Deep Politics Forum
The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Printable Version

+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: War is a Racket (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-31.html)
+--- Thread: The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea (/thread-10522.html)

Pages: 1 2


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Adele Edisen - 06-04-2013

The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea
By Fidel Castro

This is about one of the most serious dangers of nuclear war since the October
Crisis around Cuba in 1962, 50 years ago.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34517.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001dw7GnmGzU-8k_wTt3dtLURSI5nyoWGKiPO-s0xM-YZeYeMjSnKx5SLkD80TaFouCPr4J7cAUOPDMeteFR1ePLAj8ttiy443rXS8qT1i9P3RXfgJPCuSiqe_TATlj9GxlWmhq7OOeaHSUhGZso8n8WesnRIsNi7RdkF3NcArxzGvj6IOesUQfNISxIH5jPegg2FV9MFn3xrKqoLpiRwLqyvTQcuYr5Q8UkOHAIm1pS20O5h5DrwRYbnSbP3O52UfgTzvpkyODD5MCUA5vWEmH6SJT7Ga19HM_Jlc1LYhp8SA7h5mghniFwnY7mxl7rh4SOxuTZvFUYzo=]

The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea

By Fidel Castro

April 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - A few days ago I mentioned the great challenges humanity is currently facing. Intelligent life emerged on our planet approximately 200,000 years ago, although new discoveries demonstrate something else.

This is not to confuse intelligent life with the existence of life which, from its elemental forms in our solar system, emerged millions of years ago.

A virtually infinite number of life forms exist. In the sophisticated work of the world's most eminent scientists the idea has already been conceived of reproducing the sounds which followed the Big Bang, the great explosion which took place more than 13.7 billion years ago.

This introduction would be too extensive if it was not to explain the gravity of an event as unbelievable and absurd as the situation created in the Korean Peninsula, within a geographic area containing close to five billion of the seven billion persons currently inhabiting the planet.

This is about one of the most serious dangers of nuclear war since the October Crisis around Cuba in 1962, 50 years ago.

In 1950, a war was unleashed there [the Korean Peninsula] which cost millions of lives. It came barely five years after two atomic bombs were exploded over the defenseless cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki which, in a matter of seconds, killed and irradiated hundreds of thousands of people.

General Douglas MacArthur wanted to utilize atomic weapons against the Democratic People's Republic of Korea. Not even Harry Truman allowed that.

It has been affirmed that the People's Republic of China lost one million valiant soldiers in order to prevent the installation of an enemy army on that country's border with its homeland. For its part, the Soviet army provided weapons, air support, technological and economic aid.

I had the honor of meeting Kim Il Sung, a historic figure, notably courageous and revolutionary.

If war breaks out there, the peoples of both parts of the Peninsula will be terribly sacrificed, without benefit to all or either of them. The Democratic People's Republic of Korea was always friendly with Cuba, as Cuba has always been and will continue to be with her.

Now that the country has demonstrated its technical and scientific achievements, we remind her of her duties to the countries which have been her great friends, and it would be unjust to forget that such a war would particularly affect more than 70% of the population of the planet.

If a conflict of that nature should break out there, the government of Barack Obama in his second mandate would be buried in a deluge of images which would present him as the most sinister character in the history of the United States. The duty of avoiding war is also his and that of the people of the United States.

(Fidel Castro's signature is at the bottom of page. Quite unique)

Adele


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Adele Edisen - 06-04-2013

Putting the Squeeze on North Korea
By Gregory Elich

Neither the U.S. nor South Korea is open to dialogue at the present time. Both
are bent on exacerbating tensions.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34514.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001dw7GnmGzU-8NhqBTsEHGGoi6-v--AO_aFWuqW6jTdo_7h6Q5IWPh3RBM1bLO6R_cBTwKKkB7gx_kuxhLM2e3wN4pk-AtqUfX7tWSm4SIFeQ1mCAKC5AEAjwwsZXpYjyz2YMm5ycBBk1peRf206Klrkz-OzGYHnnN77YgwZtTLu55PM0z0g34kRoyqZcoBjsjsAbOWtZDfwk_ROXq_XRvR-o804h3erluN_gTqZhNL-7TFfH1h-yibkOXacevYYgpc6ozgISdnudu31ONdEcyRTwnMdoPAzN3n69-md7Qwv_3RdmGS6wKWKeusgbuOrATOpi1AOFxb6o=]


Putting the Squeeze on North Korea

By Gregory Elich

April 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House" -"GR" - Tensions are escalating since North Korea's launch of a satellite into orbit on December 12, 2012. Overwrought news reports termed the launch a "threat" and a "provocation," while U.S. National Security Council spokesman Tommy Vietor called it "irresponsible behavior." Punishment for North Korea was swift in coming.

North Korea's Kwangmyongsong-3 was just one of 75 satellites that a variety of nations sent into space last year, but Pyongyang's launch, and a failed launch earlier in the year on April 12, were the only ones singled out for condemnation. [1] In Western eyes, there was something uniquely threatening about the Kwangmyongsong-3 earth observation satellite, unlike the apparently more benign five military and three spy satellites the United States launched last year.

We are told that the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK, the official name for North Korea) used the satellite launch to test ballistic missile technology. But the North Koreans could hardly have sent their satellite into orbit by slingshot. The Kwangmyongsong-3 was equipped with a camera intended to help assess the nation's natural resources and forest distribution and to collect crop estimates. The Western press was quick to scoff at the satellite as having no rational economic purpose. Although the satellite failed to become operable, a common enough experience for nations putting their first satellite into space, the intent was to support much-needed ecological recovery in North Korea and to aid agricultural planning.

Specialists argue that the DPRK's Unha-3 missile, used for the launch, is not a suitable candidate for delivering a nuclear warhead. According to analyst Markus Schiller of Schmucker Technologie in Germany, for North Korea to "become a player in the ICBM game, they would have to develop a different kind of missile, with higher performance. And if they do that seriously, we would have to see flight tests every other month, over several years." [2] The North Korean missile "was developed as a satellite launcher and not as a weapon," Schiller says. "The technology was suited only for satellite launch." Brian Weedan, a space expert at the Secure World Foundation, agrees, and points out that the missile took a sharp turn to avoid flying over Taiwan and the Philippines. "That is definitely something more associated with a space launch than with a ballistic missile launch. It's not what you would expect to see with a missile test." [3]

The Unha-3 is simply too small for the job of delivering a nuclear warhead, even assuming that the DPRK had miniaturized a nuclear bomb, an endeavor requiring significant time and effort. The North Koreans would also need to develop a long-range guidance system and a reentry vehicle capable of withstanding the heat of returning through the atmosphere. Experts consider the DPRK to be years away from achieving such steps. [4]

In regard to North Korea's satellite launches, Lewis Franklin and Nick Hansen of Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation remark, "The oft-repeated phrase readily convertible to an ICBM' posed by non-technical policy experts is engineering-wise unsupportable." They explain that while other nations have utilized ICBMs for sending satellites into space, conversion of a light missile like the Uhha-3 into an ICBM "requires considerable redesign and testing, and no country has taken this route." [5]

The other aspect of the launch that the U.S found so provocative was its violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1874 of June 12, 2009, which enjoined the DPRK from conducting "any launch using ballistic missile technology." That resolution was prompted by a North Korean nuclear test. Yet, when Israel, Pakistan and India all non-signatories to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty not only performed testing, but proceeded to build substantial nuclear arsenals and missiles capable of delivering nuclear payloads, no action was forthcoming. This double standard has not gone unnoticed in the DPRK, which understands that the distinction between the North Korean case and that of Israel, Pakistan and India hinges on the latter three nations being U.S. allies, while for decades it has been the target of Western sanctions, threats and pressure.

Interestingly enough, India and Pakistan tested nuclear weapon-capable ballistic missiles at around the time of North Korea's failed satellite launch on April 12, 2012. [6] The Indian and Pakistani missiles did not carry satellites; these were purely military tests, a fact which did not perturb the Obama Administration. Criticism was reserved for North Korea alone, while in regard to India's test, U.S. State Department spokesman Mark Toner merely noted that the U.S. has a "very strong strategic and security partnership with India." [7] Following Pakistan's launch, U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland's only comment was, "What's most important is that they do seem to have taken steps to inform the Indians." [8] These mild remarks contrasted with the vociferous abuse poured upon North Korea for its non-nuclear capable missiles carrying satellites.

Since the April ballistic missile launches, India and Pakistan have continued their tests, including India's test of a nuclear-capable ballistic missile fired from underwater, part of its program to develop submarine-based nuclear missiles. [9] India conducted its underwater ballistic missile test on January 27, only a few days after the UN Security Council imposed sanctions on North Korea for putting a satellite into orbit.

When North Korea launched its satellite, India condemned the launch as "unwarranted," and termed it an action adversely impacting peace and stability. [10] That same day, India test fired its nuclear-capable Agni-I ballistic missile, again without complaint by the U.S. [11] And just days after passage of the UN Security Council resolution against the DPRK, Japan put two spy satellites into space, both aimed at North Korea. [12] Not surprisingly, these missile launches evoked no complaint from U.S. officials.

South Korea successfully placed its own satellite into orbit on January 30, 2013, with the complete support of the U.S., which only added to North Korea's growing sense of irritation over the blatant double standard. The hypocrisy is quite breathtaking. The U.S. sits atop the world's largest nuclear arsenal, possesses the largest military machine on earth, regularly invades or bombs other nations, threatens nations who refuse to bend to its will, turns a blind eye to tests of ballistic missiles by India, Pakistan and Israel, and it condemns the small nation of North Korea for engaging in "provocative" behavior by sending a peaceful satellite into space.

The DPRK bears the distinction of being the only nation to have a UN Security Council resolution in effect banning it from launching a satellite. Yet, the international outer space treaty affirms that outer space "shall be the province of all mankind," and that "Outer space, including the moon and other celestial bodies, shall be free for exploration and use by all States without discrimination of any kind." [13] Note the language used here: "without discrimination of any kind." This is absolutely unambiguous. The treaty does not say "except when the powerful choose to deny this right to a small nation."

Western analysts argue that when a UN Security Council resolution contradicts international law, it is the resolution that takes precedence. That view makes a mockery of international law, which ceases to have any meaning when it can be discarded at will by imperial dictate.

The UN Charter tasks the Security Council to deal with matters relating to "threats to the peace, breaches of the peace, or acts of aggression." The DPRK Central Committee of the Workers Party of Korea explains that its satellite launches for peaceful purposes "bear no relationship with the issues of international peace and security." Moreover, the Security Council has never seen fit to take issue with such nations as the United States and Japan "that are speeding up militarization by launching innumerable spy satellites." [14]

Sensing that the DPRK's impending satellite launch would present a welcome opportunity, the U.S. started lining up support for imposing further sanctions on the DPRK well before the launch took place. Already the most heavily sanctioned nation on earth, North Korea's economy could only suffer more damage from new sanctions. That was precisely the Obama Administration's aim.

In anticipation of North Korea's missile launch, South Korea under the ever-hostile administration of Lee Myung-bak, worked with other nations to identify the few remaining international bank accounts held by North Korea which had not yet been closed due to U.S. pressure. The hope was that North Korea could be completely blocked from engaging in international trade. The Lee Administration, too, perceived the missile launch as an opportunity to inflict further economic damage on its neighbor to the north. [15]

The Chinese advocated resuming the six-party talks, which were last held in December 2008. "China really believes that we ought to re-engage with North Korea," U.S. Ambassador to China Gary Locke remarked, but "we don't believe that we should be rewarding their bad behavior by sitting down and talking with them." U.S. diplomats adamantly ruled out talks. During negotiations in December 2012, U.S. Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice bluntly told a Chinese diplomat that his nation's resistance to additional sanctions was "ridiculous." Rice demanded that North Korea face "consequences" for its satellite launch. [16]

U.S. officials are fond of saying that they will not reward the DPRK for its "bad behavior" by talking with its officials, but one cannot help but wonder: just whose behavior is bad? North Korean officials, whose nation exercised its right under international law and put a peaceful satellite into orbit, a right granted to all nations, and who want dialogue, or U.S. officials, who petulantly refuse to engage in negotiations, and who only know how to bully and intimidate?

The first task was to get China onboard with the concept of imposing new sanctions on its neighbor. High-ranking U.S. and South Korean diplomats met with their Chinese counterparts in Beijing on December 17, 2012. The Chinese opposed sanctions, preferring a prudent response. "The Chinese side repeated its stance that it wants to keep peace and stability on the Korean Peninsula," a South Korean diplomatic source revealed. But the U.S. had "a strong willingness" to impose sanctions. "The U.S. is also sending a message to China that it will have no choice but to beef up its military readiness against North Korea's threats unless a resolution is adopted at the U.N. Security Council." [17]

The United States had already taken a number of steps to increasingly militarize its relations with South Korea in recent months, and it is probable that the threat to expand the U.S. military presence in the region finally persuaded the Chinese to back UN sanctions, despite their inevitable destabilizing effect. A U.S. military buildup in the region would serve a double purpose, aimed not only at North Korea but surely China as well. The Chinese were also keen to avoid straining relations with the U.S, an important trading partner.

Once the U.S. and South Korea won Chinese agreement for a UN Security Council resolution, the Obama Administration had a wish list of harsh measures that it wanted to implement via the resolution. U.S. State Department spokeswoman Victoria Nuland announced that the Obama Administration's plan was "to continue to increase the pressure on the North Korean regime. And we're looking at how best to do that, both bilaterally and with our partners going forward. Until they get the message, we're going to have to continue to further isolate this regime." Responding to a reporter who commented that North Korea "has long wanted direct talks with the U.S.," and asked if the U.S. would consider that or stick to the six-party format, Nuland dismissively replied, "We and our partners are not in the business of rewarding them." [18] There would be no talks of any kind.

U.S. negotiators insisted that the UN Security Council pass a resolution rather than a presidential statement, so that it would carry more force. Under pressure, the Chinese relented. The specific sanctions to be imposed were another matter. There the Chinese were more successful. The U.S. wanted to maximize the damage that would be inflicted on the North Korean people. Chinese Ambassador to the UN Li Baodong said, "The initial draft prepared by the UNSC contained a number of sanctions, but China believed that such measures would not be helpful in defusing the situation and would only cause harm to the North Korean economy and the lives of its people. As a result of more than a month of protracted negotiations, these provisions were removed from the final draft of the resolution." [19]

UN Security Council resolution 2087 passed unanimously on January 22, 2013, ordering the DPRK to cease launching satellites, and that "any further such activities" would result in its "determination to take significant action." A number of measures were imposed, including travel bans and asset freezes on specified individuals involved in the DPRK's space program and banking officials assisting in its financial dealings. Asset freezes were also slapped on the North Korean Committee for Space Technology and North Korean banks and firms involved in the space program, essentially blocking those organizations from engaging in normal international financial transactions. [20]

The U.S. and South Korea immediately began planning further sanctions that they could impose on a bilateral basis. The U.S. had already stopped food aid to North Korea many months beforehand. Among the alternatives the U.S. and South Korea discussed were stepping up inspections of North Korean ships and ways to hamper North Korean ships from travelling near the Korean Peninsula. [21] The U.S. Treasury Department wasted little time in implementing its first set of bilateral sanctions, acting the day after passage of the UN Security Council resolution. It announced that all assets under U.S. control would be frozen held by two North Korean bankers and Hong Kong-based Leader International Trading Limited. [22]

South Korea had already revised its Public Order in Open Ports Act so that it required entry clearance for container ships having visited a North Korean port during the prior 180 days; an increase from the earlier 60 day limit. A South Korean official said that Seoul intended to target shipments into and out of the DPRK. "We are considering sanctions in marine transport. Now that we have already set the legal grounds, we will start talks with other countries over additional sanctions." [23] The intention is to cut maritime supply routes to North Korea.

Pressure on North Korea is two-fold: economic sanctions and military presence. In the midst of UN Security Council deliberations, U.S. Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta called for the reorientation of NATO, to "broaden the scope of our alliance security discussions beyond European and regional issues." The U.S. has led the expansion of NATO military operations first in its bombing operations in the Balkans, then later in Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya. The aim is for NATO to support aggressive U.S. military operations, across all continents that adjoin Europe and the Mediterranean. "In particular," Panetta continued, "I strongly believe that Europe should join the United States in increasing and deepening defense engagement with the Asia-Pacific region…The bottom line is that Europe should not fear our rebalance to Asia; Europe should join it." [24]

However, there is one thing one can say about the North Koreans. They are never cowed by imperial bullying.

Shortly before passage of the UN Security Council resolution, the DPRK sent a message to the United States, calling for negotiations to settle security concerns. That message apparently went unanswered. [25]

As soon as the UN resolution passed, the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK issued its response, stating that it "flatly rejects the unjust acts of the UNSC aimed at wantonly violating the sovereignty of the DPRK and depriving it of the right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes. The hostile forces are seriously mistaken if they think they can bring down the DPRK with sanctions and pressure." The Foreign Ministry asserted that the "DPRK will continue to exercise its independent and legitimate right to launch satellites for peaceful purposes while abiding by the universally recognized international law on the use of space for peaceful purposes." Furthermore, "the DPRK will continuously launch satellites for peaceful purposes."

Noting that U.S. hostility remains unchanged, the DPRK Foreign Ministry concluded that "the prospect for denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula has become gloomier," and so "there may be talks for peace and stability…but no talks for the denuclearization of the peninsula." North Korea, it said, "will take steps for physical counteraction to bolster the military capabilities for self-defense, including nuclear deterrence…to cope with the evermore undisguised moves of the U.S. to apply sanctions and apply pressure against the DPRK." [26] First a peace settlement must be reached; only then can talks on denuclearization can proceed.

Events on the Korean Peninsula are heading in a potentially dangerous direction. New sanctions on the DPRK and the refusal of the Obama Administration to engage in dialogue have eliminated any exit strategy. North Korea, feeling threatened, may conduct another nuclear test to further develop the best defense it has against military aggression and to assert its independence. However, South Korea promises "very grave consequences" if it follows that path. [27] The U.S. has made similarly threatening statements.

According to South Korean presidential national security advisor Chun Yung-woo, consequences must be imposed on the DPRK that it finds intolerable. North Korea must choose between nuclear weapons or its survival, he declared. "No other options must be allowed." [28]

Ratcheting up pressure on the DPRK, the U.S. and South Korea kicked off joint naval military exercises in the East Sea on February 4, 2013, including the nuclear submarine USS San Francisco. "Through this joint military exercise, we will be able to deliver a message to North Korea that if they engage in a defiant act, it won't be tolerated," warned Jung Seung-jo, chairman of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff. [29]

North Korea has always responded in kind. When approached diplomatically, it negotiates and when threatened, it resists. Neither the U.S. nor South Korea is open to dialogue at the present time. Both are bent on exacerbating tensions.

China is attempting to dissuade the DPRK from carrying out another nuclear test, aware of the dangers that U.S. and South Korean aggressive reaction could present. But even if North Korea refrains from conducting another nuclear test, it is clear that the U.S. is seeking a pretext any pretext to squeeze North Korea harder, and it may not take much to plunge the Korean Peninsula into a terrible crisis.

Gregory Elich is on the Board of Directors of the Jasenovac Research Institute and on the Advisory Board of the Korea Truth Commission. He is the author of the book Strange Liberators: Militarism, Mayhem, and the Pursuit of Profit.

http://www.amazon.com/Strange-Liberators-Militarism-Mayhem-Pursuit/dp/1595265708

Notes

[1] http://www.satelliteonthenet.co.uk/index.php/2012

[2] "Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets," Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[3] Ken Dilanian, "Experts Debate North Korea's Missile Goals and Capability," Los Angeles Times, January 9, 2013.

[4] "Experts Say North Korea Still Years Away from Reliable Rockets," Associated Press, December 12, 2012.

[5] Steven Haggard, "More on the Missile Test," Peterson Institute for International Economics, March 19, 2012.

[6] Aleksandr Zakharovich Zhebin, "Pyongyang will Respond to the United Nations with a Nuclear Explosion: North Korea is Abandoning the Promises of Denuclearization," Nezavismaya Gazeta, January 25, 2013.

[7] Heather Timmons and Jim Yardley, "Signs of an Asian Arms Buildup in India's Missile Test," New York Times, April 19, 2012.

[8] Sami Zubeiri, "Pakistan Tests Nuclear-Capable Ballistic Missile," Agence France-Presse, April 25, 2012.

[9] "India Tests Underwater Ballistic Missile," UPI, January 27, 2013.

[10] "India Terms North Korean Rocket Launch Unwarranted," Deccan Herald, December 12, 2012.

[11] "India Successfully Test-fires Agni-I Ballistic Missile," Press Trust of India, December 12, 2012.

[12] Stephen Clark, "Japan Launches Spy Satellites into Orbit," Space Flight Now, January 28, 2013.

[13] http://www.oosa.unvienna.org/oosa/SpaceLaw/outerspt.html

[14] Ri Hyon-to, "We Reject the UN Security Council Resolution' Fabricated Under US Initiative," Rodong Sinmun, January 29, 2013.

[15] Kim Young-jin, "Seoul Seeks to Freeze NK Accounts," Korea Times, December 5, 2012.

[16] "N. Korea Not Expected to See U.N. Penalties this Year for Rocket Launch," Global Security Newswire, December 18, 2012.

"China Resists Moves to Sanction N. Korea: Diplomats," Agence France-Presse, December 18, 2012.

[17] "U.S. Pressing China to Back U.N. Punishment for N. Korea: Source," Yonhap, December 18, 2012.

[18] Victoria Nuland, Daily Press Briefing, U.S. Department of State, December 17, 2012.

[19] Park Min-hee, "What Made China Vote for UN Sanctions on North Korea?", Hankoreh, January 24, 2013.

"China Says New UN Resolution on DPRK Generally Balanced,' Xinhua, January 23, 2013.

[20] UN Security Council SC/10891, "Security Council Condemns Use of Ballistic Missile Technology in Launch by Democratic People's Republic of Korea, in Resolution 2087 (2013)," January 22, 2013.

[21] "S. Korea, U.S. Ponders Additional Sanctions' Against N. Korea," Yonhap, January 23, 2013.

[22] Press Release, "Treasury Sanctions Company and Individuals Linked to North Korean Weapons of Mass Destruction Program," U.S. Department of Treasury, January 24, 2013.

[23] Park Hyung-ki and Shin Hyon-hee, "S. Korea Analyzed Salvaged N. Korean Rocket Debris," Korea Herald, December 14, 2012.

[24] Jorge Benitez, "Panetta: NATO Needs to Join U.S. Rebalance to Asia-Pacific," Atlantic Council NATO Alliance News Blog, January 18, 2013.

[25] "N. Korea Sends Ultimatum' to U.S. on Nuke Issue: Newspaper," Yonhap, January 21, 2013.

[26] "DPRK Refutes UNSC's Resolution' Pulling Up DPRK over its Satellite Launch," KCNA, January 23, 2013.

[27] "S. Korea Warns N. Korea Will Face Grave Consequences' in Case of Nuclear Test," Yonhap, January 31, 2013.

[28 "S. Korea Calls for Intolerable' Sanctions Against N. Korea's Nuke Ambition," Yonhap, January 30, 2013.

[29] Jeong Yong-soo, "U.S. Sends Submarine to East Sea," JoongAng Ilbo, February 2, 2013.

Park Byong-su, "Large South Korea-US Military Exercises to Involve Nuclear Submarine," Hanyoreh, February 2, 2013.

Copyright © Gregory Elich, Global Research, 2013

Adele


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Adele Edisen - 06-04-2013

Washington's "Playbook" on Provoking North Korea
By Stephen Gowans

The White House approved a detailed plan, called 'the playbook,' to ratchet up
tension with North Korea during the Pentagon's war games with South Korea.

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article34523.htm [http://r20.rs6.net/tn.jsp?e=001dw7GnmGzU-8aPeDnFzu3QY_nRAwu3njPfH6wtxKYboSLsam-9m3DPWgdBrOkk5ERK2rGjpluflh9v77CBzwTCchqZZGQc888vjKcSTxiKXS9TZsbYMYTlvGhQo66IdaUeoQBl0ZtErW_6ZHRuTrvLh2jXmyrHM-_q3LRWUA8VNxwZbEs-Mq89kQdf01YdMTj-HIv7NMO6_rZai9htlwU0vZGlwVblEJKRVwirp22iMFMUaxqn0S2QlyyUay7fDv1hfr-zv0yhIdhLIyrE8o3FdwSBR6rU4kbUdVMXdmVW4WR-Bnt4OoOdR_-WI6nltur2om2nmCn57M=]

Washington's "Playbook" on Provoking North Korea

By Stephen Gowans

April 05, 2013 "Information Clearing House" - In an April 3 Wall Street Journal article, "U.S. dials back on Korean show of force," reporters Adam Entous and Julian E. Barnes revealed that the White House approved a detailed plan, called the playbook,' to ratchet up tension with North Korea during the Pentagon's war games with South Korea.

The war games, which are still in progress, and involve the deployment of a considerable amount of sophisticated US military hardware to within striking distance of North Korea, are already a source of considerable tension in Pyongyang, and represent what Korean specialist Tim Beal dubs "sub-critical" warfare.

The two-month-long war games, directed at and carried out in proximity to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, force the North Korean military onto high alert, an exhausting and cripplingly expensive state of affairs for a small country whose economy has already been crippled by wide-ranging sanctions. North Korea estimates that sanctions and US military aggression have taken an incalculable toll on its economy. [1]

The playbook was developed by the Pentagon's Pacific Command, to augment the war games that began in early March, and was discussed at several high-level White House meetings, according to the Wall Street Journal reporters.

The plan called for low-altitude B-52 bomber flights over the Korean peninsula, which happened on March 8. A few weeks later, two nuclear-capable B-2 bombers dropped dummy payloads on a South Korean missile range. The flights were deliberately carried out in broad daylight at low altitude, according to a U.S. defense official, to produce the intended minatory effect. "We could fly it at night, but the point was for them to see it." [2]

A few days ago, the Pentagon deployed two advanced F-22 warplanes to South Korea, also part of the play-book' plan to intimidate Pyongyang.

According to Entous and Barnes, the White House knew that the North Koreans would react by threatening to retaliate against the United States and South Korea.

In a March 29 article, Barnes wrote that "Defense officials acknowledged that North Korean military officers are particularly agitated by bomber flights because of memories of the destruction wrought from the air during the Korean War." [3] During the war, the United States Air Force demolished every target over one story. It also dropped more napalm than it did later in Vietnam. [4]

The reality, then, is exactly opposite of the narrative formulated in the Western mass media. Washington hasn't responded to North Korean belligerence and provocations with a show of force. On the contrary, Washington deliberately planned a show of force in order to elicit an angry North Korean reaction, which was then labelled "belligerence" and "provocation." The provocations, coldly and calculating planned, have come from Washington. North Korea's reactions have been defensive.

Pressed to explain why North Korea, a military pipsqueak in comparison to the United States, would deliberately provoke a military colossus, Western journalists, citing unnamed analysts, have concocted a risible fiction about Pyongyang using military threats as a bargaining chip to wheedle aid from the West, as a prop to its faltering "mismanaged" economy. The role of sanctions and the unceasing threat of US military intervention are swept aside as explanations for North Korea's economic travails.

However, Entous's and Barnes's revelations now make the story harder to stick. The North Koreans haven't developed a nuclear program, poured money into their military, and made firm their resolve to meet US and South Korean aggression head-on, in order to inveigle aid from Washington. They've done so to defend themselves against coldly calculated provocations.

According to the Wall Street Journal staffers, the White House has dialled back its provocations for now, for fear they could lead to a North Korean "miscalculation." In street language, Washington challenged the DPRK to a game of chicken, and broke it off, when it became clear the game might not unfold as planned.

Stephen Gowans blogs at "What's left" - http://gowans.wordpress.com/

Notes

1. According to the Korean Central News Agency, March 26, 2013, "The amount of human and material damage done to the DPRK till 2005 totaled at least 64,959 854 million U.S. dollars."

2. Jay Solomon, Julian E. Barnes and Alastair Gale, "North Korea warned", The Wall Street Journal, March 29, 2013

3. Julian E. Barnes, "U.S. pledges further show of force in Korea", The Wall Street journal, March 29, 2013

4. Bruce Cumings. The Korean War: A History. Modern Library. 2010.

Adele


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - David Guyatt - 07-04-2013

Adele Edisen Wrote:The two-month-long war games, directed at and carried out in proximity to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, force the North Korean military onto high alert, an exhausting and cripplingly expensive state of affairs for a small country whose economy has already been crippled by wide-ranging sanctions. North Korea estimates that sanctions and US military aggression have taken an incalculable toll on its economy. [1]

This makes sense. It reverberates history. Reagan's star wars project was effectively an economic warfare project that aimed to push the USSR to the point of economic collapse. It worked.


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Adele Edisen - 08-04-2013

David Guyatt Wrote:
Adele Edisen Wrote:The two-month-long war games, directed at and carried out in proximity to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, force the North Korean military onto high alert, an exhausting and cripplingly expensive state of affairs for a small country whose economy has already been crippled by wide-ranging sanctions. North Korea estimates that sanctions and US military aggression have taken an incalculable toll on its economy. [1]

This makes sense. It reverberates history. Reagan's star wars project was effectively an economic warfare project that aimed to push the USSR to the point of economic collapse. It worked.

David,

And not much has been made of that in our media. The U.S. is acting as if we were the one under possible attack.

Adele


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Magda Hassan - 08-04-2013

Adele Edisen Wrote:David,

And not much has been made of that in our media. The U.S. is acting as if we were the one under possible attack.

Adele
And they never will. Their job is not to inform every one as to what the truth of the matter is and what is really going on. Their job is to be corporate and military cheerleaders and keep people confused and distracted from what's really going on.


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Dawn Meredith - 08-04-2013

Magda Hassan Wrote:
Adele Edisen Wrote:David,

And not much has been made of that in our media. The U.S. is acting as if we were the one under possible attack.

Adele
And they never will. Their job is not to inform every one as to what the truth of the matter is and what is really going on. Their job is to be corporate and military cheerleaders and keep people confused and distracted from what's really going on.

Yes, and how do we even know this is a real threat? I mean was it made over tv? Radio? I trust zero from MSM.
Remarkable letter/ blog from Castro. He still has his wits and if he dictated that his brain is still in fine shape. He must be very old.
And was close to death not that long ago.

Dawn


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - David Guyatt - 09-04-2013

Shutting down the hotline between Seoul and Pyongyang doesn't sound good.

Quote:

UN chief Ban: Korea crisis could become 'uncontrollable'


[ATTACH=CONFIG]4573[/ATTACH]
A newsreader on North Korean television warns foreigners to leave South Korea

UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon has warned the crisis on the Korean peninsula may become "uncontrollable".


He once again urged North Korea to tone down its "provocative rhetoric" and to keep open a joint North-South Korean industrial complex.


Also on Tuesday, North Korea warned foreigners in South Korea to take evacuation measures in case of war.


Pyongyang has been making bellicose threats against South Korea, Japan and US bases in the region.


Speaking to reporters in Rome, Mr Ban said: "If any small incident is caused by miscalculation or misjudgement, it may create an uncontrollable situation.''


He also called for the Kaesong Industrial Complex to be kept open, calling it "one of the most successful cooperative projects between the South and North".


"This should not be affected by political considerations. This is a purely economic place," he went on.



North Korean employees did not report for work at the complex on Tuesday, suspending one of the few points of co-operation between North and South Korea.


Warning to foreigners
Meanwhile, a statement attributed to Pyongyang's Asia-Pacific Peace Committee on Tuesday said: "The situation on the Korean peninsula is heading for a thermo-nuclear war.


"In the event of war, we don't want foreigners living in South Korea to get hurt."


The statement urged "all foreign organisations, companies and tourists to work out measures for evacuation".


Last Friday, Pyongyang warned it would not be able to guarantee the safety of embassy staff in the event of a war.


No foreign embassies immediately announced plans to evacuate, and the UK and Russian embassies have said they have no plans to shut their embassies.


The United States, which has also been threatened by Pyongyang, has said there were no imminent signs of threats to American citizens.


Fiery rhetoric
Tuesday's warning from Pyongyang to foreigners in South Korea came amid growing concern that the North may be about to launch a missile test.

Japan has deployed defensive anti-missile batteries at three locations in Tokyo, to protect the capital's 30 million residents.


US-made Patriot anti-missile systems have been deployed at the defence ministry and at two other military bases.


At the end of last week Japan sent two of its most modern warships to the Sea of Japan with orders to shoot down any missiles fired by North Korea towards the Japanese islands.


BBC Tokyo correspondent Rupert Wingfield-Hayes say no-one in Japan thinks Pyongyang is really preparing to attack.


But it may try to fire a missile over the top of Japan in to the Pacific Ocean. If it does Tokyo has made it clear it will shoot the missile down.


This is not the first time that Japan has taken such measures.


Also on Tuesday, the South Korean news agency Yonhap reported that North Korea has completed preparations for a mid-range missile launch from its east coast.


The United Nations imposed tough sanctions on North Korea last month following its third nuclear test.


Pyongyang has responded to this, and to joint military exercises between South Korea and the US, with escalating rhetoric. It has threatened to use nuclear weapons and said it would restart a nuclear reactor.


The North has also shut down an emergency military hotline between Seoul and Pyongyang.



The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Jan Klimkowski - 09-04-2013

The false case for War against Iraq was based on entirely unreliable sources such as the notorious liar "Curveball" and other garbage "insiders" supplied and scripted by neocon-funded emigre groups.

We were constantly told there was no high level human intelligence coming from inside Iraq.

We now know that the Head of Saddam's secret police and a significant number of cabinet ministers were actually western intelligence assets.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we're being sold a similar dog of a story with respect to North Korea.

I suspect there are high level insiders working for the KCIA, Japapese or American intelligence, providing quality information about North Korean military decision-making.

This whole Korean nightmare feels lke a potential false flag paradigm shift, where the Horror of Nuclear Armagedden is suddenly made real again.

If the red button is pushed, all sorts of military-multinational-intelligence complex wet dreams of civil liberties' suppression and Doomsday Bomb spend will come to pass.


The Duty to Avoid a War in Korea - Peter Lemkin - 09-04-2013

Jan Klimkowski Wrote:The false case for War against Iraq was based on entirely unreliable sources such as the notorious liar "Curveball" and other garbage "insiders" supplied and scripted by neocon-funded emigre groups.

We were constantly told there was no high level human intelligence coming from inside Iraq.

We now know that the Head of Saddam's secret police and a significant number of cabinet ministers were actually western inteligence assets.

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that we're being sold a similar dog of a story with respect to North Korea.

I suspect there are high level insiders working for the KCIA, Japapese or American intelligence, providing quality information about North Korean military decision-making.

This whole Korean nightmare feels lke a potential false flag paradigm shift, where the Horror of Nuclear Armagedden is suddenly made real again.

If the red button is pushed, all sorts of military-multinational-intelligence complex wet dreams of civil liberties' suppression and Doomsday Bomb spend will come to pass.

....the NEW 9-11 perhaps....with only a city or two obliterated....Just thinking aloud....