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.

Sum of all American Fears in Korea: Peace

February 11, 2018 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - North Korea has been depicted by the Western media as a dangerous rogue state, plotting the nuclear holocaust of America and holding global peace and stability hostage with its irrational aggression. It is the supposed threat North Korea poses to the world that the United States uses to justify its enduring decades-long military presence on the Korean Peninsula. 

In the recently released 2018 US Department of Defense Nation Defense Strategy, it claims: 

North Korea seeks to guarantee regime survival and increased leverage by seeking a mixture of nuclear, biological, chemical, conventional, and unconventional weapons and a growing ballistic missile capability to gain coercive influence over South Korea, Japan, and the United States.

Yet North Korea's immediate neighbor - South Korea - felt comfortable enough with this "rogue regime" that it not only invited high level diplomats to the PyeongChang 2018 Winter Olympic Games, it had its own athletes compete side-by-side with their North Korean counterparts as a unified team. 

The opening ceremony included a unified parade, song, and chorus group. North Korean leader Kim Jong Un's sister publicly greeted South Korean President Moon Jae-in. Other senior North Korean leaders and diplomats were present and interacted with their South Korean counterparts.

ABC News would report in their article, "Kim Jong Un's sister shakes hands with South Korea's president at Olympics opening ceremony," that: 

After arriving in South Korea with a high-level delegation, the sister of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un publicly shook hands with the neighboring nation's president during tonight's opening ceremony of the 2018 Winter Olympics.

CNN would report that North Korean leader Kim Jong Un would go as far as inviting South Korean President Moon Jae-in to the North Korean capital, Pyongyang. 

Evident is the absurdity of Western political and media claims about the danger North Korea presents to the world, when the very nation it is allegedly still technically at war with - South Korea - invites its leadership to a sporting event their athletes compete as a team together in and whose leaders watch, sitting side-by-side. 

However, CNN's article, "Kim Jong Un invites South Korean President Moon to Pyongyang," would reveal:    

Moon responded to the invitation by suggesting the two countries "should accomplish this by creating the right conditions," adding that talks between North Korea and the United States were also needed, and requested that North Korea be more active in talking with the US, according to Kim Eui-kyeom.

In essence, the president of South Korea requires US permission to conduct what should be South Korea's own bilateral talks with its immediate neighbor to the north. And here is revealed both the root of tensions on the Korean Peninsula - America's involvement - and the sum of all American fears - peace between North and South - especially on their own terms.

Continuity of Agenda: Trump's "Fire and Fury" Brewed Under Bush, Obama

August 12, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - The United States has issued a provocative threat to North Korea of "fire and fury." Following it up, the Guardian would report in its article, "Trump on North Korea: maybe 'fire and fury' wasn't tough enough threat," further threats being made:

Donald Trump has issued another provocative warning to North Korea, suggesting that his threat to unleash “fire and fury” on the country was not “tough enough”. 

The US president told reporters that North Korea “better get their act together or they’re going to be in trouble like few nations ever have been in trouble in this world”.

The Guardian never explores precisely what "trouble" was being referred to or the other "few nations" the US was hinting at.

However, the threats come amidst a barrage of familiar talking points, fearmongering, and fabrications that have proceeded all of America's military aggression worldwide - most notably Iraq in which "intelligence" was intentionally fabricated to bait Americans and the world into a devastating war with that cost over 1 million lives, trillions of dollars, and the effects of which are still being felt both in Iraq and throughout the Middle East today.

The Conflict with Korea Didn't Start Under Trump 

The Guardian and others across the Western media fail to place these most recent threats by the US against North Korea into a larger context regarding US-Korean relations, which stretch back to post-World War II and the Korean War which - officially - is only observing a sometimes fragile armistice yet to be fully resolved.

The South Korean government, as noted by The Week's article, "It's time for the U.S. military to leave South Korea," takes full advantage of America's military presence, using its resources to influence Asia regionally instead of tending to its own defense against threats - real or imagined - from its northern neighbor.

More likely, this arrangement is preferred by the US who uses the client regime occupying Seoul as a vector and proxy for US influence and policy throughout Asia, much in the same way it manipulates and interferes in the Middle East through proxies like Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Israel, and Turkey.

In order to justify and perpetuate America's presence not only on the Korean Peninsula, but in Asia itself, the US and its South Korean partners have repeatedly and intentionally encircled and provoked North Korea - not only in terms of rhetoric and in the form of military drills - but through active attempts to infiltrate and overthrow the government.

Ongoing Attempts at Destabilization and Regime Change

The US State Department through fronts posing as charities and nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) have attempted to flood North Korea with media aimed at undermining political stability in the country.

Western Media Cashes in on Death of US Citizen After Release from North Korea

June 21, 2017 (Tony Cartalucci - LD) - Otto Warmbier was arrested last year on charges of theft as he attempted to leave North Korea after traveling there with a tour group. His recent release from North Korea after 15 months of detainment was followed by his death in the US.

A firestorm of accusations, condemnation, and angry threats have resonated across the Western media, with op-eds ranging from the Independent's, "America needs to do something about Otto Warmbier’s death – but military force against North Korea isn’t an option," which calls on US foreign policy to follow that of Imperial Rome's, including swift and severe retribution, to the Australian's, "What did North Korea do to Otto Warmbier?," which incoherently leaps from commenting on Warmbier's "beautiful name" to claiming, "he was a pawn, a victim of the maniacal brutality of Kim Jong-un," to Foreign Policy's piece in which the title, "North Korea Would Not Hesitate to Kill You," says it all.

Nowhere amongst this familiar Western propaganda used worldwide to dehumanize nations and prime the public for unending hostilities can any actual evidence be found that the North Korean government killed Otto Warmbier. In every article it is noted that he was returned to the US, and that it was in the US where he died. His death, however, is being blamed on his alleged mistreatment while in North Korea.

No Autopsy, No Evidence, No Honest Conclusions  

Conveniently for the Western media, no autopsy will be performed, as the BBC would note in their article, "Otto Warmbier: No autopsy for US student held by North Korea," which stated:

The family of a US student who died shortly after being freed from North Korea have declined a post-mortem examination, according to a US coroner.

Otto Warmbier died on Monday near his family home in Ohio after more than 15 months in North Korean captivity.

The Hamilton County coroner said only an external exam was performed on the 22-year-old.

The BBC article even admits that the coroner's office itself stated:

No conclusions about the cause and manner of Mr Warmbier's death have been drawn at this time.

Due to the lack of any conclusive evidence regarding Warmbier's death, and the fact that no autopsy will be performed, the Western media's collective propaganda is able to stand alone in the court of biased Western public opinion. That propaganda - unsurprisingly - calls for North Korea to be "punished."

However, without an autopsy, whatever the perception is surrounding North Korea - no conclusions can honestly be drawn one way or the other regarding Warmbier's death.

One conclusion that can be drawn without doubt, however - is the shameless, merciless, and inhumane manner in which the Western media has exploited the death of Otto Warmbier.

Without evidence and no prospect of ever obtaining any, the Western media has rushed to create as much anger, hysteria, and resentment as possible in the minds of the Western public before the next news cycle hits. Embedded in the minds of many across the West will be the notion that North Korea "killed" Otto Warmbier. The minds of many will be primed ahead of further escalations by Washington on the Korean Peninsula where it seeks to maintain its power and influence as part of a wider strategy to maintain its unwarranted and uninvited "primacy" across Asia.

While the Western media poses as appalled over North Korea's inhumanity, it is the Western media that has helped set the stage for yet another bloody chapter of US-Asia relations and all of the inhumanity that unfolds because of it. 

From Syria to Korea: The Rush to Crush Multipolarism

April 30, 2017 (Ulson Gunnar - NEO) - A recent, unilateral, unjustified military strike on Syria by US cruise missiles, coupled with the deployment of a US naval fleet to the Korean Peninsula as well as terrorist attacks carried out by terrorist fronts worldwide associated with US-backed opposition groups signifies a worldwide push-back from Wall Street and Washington amid its crumbling "international order."

Like all hegemons before it, Wall Street and Washington have found themselves expending more time and resources maintaining their current geopolitical order than on either further expansion or domestic development. What has developed is a vicious cycle of aggression, conflict, and retrenchment. Throughout the process, there is the expenditure of irreplaceable political capital.

For example, while US policymakers rightly noted their "international order" built by and for Wall Street and Washington would suffer immensely had their attempts to overthrow the Libyan government in 2011 been reversed, their "success" was equally damaging. Before an increasingly capable world of alternative systems, blocs and an emerging multipolar order, the destruction of Libya and its current status as a failed state along with the protracted nature of the US campaign to topple the government was more a sign of growing weakness than a warning of American strength.

Struggling in Syria 

The subsequent conflict in Syria only reinforced suspicions of serious and growing American weakness. The conflict has dragged on for 6 years, and US attempts at regime change have been met by direct Russian military intervention along with a significant role played by another obstacle to US regional and global hegemony, Iran.

Such a scenario, 20-30 years ago, would have been unimaginable.

The recent missile strikes in Syria, then, were not a masterstroke of strategic strength and brilliance, but rather an act of desperation amid a crumbling policy within its crumbling "international order."

Analysts and policymakers the world over should not, however, get the impression that a retreating America poses no threat. On the contrary, the US in its current state of wounded pride, retracting influence and waning power is more dangerous than ever.

As the window closes on any possibility of a US-maintained order in the Middle East, attempts to permanently damage whatever remains and whoever presides over it becomes more tempting than ever.

While the US poses as "fighting" terrorist organizations like the "Islamic State" and other Al Qaeda affiliates, it has all but openly armed, funded, trained and supported these groups, including with, now, direct military intervention. Indeed, the military targets the US hit recently with its cruise missiles were engaged on the front lines against both the Islamic State and US State Department-designated foreign terrorist organization, the al-Nusrah Front.

Continued support for these terrorist groups either directly or through America's regional allies (Israel, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and others), along with the persistent threat of unilateral military action in direct defiance of the very international law Washington claims its own "international order" is built upon, may be a grievous threat for years to come.

Along the peripheries of this conflict include Egypt who has also just recently experienced terrorist attacks aimed at dividing the nation along sectarian lines and undermining Cairo's ability to administer its own nation let alone participate in any meaningful way in any emerging alternative regional order.

Proxy War on the Korean Peninsula 

North Korea poses little threat to the United States. Any first strike carried out by North Korea against either the US or South Korea would result in the immediate and absolute destruction of the isolated nation. Despite this reality, the United States has purposefully and disingenuously built it up into a national, even global security threat that conveniently requires an ever increasing military build-up both on the Korean Peninsula itself, as well as across the rest of East Asia.

However, the Korean Peninsula is just one of several fronts amid the actual target of US ambitions, China and the ruling political order in Beijing.

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.

US Propaganda Op in Korea Exposes American TV as Social Engineering Tool

If American TV is used to brainwash North Koreans, wouldn't that suggest it was used to brainwash Americans too? 

March 20, 2015 (Tony Cartalucci - NEO) - When Wired published its article, "The Plot to Free North Korea with Smuggled Episodes of 'Friends,'" it probably hoped that its impressionable, politically ignorant audience would not pick up on the underlying facts and their implications, and simply see a "cute" anecdote poking fun at the besieged East Asian country while inflating their own sense of unwarranted cultural superiority.

What they missed, of course, is the fact that the program peddled by Wired as the work of "the North Korea Strategy Center and its 46-year-old founder, Kang Chol-hwan," is in fact funded and organized instead by the US State Department.

Indeed, the North Korea Strategy Center is partnered directly with the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor of the US Department of State, the US State Department's Radio Free Asia propaganda network, and the US State Department's National Endowment for Democracy (NED), a defacto "department of regime change" backed by Wall Street's Fortune 500, solely for the interests of Wall Street's Fortune 500.

Readers of Wired's latest, long-winded spin on US-backed sedition abroad also most likely missed the fact that if TV shows from America are considered a tool for social engineering in North Korea, they are most likely being used as a tool of social engineering in the United States as well. The degradation of American culture, the family, and weakening of local communities, versus the growing centralized dominance of corporate-financier monopolies and their increasingly draconian police and surveillance state is a direct result of this.

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.

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.

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.