign policy toward North Korea and the desire to see the nation "integrated" with the South, a nation whose political system has long been co-opted by the United States, kept a watchful eye on by USPACOM's regional presence, and only saved by the nationalism of the South Korean people themselves.

On page 36 of the report, it is stated that chaos within a "changing" North Korea would raise concerns including, "maintaining security and stability in the North, locating and securing Pyongyang’s weapons of mass destruction, dealing with potentially serious humanitarian problems such as large-scale refugee flows or starvation, managing the political and legal issues relating to the formation of a transitional government, and addressing the economic challenges posed by the demise of the North and its possible integration with the South."

Of course, these are "concerns" the "international order" led by Wall Street and London would deal with, not the people actually living on the Korean Peninsula. And to address these concerns the report actually suggests deploying 115,000 to 230,000 foreign troops along with tens of thousands of "police" to support them in establishing "security and stability."

Noting that foreign troops may spur an armed reaction from the North Korean military, the report states:

"If former elements of the North Korean military, its security and intelligence forces, or its large special operations force were to resist the presence of foreign forces, the size of the needed stabilization force would escalate dramatically. Indeed, experience has shown that special operations forces are the most likely candidates to mount such resistance. Given the large number of such units in the North, the challenge could be considerable. In an insurgency, according to one Defense Science Board study, as many as twenty occupying troops are needed for every thousand persons, implying a force of 460,000 troops, more than three times the number of American troops in Iraq. Coping with such a contingency would likely be impossible for the South Korean and American forces to manage alone." -page 37 (.pdf)

On the rebuilding of North Korea's economy, the report feverishly preaches market liberalization, privatization, and integration with South Korea who is currently on the verge of entering into expansive "free trade" with the United States. In the case of "reunification," the United States will have just doubled the market its parasitic corporate-financier interests were already preparing to despoil.

"The second economic issue is the transition from planned to market economic mechanisms. This task requires genuine price liberalization, establishing a carefully managed foreign exchange regime, developing new policies and institutional capacities in public finance and expenditure, banking, and both a legal system and ownership rights over productive assets (especially land). Dealing with the state enterprise system may require liquidating unviable firms, improving management, privatizing, and creating a level playing field with the emerging private sector. Institutional change would be much faster and simpler if developed with former North Korean authorities in a framework that might lead to eventual reunification. In any case, a short-term drop in economic output should be expected before the economy can be stabilized and put on a growth path." -page 41 (.pdf)

Recommendations for US policy are made, beginning on page 44, and include the suggestion that the US continue promoting "behavioral change within the current regime rather than actively seek to overthrow it," that is ... "unless extreme circumstances dictate otherwise." The report also suggests that working closely with the European Union, who has diplomatic representation in North Korea, will help the US understand better, any sign of coming "sudden change" to refine the regime of exploitation outlined in the CFR report. Other schemes of re-approaching North Korea are discussed, such as using the excuse of recovering the remains of missing American soldiers lost during the Korean War to improve contacts and provide useful information on unfolding events within North Korea (page 46 & 47).

A "common vision" between the US and South Korea for a reunified Korea is also discussed at length as are the military, economic, and social preparations that would be necessary to carry out this "vision." Such a common vision begs one to wonder what say the United States, separated by an entire ocean from Korea, actually has in the future of the Korean people. The preparation of a NATO-style military alliance referred to as a "regional security cooperation in northeast Asia" is also recommended to help in "legitimating" the West's attempts to exploit and fill the void created in a possible collapse of North Korean society.

The thought of a reunified Korea, militarily occupied by the United States and its collective economy opened to unmitigated exploitation via the pending US-FTA must alarm Beijing to a certain degree, especially with the recently unveiled "American Pacific Century" policy that enumerates a strategy of encircling and containing China's tactical and economic rise while maintaining a century of American hegemony over Asia. And surely it must North Koreans that the United States has prepared their future and destiny in such minute detail and are prepared to lead North Korea's transformation, at the barrel of a gun if need be.

It should be noted that North Korea's unraveling, and the door it would open to a reunified Korea under American military and economic occupation needs not necessarily be organic. The United States is on record training North Korean activists to sow "Arab Spring-style" chaos just as it has throughout the Middle East. In Foreign Policy's article "Revolution U," where the story of US-funded CANVAS is told, North Korean activists are mentioned several times as recipients of the same US-funded training offered by CANVAS and used by activists to help overthrow the governments of Tunisia, Libya, and Egypt. With a heavy US military presence just over the border, and with several suspicious provocations already attributed to the US presence on the peninsula, all the ingredients are available to coax North Korea's destabilization along and justify the execution of CFR's 2009 machinations.

Whether they exist there in the right measurements or will find a well prepared, Chinese-backed North Korea ready to balk them instead remains a question only time will tell.

Mass Protests in South Korea against US Free Trade Agreement

There seems to be little debate among the masses of both nations that the KORUS FTA is anything but a race to the bottom for the majority of society.

Nile Bowie
nilebowie.blogspot.com
December 4, 2011

Demonstrations have erupted on the streets of the South Korean capital of Seoul calling for the resignation of President Lee Myun-Bak. Thousands of demonstrators rallied against the publicly loathed free trade agreement with the United States, which is widely perceived by the public to be a catalyst for the stagnation of local businesses and medium-sized manufacturing enterprises in both South Korea and the United States.

The provisions of the treaty aim to eliminate 95% of each nation's tariffs on goods within five years. The flood of imported US agricultural goods in the Korean market is expected to undercut domestically produced products, causing the total decimation of the domestic Korean farming and agriculture market.

Within the United States, tariffs on automotive products from Korean will be slowly phased out. An unfettered surge of Korean auto imports to the United States will essentially be a nail in the coffin for the dwindling automotive manufacturing base within the United States, threatening an already dismal job market.

The KORUS FTA calls for protectionist policies designed to increase the privileges of transnational conglomerates and multinational financial services, thus systematically encouraging offshoring and global outsourcing, an initiative that droves of Koreans have aggressively demonstrated against for years. Although the collective American public seems to be ill informed about the effects of the treaty, the story is front-page news in Korea.

In a country like South Korea, where America’s involvement in its domestic affairs is widely perceived as wholly self-serving and parasitic, the public discourse against the free trade agreement is paramount. The Korean public has been enraged in recent years by cases of rape and murder committed by US solders stationed in American military bases throughout South Korea.

In the past decade, the South Korean public has held massive demonstrations opposing the importation of American beef products, the inclusion of Korean soldiers stationed in Iraq, the existence of extensive US military bases and personal on their soil and the reforms of the WTO to the domestic agricultural sector.

Public discontent remains unwavering towards President Lee Myun-Bak, a man who has steered his country into the orbit of globalist financiers and staunchly reversed the efforts of previous administrations to build a conducive relationship with North Korea.

It is unclear how the Myun-Bak administration will fair in the upcoming South Korean elections when his growing opposition views him as a puppet of foreign corporate interests. There seems to be little debate among the masses of both nations that the KORUS FTA is anything but a race to the bottom for the majority of society.

Land Destroyer Note: Interested readers may also want to know the circumstances surrounding the last round of FTA talks, which conincided with an artillery exchange with North Korea.

US-South Korean FTA Rammed Through

Globalists Expertly & Successfully Wield Terror Against Koreans

South Koreans don't want it, most Americans
don't know about it, and now the US-South Korean
FTA has passed.

by Tony Cartalucci

Under the threat of imminent war, compounded by overtly provocative naval maneuvers, the United States pushed through what was thought to be a tenuous free-trade agreement with South Korea.

Indeed, headlines dominating Korean papers included "Military readies live-fire drills to deter North's provocations" from Yonhap News Agency, and "Defense chief-nominee vows air strikes if attacked" from The Korean Times, as the largest US free-trade agreement since NAFTA silently slipped through.

The free-trade agreement had been shelved during the previous Bush administration three years ago on the heels of massive South Korean street protests and again rebuffed during President Obama's acrimonious visit to Seoul last November. Now signed, the agreement will make it easier for US corporations to enter Korean markets. This includes the US's parasitic banking sector, a prospect that might off-set efforts by Korea's Ministry of Finance to close their markets to the dangerous speculation that has begun a collapse in the West.

Also worth mentioning is that with South Korea locked into the sovereignty-usurping free-trade agreement, bent ever more to the will of the West, reunification of the peninsula under a joint US-South Korean force will have Americans literally on China's doorstep. China may not then be as welcoming or supportive of reunification as the alleged"Wikileaks" suggest.

If the suspicious sinking of the South Korean naval ship Cheonan was linked to America's efforts to rein in the newly assertive Japanese government under Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, then this latest bout of provoked artillery exchange in late November and the subsequent military build-up can be attributed to helping rein in an "overly protective" South Korea.

Hardly unpredictable, America has consistently shored up its position, when tenuous with South Korea and Japan, by provoking North Korea. Respected geopolitical analyst Dr. Webster Tarpley noted during his November 27th radio show that the recent provocations did indeed appear intentional and part of a "classic gambit" designed to drive South Korea and Japan under the protective umbrella of the US.

What is worrying now is whether or not this will send a chill to other nations seeking to protect themselves from the unfolding catastrophic economic collapse taking place in the West, particularly Brazil and Thailand. Both nations have proposed Tobin taxes among other capital flow controls, both have relatively strong economies, but may now be fearing similar "serendipitous" destabilization targeting their respective governments. Already in Thailand the globalist backed "red" color revolution is preparing another round of protests in an attempt to bring back globalist hitman Thaksin Shinwatra.

For the Koreans, their government and media seem to have taken advantage of the perfect smokescreen to hide the passage of this highly unpopular US-FTA behind. It was a smokescreen of such perfect magnitude and timing, of such benefit to the United States, it is painfully obvious that it was yet another reckless and contrived stunt.

For those that question the psychosis of the ruling elite, remember November 2010, when several lives were ended, roughly 73 million lives were threatened, and greater war involving billions risked, so more diseased US beef could be sold and US banks could plant their parasitic proboscis into another thriving, productive economy.

Odd Couple: North Korea & America

The sails of US Asian policy ride on the winds of North Korean belligerence.

Surveillance aircraft are monitoring North Korean activity during the
latest joint naval exercise between US and S. Korean forces
- just days after a similar exercise started a deadly artillery exchange.

by Tony Cartalucci

On March 26, 2010, the ROKS Cheonan is hit by what appears to be a German-made torpedo, sinks while claiming the lives of 46 South Korean sailors. The world, America at the lead, was quick to point its finger at North Korea before South Korea itself ruled them out as a suspect. North Korea adamantly insisted it was not behind the attack, and despite their paranoid and isolated posture little beyond insanity could serve as a motive.

Despite evidence adding up otherwise, to no one's surprise a joint "international" investigation by the US, UK, South Korea, Australia, Canada, and Sweden would later conclude that a North Korean submarine was the culprit, leaving even South Koreans skeptical.

During this period of time, America's position in Asia Pacific was already waning. Endless war in Central Asia and the Middle East, along with deepening economic crisis in the West allowed other actors to begin eying the seemingly inevitable void soon to be left. Japan under then Prime Minister Yukio Hatoyama, began reasserting itself over unpopular US military installations scattered throughout the nation. China was continuing to expand its economic and diplomatic influence in the region, luring in even America's traditional allies like Australia and Thailand.

The sinking of the ROKS Cheonan then "serendipitously" served as a reminder as to why America claims their troops and influence are needed in the region for "peace and security." The Korean Won tumbled as the US Dollar was temporarily bolstered and Japanese PM Hatoyama not only conceded to US demands regarding US installations, but would also resign over the matter. Literally citing the mysterious, still unsolved sinking of the Cheonan, Washington insisted its need to reassert itself in Asia to counter North Korea, if not for any other reason.

North Korea, either out of shadowy complicity or because of its paranoid predictable nature, became America's greatest ally in many ways.

November 2010, a similar scenario is playing out after the recent artillery exchange between North and South Korea which claimed several lives. America was again bolstered in its highly tenuous position not only in Asia as a whole, but on the Korean Peninsula itself, having been rebuffed on the US-Korean FTA and facing the possibility of US banking interests meeting with Tobin taxes in the Korean markets.

South Korean leadership now admits they were conducting joint US-Korean live fire exercises close to highly contested waters in the Yellow Sea before the exchange took place. North Korea maintains this incident was intentionally provoked, as was the sinking of the Cheonan, as contrived incidents of opportunity for the waning American empire to reassert itself.

In fact, much of what North Korea claims in official statements is now confirmed by the mainstream media, though the average reader might not know this because North Korean statements are either completely censored by South Korea's Korean Communications Standard Commission (KCSC) as is the case for www.uriminzokkiri.com, or cherry picked by the West's more subtle form of censorship; spin. Official North Korean statements can be found below.

North Korea's version of the recent November skirmish...

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201011/news25/20101125-01ee.html

And here is North Korea's version of the ROKS Cheonan's sinking...

http://www.kcna.co.jp/item/2010/201005/news26/20100526-19ee.html

And like the sinking of the Cheonan, America once again renews the rhetorical lease on its presence in Asia Pacific. A financial and political chill is trying to take hold over the protectionist climate growing in the face of America's collapsing economy and even worse remedies like the Federal Reserve's Quantitative Easing (QE2).

How long this chill lasts and whether it takes hold depends not as much on the madman in Pyongyang, but on the madmen in Washington reversing their self-inflicted economic and geopolitical decline in coincidence with yet another attempt to reassert themselves regionally. While such a reverse is unlikely especially when the prescription is more of the same uninspired, antiquated policies that created the decline in the first place, in the interim, the United States and the globalists can depend on North Korea as the only consistent factor in an otherwise changing region.

Like ship sails to the wind, American foreign policy makers are outstretched and ready to harness North Korea's belligerence, and in the case of the Cheonan, apparently blow on the sails themselves when the winds are calm. A reclusive hereditary communist dictatorship is scary, those with no qualms utilizing such a dictatorship at the risk of regional or world war, are even scarier.

Worth repeating, was Donald Rumsfeld's position on the board of directors of ABB out of Zurich, when the engineering firm sold North Korea the nuclear technology they later used as the basis of their nuclear arms program. Rumsfeld would then later, as Secretary of Defense in the ever revolving door between big business and globalist government, leverage the enhanced menace of North Korea against America's supposed ally in the south.

This reality highlights that the stability America represents in Asia Pacific is not one of rule of law and healthy foreign diplomacy, but rather one of holding stability over the head of the region with the constant threat of unhinging peace through carefully arranged events, be it staging Maoist color revolutions in Bangkok, funding the Khmer Rouge or now, in 2010 training land grabbing troops in Cambodia, or provoking an unstable military dictatorship on the Korean Peninsula.

If China, Japan, or South Korea can offer a substantial alternative focused on cooperation without the need to mercilessly strip national sovereignty and force integration, then the manipulative invasive nature of the Anglo-American banking elite and their empty globalization agenda, no matter how much peace America manages to unhinge, will be all but expelled from the region.