News Articles
(Note: Here we collect the articles which give us a thinking. We hope you should also read them and think over as we do. However, the views expressed in the articles are not necessarily the same as ours.)
CPRK Spokesman Blasts Lee Myung Bak's Talk about Dialogue
Pyongyang, January 19 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA Thursday ridiculing the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors for pretending to be interested in improving the north-south relations, talking about "dialogue":
From the outset of the new year, Lee trumpeted about "opening the window of opportunity" and "defusing mutual distrust." While touring a foreign country, he let loose a spate of jargons to give impression that he was interested in improving the north-south relations and dialogue, crying out for "joint efforts for preserving stability and peace" on the Korean Peninsula.
Ryu U Ik, puppet minister of Unification, and other minions are so shameless as to utter that they hope "the north will come out for dialogue" and "the south will work to improve the south-north relations", talking about "opening the channel of dialogue".
The group of traitors rubbed salt into the wounds of the fellow countrymen deeply grieving the untimely demise of the great father and hurled muds at the tears shed during the mourning period. Nevertheless, the group, far from making an apology for its high treason, shamelessly cried out for dialogue. This is an unpardonable mockery and insult to the Korean people.
While paying lip-service to "dialogue," the Lee group more openly revealed its sinister intention to escalate confrontation, asserting "there is no change in the basic policy toward the north" and "it will play a leading role, sticking to the essence of the policy toward the north". Worse still, it dared preposterously call for someone's "change" and "choice", persistently peddling the "Cheonan" warship case the hypocritical nature of which had already been brought to light.
Despite accusations at home and abroad, Lee did not dismiss Kim Thae Hyo, a vicious anti-reunification and confrontation-minded element of Chongwadae, but promoted him. And he inspected a unit of the puppet army in the area along the Military Demarcation Line, malignantly slandering the DPRK as "hostile forces" and fanning up fever of a war of aggression against the north. This indicates that Lee is more viciously challenging the DPRK with a dagger in his belt.
Clear is the aim sought by the group in trumpeting about dialogue at present as it was dead-set against the DPRK's proposal for wide-ranging north-south dialogue and negotiations. It is aimed to calm down the surging resentment of the people of the DPRK and all other fellow countrymen at the group of traitors who committed the high treason, diverse elsewhere the south Korean people's hatred now on the point of eruption, mislead public opinion at home and abroad, tide over the ruling crisis and smoothly hold elections.
The Lee group is the gang of traitors without equals as it has driven the inter-Korean relations into an uncontrollable catastrophe by committing all sorts of wrongs in the four years of its office. Ridiculous, indeed, is the attempt of this group to use the sacred north-south dialogue for attaining its despicable political goal and prolonging its remaining days.
The Lee Myung Bak group would be well advised to make an apology to the whole nation for the high treason committed during the mourning over the great loss to the nation before talking about hypocritical dialogue.
JAPANESE governments¡¯ CONTINUED but HIDDEN COLONIAL DISCRIMINATIONS against KOREANS
by Kiyul Chung | Friday, December 9, 2011, 18:00 Beijing
Almost the whole world, except a very few populations around the globe, seem DO NOT KNOW anything about the consecutive JAPANESE governments¡¯ CONTINUED but HIDDEN COLONIAL DISCRIMINATIONS against certain groups of KOREAN PEOPLE for over 60 years.
Not only those world populations but also even many Koreans themselves both in South and about 8 million Koreans in overseas¡¯ communities around the world seem do not know either about it in depth.
In fact, neither most Japanese population, too, seemed to have known about their own governments¡¯ CONTINUED DISCRIMINATIONS against Koreans, PARTICULARLY against those about A HALF MILLION KOREANS (in 1940s and 50s), called ¡°Chongryon¡± people in Japan.
The Chongryon means a nationwide organization in Japan which has been persistently nationalistic, i.e., anti-imperialistic, self-determined and independent Korean organization which has identified their national affiliation not with Japan but Korea, particularly with the North.
The history of JAPANESE governments¡¯ CONTINUED but HIDDEN COLONIAL DISCRIMINATIONS against KOREAN PEOPLE for over 60 years is PARTICULARLY TRUE in the case of 25 million population of Democratic People¡¯s Republic of Korea.[i]
However, it¡¯s ABSOULTELY and UNDENIABLY TRUE in the case of about a three quarter million Korean population in their FORMER COLONIAL SUZERAIN STATE, JAPAN.
FLAGRANT VIOLATIONS OF the UN HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION!
According to the PREAMBLE and most of the 30 ARTICLES of the UN Human Rights Declaration, the consecutive governments¡¯ continued but hidden racial discriminations against Koreans in Japan should have been condemned as FLAGRNT VIOLATIONS of the UN HUMAN RIGHTS DECLARATION!
By anyone¡¯s open-minded observations and objective readings on the history of Chongryon people, those racially-motivated, legally-forced, and systematically-institutionalized discrimination policies by Japanese governments are very much identical with numerous types of COLONIAL CRIMES which had been committed throughout close a half century-long vicious colonial rule.
For over 60 years, Japanese governments have particularly violated the UN Human Rights Declaration Articles 1, 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 15, 19 and 20.
However, most inhumanly thereby most cruelly, what they¡¯ve repeatedly violated was, something the whole international community should be aware of, the Article 26 which talks about the Right to Education.[ii]
For their political choice in Japan, those hundreds of thousands of Chongryon Koreans have had to pay extremely high, often beyond imagination, price for the whole duration of their life, not only during their own generation but also the following generations even up to the present one, the Fifth Generation today.
One of the unbelievably high prices they are paying right now is the issue of ¡°Exclusion of Koreans from Free High School Education.¡± This ugly, probably the ugliest type of racially-motivated discrimination policy in regard to EDUCATION is one of the latest discriminations Koreans in Japan have suffered with.
In short, JAPANESE governments¡¯ DISCRIMINATION POLICIES which must be identified and condemned as their INSTITUTIONALIZED RACISM which does still continue even against those 5TH GENERATION of Chongryon Koreans.
The Japanese government has EXCLUDED KOREAN STUDENTS from government¡¯s educational (financial) supports which are freely given to all other schools in Japan except those Chongryon-affiliated schools.
Again this is a flagrant violation of one of the most fundamental human rights regarding the ¡°Right to Education.¡±
The former colonial state Japan has repeatedly discriminated a formerly colonized population who¡¯d been mostly brought by force either to Japan islands or to imperialist¡¯s losing battle grounds, to their military factories (such as Mitsubishi), to their mines, or even to their infamous ¡°military brothels¡± as ¡°forcibly-conscripted imperial army (Korean) soldiers,¡± ¡°slave laborers¡± or ¡°military sex slaves¡± until the demise of Imperial Japan in mid 1945.
That unimaginably ¡°high price¡± the Chongryon Koreans have had to PAY TILL THIS VERY DAY must be understood in the form of CONTINUATION OF COLONIAL CRIMES the ¡°JAPANESE IMPERIALISTS¡± HAD COMMITTED not only against Koreans for almost a half century back then but also many Chinese and other East Asian populations in the 1930s and 40s.
As mentioned in the beginning, the world seems to have assumed those heinous colonial crimes committed by Japanese did stop then at the end of Imperial Japan in August 1945.
However, unlike GERMANS, the so-called ¡°PEACELOVING, FREE, DEMOCRATIC AND ECONOMICALLY-PROSPEROUS NATION¡± JAPAN DIDN¡¯T STOP THEIR COLONIAL CRIMES then but HAVE CONTINUED EVEN THIS VERY DAY.
Dr. Kiyul Chung who is Editor-in-chief at the 4th Media is also a Visiting Professor at School of Journalism and Communication, Tsinghua University in Beijing, China. He is also a political commentator at CCTV-9.
NOTES
[i] Its acronym should be ¡°DPRK.¡± However, it¡¯s been known hitherto as ¡°North Korea¡± in most parts of the world. This name North Korea, together with South Korea, denotes and further implies the continued DIVISION of Korean peninsula. So the whole population in north and many self-determined reunification-oriented population in south don¡¯t use these divisive names.
[ii] UN Human Rights Declaration Article 26:
(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages. Elementary education shall be compulsory. Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.
(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religious groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace.
(3) Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.
KCNA Commentary Rejects Pre-conditions for Resuming Six-Party Talks
Pyongyang, October 4 (KCNA) -- The DPRK has so far made sincere efforts for resuming the six-party talks.
The six-party talks are not for the DPRK only. So, its efforts alone are not enough to resume them.
If pre-conditions are necessary for the resumption of the talks, it is essential to set pre-conditions on the basis of equality for all and all parties should move even if confidence building is necessary for the resumption of the talks.
Doing so is in full line with the principle of simultaneous action which they committed themselves to abide by in the September 19 Statement.
The DPRK calls for resuming the talks without pre-conditions.
But the U.S. is creating wrong impression that there are things which the DPRK has to do first for the resumption of the talks.
U.S. President Obama in his speech at the 66th session of the UN General Assembly on Sept. 21 claimed the DPRK has not taken concrete steps for dismantling its nukes.
A spokesman for the U.S. State Department, the U.S. ambassador to south Korea and other officials of the U.S. vied with each other bragging the DPRK's "sincerity" is not enough and it should show its will for denuclearization not in words but in action.
The U.S. unilateral insistence on pre-conditions makes it hard to find its sincerity for the talks.
This attitude makes people believe that the dialogue touted by the U.S. is not a sincere one but a stop-gap measure to tide over the crisis caused by its domestic political agenda such as presidential elections as it used to employ in the past.
The U.S. talk about pre-conditions is little short of an artifice to shift the blame for the failure to resume the six-party talks on to the DPRK.
The U.S. is sadly mistaken if it regards the DPRK's efforts for the resumption of the talks as "a drawback."
If efforts to resume the talks prove futile as now and the chance for it is missed in the end, all facts will prove who is to blame for it.
KCNA Raps Japan's Perverted Way of Thinking
Pyongyang, August 17 (KCNA) -- 66 years have passed since the Second World War ended.
Many countries and nations on the globe have striven hard to check the revival of militarism and fascism, recollecting the horrible war disasters every year.
However, it is only in Japan where abnormal phenomena take place in an unbroken chain quite contrary to this international trend to stun the international community.
The behaviors of politicians of Japan who hold official positions on August 15, day of Japan's defeat, provide a glimpse of the reality in the Japanese society prevalent with the trend of denying its past.
At least 50 Dietmen belonging to the "Association of Dietmen for Visiting Yasukuni Shrine" swarmed to the shrine on the day. Yoshihiko Noda, minister of Finance, openly said A Class war criminals entombed in the shrine were not war criminals.
When the prime minister and ministers avoided the visit to the shrine, Governor of Tokyo Metropolis Ishihara, ultra-right maniac, did not hesitate to let loose such hysteric remarks as "those guys are not Japanese."
This open and blatant denial of history by Japanese politicians on the day of disgrace makes the international community express concern over the ultra-right political trend prevailing in the Japanese society as it is one going beyond the scope of behaviors of individual ultra nationalists.
Japan has emerged a dangerous force of aggression keen on overseas expansion and militarism and is swayed with ultra-right social trend, oblivious of its past.
The present reality of Japan reminds one of its appearance before its defeat when it advocated "the whole world under one roof" and "the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere."
The reckless behaviors of ultra-right politicians on August 15 alone glaringly show the dirty political landscape in Japan where militarists, ultra-right conservative forces and descendants of war criminals ride roughshod, holding power.
The future of Japan cannot but remain dismal as long as the above-said ultra-right elements are allowed to run wild.
The Japanese reactionaries are now treading the same road of destruction as what the Japanese militarists did in the past.
North-South Negotiations Held to Readjust Real Estates of S. Side at Mt. Kumgang Resort
Pyongyang, July 13 (KCNA) -- Negotiations of those concerned in the north and the south were held at Mt. Kumgang resort on July 13 to readjust the real estates of the south side at Mt. Kumgang resort.
At the negotiations the north side notified the south side of the decree of the Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK on setting the special zone for international tour of Mt. Kumgang and the law on special zone for international tour of Mt. Kumgang and clarified the stand of the DPRK on readjusting the real estates to implement them and then proposed those concerned of the south side to choose between their participation in international tour and lease or sale.
Those concerned of the authorities of the south side barred those non-governmental businessmen present at the negotiations with them from saying any words. They insisted that Hyundai monopoly and the north-south agreement should be observed, asserting that the law on special zone for international tour of Mt. Kumgang and the proposal on readjusting the real estates according to it are a breach of the contract made between the parties concerned and the agreement on guaranteeing investment. They also said they would "take legal and diplomatic steps." Then they came out with "three-point conditions" for lifting the steps for confiscating and freezing the real estates of the south side and resuming tour, obstructing the readjustment of properties.
Three non-governmental businessmen of the south side could not properly express their views, reading the face of others under the pressure of those concerned of the authorities of the south side. They only complained of their embarrassing position, saying they can't do anything if the authorities reject, though they wish to participate in international tour of Mt. Kumgang.
Those concerned of the authorities of the south side meddled in the separate meeting and discussion held between the north side and non-governmental businessmen.
The north side reminded the attendants that the issue of readjusting the real estates surfaced owing to the unilateral suspension of tour by the authorities of the south side and the DPRK suffered big losses due to the suspension of tour for the past three years, demanding the authorities of the south side compensate for this.
The north side held that the authorities of the south side should neither poke their noses into the work of readjusting the real estates nor disturb it as the recent step was taken by the DPRK to protect the right to properties of those concerned of the south side.
Nevertheless, those concerned of the authorities of the south side insisted on their unreasonable stand, keeping the non-governmental businessmen from expressing their will.
Strongly accusing those concerned of the authorities of the south side of their reckless and dishonest attitude, the north side said that it would have another round of negotiations if the businessmen of the south side go back and make further study to have their stand. It declared it would legally dispose of the real estates of the south side as already proclaimed by it, should the south side not clarify its stand till the end of July.
Those concerned of the authorities of the south side said they would go back, make a report to their superior and notify the north side of the stand on the next negotiations through an appropriate channel.
Rodong Sinmun-US Scheme for War against DPRK Flayed
Pyongyang, May 8 (KCNA) -- The U.S. warmongers are planning to stage joint military exercises with south Korean puppet forces on Paekryong Island in July under the pretence of "coping with the provocation of local war" by someone, according to a foreign news report.
It is reported that the U.S. imperialists hasten the military confab with the south Korean puppet forces while making field survey of the island for the war exercises to be conducted with huge armed forces involved.
This is a dangerous scheme for war aimed at surprise attack on the DPRK and a grave challenge to the world people desirous of denuclearization, peace and stability of the Korean Peninsula, Rodong Sinmun Sunday says in a signed commentary.
It goes on: The U.S. imperialists' attempt for the war exercises on the island where a very tense situation prevails is a premeditated military provocation to the DPRK as it is designed to let the south Korean puppet forces ignite another warship sinking case and armed provocation in the West Sea.
What is more dangerous is that the joint exercises on the island are to be staged in the territorial waters under the DPRK's sovereignty.
Lurking behind such plan for staging the exercises on Paekryong Island, the most sensitive area, is a wicked intention to maintain the "northern limit line" at any cost and ignite a war against the DPRK anytime.
Through the exercises, the U.S. imperialists seek to finally examine and round off the preparations for operation of surprise attack on the DPRK. To this end, they are going to bring huge armed forces of the U.S. Marine Corps to the area of Paekryong Island.
Now the U.S. armed forces in the Asia-Pacific region, the U.S. mainland, Alaska, Japan and south Korea are conducting brisk maneuvers aiming at the DPRK under such war scenarios as "New OPLAN 5026".
If the enemies dare to invade the DPRK, they will be doomed to a miserable fate.
DPRK Delegate on His Country¡Çs Stand on Elimination of Nukes
Pyongyang, March 15 (KCNA) -- The Democratic People¡Çs Republic of Korea will as ever make every possible effort to realize the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula and promote the nuclear disarmament and the final elimination of nuclear weapons in the world.
The DPRK¡Çs delegate said this in a speech at a plenary meeting of the Geneva Disarmament Conference on March 10. ¡¡ The issue of providing a guarantee for an unconditional non-use of nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states presents itself as an urgent one in view of the objective of the nuclear disarmament, he noted, and continued:
It is an escape from reality to pursue only non-proliferation, sidestepping the issue of providing a guarantee for an unconditional non-use of nukes.
The high-handed nuclear policy based on double standards reduces disarmament agreements including the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty to mere scraps of papers and drives the world into a nuclear arms race at present.
It is unjustifiable for some countries to blame only those countries incurring their displeasure for conducting nuclear activities for peaceful purposes, while evading their commitments to nuclear disarmament.
Using nuclear energy for peaceful purposes is not a privilege granted to specified countries only. It is a legitimate right of sovereign states.
The reality proves that the existing commitment to giving a guarantee for non-use and safety of nukes alone can never help solve the problem.
It is our view that it is most urgent, therefore, to set up a mechanism under international law totally banning the threat with nukes and their use.
It is our view that to this end it is necessary to institute an international convention banning the use of nukes which calls for stipulating it as a legal duty of nuclear weapons states to neither threaten with nukes nor use them under any circumstances and making a strict verification of its observance.
All the nuclear weapons states should roll back nuclear policies based on preemptive use of nukes, unconditionally commit themselves not to use nukes first as demanded by the non-nuclear states and respond to the negotiations for working out the international convention on this issue as early as possible.
We will always sincerely fulfill our duty before the international community as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
War Is a Drug -The Urge to Surge By Tom Engelhardt
Washington¡¯s 30-Year High
If, as 2011 begins, you want to peer into the future, enter my time machine, strap yourself in, and head for the past, that laboratory for all developments of our moment and beyond.
Just as 2010 ended, the American military¡¯s urge to surge resurfaced in a significant way. It seems that ¡°leaders¡± in the Obama administration and ¡°senior American military commanders¡± in Afghanistan were acting as a veritable WikiLeaks machine. They slipped information to New York Times reporters Mark Mazzetti and Dexter Filkins about secret planning to increase pressure in the Pakistani tribal borderlands, possibly on the tinderbox province of Baluchistan, and undoubtedly on the Pakistani government and military via cross-border raids by U.S. Special Operations forces in the new year.
In the front-page story those two reporters produced, you could practically slice with a dull knife American military frustration over a war going terribly wrong, over an enemy (shades of Vietnam!) with ¡°sanctuaries¡± for rest, recuperation, and rearming just over an ill-marked, half-existent border. You could practically taste the chagrin of the military that their war against... well you name it: terrorists, guerrillas, former Islamic fundamentalist allies, Afghan and Pakistani nationalists, and god knows who else... wasn¡¯t proceeding exactly swimmingly. You could practically reach out and be seared by their anger at the Pakistanis for continuing to take American bucks by the billions while playing their own game, rather than an American one, in the region.
If you were of a certain age, you could practically feel (shades of Vietnam again!) that eerily hopeful sense that the next step in spreading the war, the next escalation, could be the decisive one. Admittedly, these days no one talks (as they did in the Vietnam and Iraq years) about turning ¡°corners¡± or reaching ¡°tipping points,¡± but you can practically hear those phrases anyway, or at least the mingled hope and desperation that always lurked behind them.
Take this sentence, for instance: ¡°Even with the risks, military commanders say that using American Special Operations troops could bring an intelligence windfall, if militants were captured, brought back across the border into Afghanistan and interrogated.¡± Can¡¯t you catch the familiar conviction that, when things are going badly, the answer is never ¡°less,¡± always ¡°more,¡± that just another decisive step or two and you¡¯ll be around that fateful corner?
In this single New York Times piece (and other hints about cross-border operations), you can sense just how addictive war is for the war planners. Once you begin down the path of invasion and occupation, turning back is as difficult as an addict going cold turkey. With all the sober talk about year-end reviews in Afghanistan, about planning and ¡°progress¡± (a word used nine times in the relatively brief, vetted ¡°overview¡± of that review recently released by the White House), about future dates for drawdowns and present tactics, it¡¯s easy to forget that war is a drug. When you¡¯re high on it, your decisions undoubtedly look as rational, even practical, as the public language you tend to use to describe them. But don¡¯t believe it for a second.
Once you¡¯ve shot up this drug, your thinking is impaired. Through its dream-haze, unpleasant history becomes bunk; what others couldn¡¯t do, you fantasize that you can. Forget the fact that crossing similar borders to get similar information and wipe out similar sanctuaries in Cambodia and Laos in the Vietnam War years led to catastrophe for American planners and the peoples of the region. It only widened that war into what in Cambodia would become auto-genocide. Forget the fact that, no matter whom American raiders might capture, they have no hope of capturing the feeling of nationalism (or the tribal equivalent) that, in the face of foreign invaders or a foreign occupation, keeps the under-armed resilient against the mightiest of forces.
Think of the American urge to surge as a manifestation of the war drug¡¯s effect in the world. In what the Bush administration used to call ¡°the Greater Middle East,¡± Washington is now in its third and grimmest surge iteration. The first took place in the 1980s during the Reagan administration¡¯s anti-Soviet jihad in Afghanistan and proved the highest of highs; the second got rolling as the last century was ending and culminated in the first years of the twenty-first century amid what can only be described as delusions of grandeur, or even imperial megalomania. It focused on a global Pax Americana and the wars that extend it into the distant future. The third started in 2006 in Iraq and is still playing itself out in Afghanistan as 2011 commences.
In Central and South Asia, we could now be heading for the end of the age of American surges, which in practical terms have manifested themselves as the urge to destabilize. Geopolitically, little could be uglier or riskier on our planet at the moment than destabilizing Pakistan -- or the United States. Three decades after the American urge to surge in Afghanistan helped destabilize one imperial superpower, the Soviet Union, the present plans, whatever they may turn out to be, could belatedly destabilize the other superpower of the Cold War era. And what our preeminent group of surgers welcomed as an ¡°unprecedented strategic opportunity¡± as this century dawned may, in its later stages, be seen as an unprecedented act of strategic desperation.
That, of course, is what drugs, taken over decades, do to you: they give you delusions of grandeur and then leave you on the street, strung out, and without much to call your own. Perhaps it¡¯s fitting that Afghanistan, the country we helped turn into the planet¡¯s leading narco-state, has given us a 30-year high from hell.
So, as the New Year begins, strap yourself into that time machine and travel with me back into the 1980s, so that we can peer into a future we know and see the pattern that lies both behind and ahead of us.
Getting High in Afghanistan
As 2011 begins, what could be eerier than reading secret Soviet documents from the USSR's Afghan debacle of the 1980s? It gives you chills to run across Communist Party General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev at a Politburo meeting in October 1985, almost six years after Soviet troops first flooded into Afghanistan, reading letters aloud to his colleagues from embittered Soviet citizens (¡°The Politburo had made a mistake and must correct it as soon as possible -- every day precious lives are lost.¡±); or, in November 1986, insisting to those same colleagues that the Afghan war must be ended in a year, ¡°at maximum, two.¡± Yet, with the gut-wrenching sureness history offers, you can¡¯t help but know that, even two years later, even with a strong desire to leave (which has yet to surface among the Washington elite a decade into our own Afghan adventure), imperial pride and fear of loss of ¡°credibility¡± would keep the Soviets fighting on to 1989.
Or what about Marshal Sergei Akhromeev offering that same Politburo meeting an assessment that any honest American military commander might offer a quarter century later about our own Afghan adventure: ¡°There is no single piece of land in this country that has not been occupied by a Soviet soldier. Nevertheless, the majority of the territory remains in the hands of the rebels.¡± Or General Boris Gromov, the last commander of the Soviet 40th Army in Afghanistan, boasting ¡°on his last day in the country that ¡®[n]o Soviet garrison or major outpost was ever overrun.¡¯¡±
Or Andrei Gromyko, Chairman of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet, emphasizing in 1986 the strategic pleasure of their not-so-secret foe, that other great imperial power of the moment: ¡°Concerning the Americans, they are not interested in the settlement of the situation in Afghanistan. On the contrary, it is to their advantage for the war to drag out.¡± (The same might today be said of a far less impressive foe, al-Qaeda.)
Or in 1988, with the war still dragging on, to read a ¡°closed¡± letter the Communist Party distributed to its members explaining how the Afghan fiasco happened (again, the sort of thing that any honest American leader could say of our Afghan war): ¡°In addition, [we] completely disregarded the most important national and historical factors, above all the fact that the appearance of armed foreigners in Afghanistan was always met with arms in the hands [of the population]... One should not disregard the economic factor either. If the enemy in Afghanistan received weapons and ammunition for hundreds of millions and later even billions of dollars, the Soviet-Afghan side also had to shoulder adequate expenditures. The war in Afghanistan costs us 5 billion rubles a year.¡±
Or finally the pathetic letter the Soviet Military Command delivered to the head of the UN mission in Afghanistan on February 14, 1989, arguing (just as the American military high command would do of our war effort) that it was ¡°not only unfair but even absurd to draw... parallels¡± between the Soviet Afghan disaster and the American war in Vietnam. That was, of course, the day the last of 100,000 Soviet soldiers -- just about the number of American soldiers there today -- left Afghan soil heading home to a sclerotic country bled dry by war, its infrastructure aging, its economy crumbling. Riddled by drugs and thoroughly demoralized, the Red Army limped home to a society riddled by drugs and thoroughly demoralized led by a Communist Party significantly delegitimized by its disastrous Afghan adventure, its Islamic territories from Chechnya to Central Asia in increasing turmoil. In November of that same year, the Berlin Wall would be torn down and not long after the Soviet Union would disappear from the face of the Earth.
Reading those documents, you can almost imagine CIA director William Webster and ¡°his euphoric ¡®Afghan Team¡¯¡± toasting the success of the Agency's 10-year effort, its largest paramilitary operation since the Vietnam War. The Reagan administration surge in Pakistan and Afghanistan had been profligate, involving billions of dollars and a massive propaganda campaign, as well as alliances with the Saudis and a Pakistani dictator and his intelligence service to fund and arm the most extreme of the anti-Soviet jihadists of that moment -- ¡°freedom fighters¡± as they were then commonly called in Washington.
It¡¯s easy to imagine the triumphalist mood of celebration in Washington among those who had intended to give the Soviet Union a full blast of the Vietnam effect. They had used the ¡°war¡± part of the Cold War to purposely bleed the less powerful, less wealthy of the two superpowers dry. As President Reagan would later write in his memoirs: ¡°The great dynamic of capitalism had given us a powerful weapon in our battle against Communism -- money. The Russians could never win the arms race; we could outspend them forever.¡±
By 1990, the urge to surge seemed a success beyond imagining. Forget that it had left more than a million Afghans dead (and more dying), that one-third of that impoverished country¡¯s population had been turned into refugees, or that the most extreme of jihadists, including a group that called itself al-Qaeda, had been brought together, funded, and empowered through the Afghan War. More important, the urge to surge in the region was now in the American bloodstream. And who could ever imagine that, in a new century, ¡°our¡± freedom fighters would become our sworn enemies, or that the Afghans, that backward people in a poor land, could ever be the sort of impediment to American power that they had been to the Soviets?
The Cold War was over. The surge had it. We were supreme. And what better high could there be than that?
Fever Dreams of Military Might
Of course, with the Soviet Union gone, there was no military on the planet that could come close to challenging the American one, nor was there a nascent rival great power on the horizon. Still, a question remained: After centuries of great power rivalry, what did it mean to have a ¡°sole superpower¡± on planet Earth, and what path should that triumphant power head down? It took a few years, including passing talk about a possible ¡°peace dividend¡± -- that is, the investment of monies that would have gone into the Cold War, the Pentagon, and the military in infrastructural and other domestic projects -- for this question to be settled, but settled it was, definitively, on September 12, 2001.
And for all the unknown paths that might have been taken in this unique situation, the one chosen was familiar. It was, of course, the very one that had helped lead the Soviet Union to implosion, the investment of national treasure in military power above all else. However, to those high on the urge to surge and now eager to surge globally, when it came to an American future, the fate of the Soviet Union seemed no more relevant than what the Afghans had done to the Red Army. In those glory years, analogies between the greatest power the planet had ever seen and a defeated foe seemed absurd to those who believed themselves the smartest, clearest-headed guys in the room.
Previously, the ¡°arms race,¡± like any race, had involved at least two, and sometimes more, great powers. Now, it seemed, there would be something new under the sun, an arms race of one, as the U.S. prepared itself for utter dominance into a distant, highly militarized future. The military-industrial complex would, in these years, be further embedded in the warp and woof of American life; the military expanded and privatized (which meant being firmly embraced by crony corporations and hire-a-gun outfits of every sort); and the American ¡°global presence¡± -- from military bases to aircraft-carrier task forces -- enhanced until, however briefly, the United States became a military presence unique in the annals of history.
Thanks to the destructive acts of 19 jihadis, the urge to surge would with finality overwhelm all other urges in the fall of 2001 -- and there would be a group ready for just such a moment, for (as the newspaper headlines screamed) a ¡°Pearl Harbor of the twenty-first century.¡±
To take full stock of that group, however, we would first have to pilot our time machine back to June 3, 1997, the day a confident crew of Washington think-tank, academic, and political types calling themselves the Project for the New American Century (PNAC) posted a fin de si?cle ¡°statement of principles.¡± In it, they called for ¡°a military that is strong and ready to meet both present and future challenges; a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad; and national leadership that accepts the United States' global responsibilities.¡± Crucially, they were demanding that the Clinton administration, or assumedly some future administration with a better sense of American priorities, ¡°increase defense spending significantly.¡±
The 23 men and two women who signed the initial PNAC statement urging the United States to go for the military option in the twenty-first century would, however, prove something more than your typical crew of think-tank types. After all, not so many years later, after a disputed presidential election settled by the Supreme Court, Dick Cheney would be vice president; I. Lewis (¡°Scooter¡±) Libby would be his right-hand man; Donald Rumsfeld would be Secretary of Defense, Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense; Zalmay Khalilzad, head of the Bush-Cheney transition team at the Department of Defense and then the first post- invasion U.S. ambassador to Afghanistan, as well as ambassador to Iraq and UN ambassador; Elliot Abrams, special assistant to the president with a post on the National Security Council; Paula Dobriansky, Under Secretary of State for Democracy and Global Affairs; Aaron Friedberg, Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs and Director of Policy Planning in the office of the vice president; and Jeb Bush, governor of Florida. (Others like John Bolton, who signed on to PNAC later, would be no less well employed.)
This may, in fact, be the first example in history of a think tank coming to power and actually putting its blue-sky suggestions into operation as government policy, or perhaps it¡¯s the only example so far of a government-in-waiting masquerading as an online think tank. In either case, more than 13 years later, the success of that group can still take your breath away, as can both the narrowness -- and scope -- of their thinking, and of their seminal document, ¡°Rebuilding America¡¯s Defenses,¡± published in September 2000, two months before George W. Bush took the presidency.
This crew of surgers extraordinaires was considering a global situation that, as they saw it, offered Americans an ¡°unprecedented strategic opportunity.¡± Facing a new century, their ambitions were caught by James Peck in his startling upcoming book, Ideal Illusions: How the U.S. Government Co-opted Human Rights, in this way: ¡°In the [Reagan] era, Washington organized half the planet; in the [Bush era] it sought to organize the whole."
¡°Rebuilding America¡¯s Defenses,¡± if remembered at all today, is recalled mainly for a throwaway sentence that looked ominous indeed in retrospect: ¡°Further, the process of transformation [of the military], even if it brings revolutionary change, is likely to be a long one, absent some catastrophic and catalyzing event -- like a new Pearl Harbor.¡± It remains, however, a remarkable document for other reasons. In many ways canny about the direction war would take in the near future, ranging from the role of drones in air war to the onrushing possibility that cyberwar (or ¡°Net-War,¡± as they called it) would be the style of future conflict, it was a clarion call to ensure this country¡¯s ¡°unchallenged supremacy¡± into the distant future by military means alone.
In 1983, in an address to the National Association of Evangelicals, President Ronald Reagan famously called the Soviet Union an ¡°evil empire.¡± It wanted, as he saw it, what all dark empires (and every evildoer in any James Bond film) desires: unchallenged dominion over the planet -- and it pursued that dominion in the name of a glorious ¡°world revolution.¡± Now, in the name of American safety and the glories of global democracy, we were -- so the PNAC people both pleaded and demanded -- to do what only evil empires did and achieve global dominion beyond compare over planet Earth.
We could, they insisted in a phrase they liked, enforce an American peace, a Pax Americana, for decades to come, if only we poured our resources, untold billions -- they refused to estimate what the real price might be -- into war preparations and, if necessary, war itself, from the seven seas to the heavens, from manifold new ¡°forward operating bases on land¡± to space and cyberspace. Pushing ¡°the American security perimeter¡± ever farther into the distant reaches of the planet (and ¡°patrolling¡± it via ¡°constabulary missions¡±) was, they claimed, the only way that ¡°U.S. military supremacy¡± could be translated into ¡°American geopolitical preeminence.¡± It was also the only that the ¡°homeland¡± -- yes, unlike 99.9% of Americans before 9/11, they were already using that term -- could be effectively ¡°defended.¡±
In making their pitch, they were perfectly willing to acknowledge that the United States was already a military giant among midgets, but they were also eager to suggest as well that our military situation was ¡°deteriorating¡± fast, that we were ¡°increasingly ill-prepared¡± or even (gasp!) in ¡°retreat¡± on a planet without obvious enemies. They couldn¡¯t have thought more globally. (They were, after all, visionaries, as druggies tend to be.) Nor could they have thought longer term. (They were twenty-first century mavens.) And on military matters, they couldn¡¯t have been more up to date.
Yet on the most crucial issues, they -- and so their documents -- couldn¡¯t have been dumber or more misguided. They were fundamentalists when it came to the use of force and idolaters on the subject of the U.S. military. They believed it capable of doing just about anything. As a result, they made a massive miscalculation, mistaking military destructiveness for global power. Nor could they have been less interested in the sinews of global economic power (though they did imagine our future enemy to be China). Nor were they capable of imagining that the greatest military power on the planet might be stopped in its tracks -- in the Greater Middle East, no less -- by a ragtag crew of Iraqis and Afghans. To read ¡°Rebuilding America¡¯s Defenses¡± today is to see the rabbit hole down which, as if in a fever dream, we would soon disappear.
It was a genuine American tragedy that they came to power and proceeded to put their military-first policies in place; that, on September 12th of the year that ¡°changed everything,¡± the PNAC people seized the reins of defense and foreign policy, mobilized for war, began channeling American treasure into the military solution they had long desired, and surged. Oh, how they surged!
That urge to surge was infamously caught in notes on Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld¡¯s comments taken on September 11, 2001. "[B]arely five hours after American Airlines Flight 77 plowed into the Pentagon... Rumsfeld was telling his aides to come up with plans for striking Iraq," even though he was already certain that al-Qaeda had launched the attack. ("'Go massive,' the notes quote him as saying. 'Sweep it all up. Things related and not.'")
And so they did. They swept up everything and then watched as their dreams and geopolitical calculations were themselves swept into the dustbin of history. And yet the urge to surge, twisted and ever more desperate, did not abate.
The Soviet Path
To one degree or another, we have been on the Soviet path for years and yet, ever more desperately, we continue to plan more surges. Our military, like the Soviet one, has not lost a battle and has occupied whatever ground it chose to take. Yet, in the process, it has won less than nothing at all. Our country, still far more wealthy than the Soviet Union ever was, has nonetheless entered its Soviet phase. At home, in the increasing emphasis on surveillance of every sort, there is even a hint of what made ¡°soviet¡± and ¡°totalitarian¡± synonymous.
The U.S. economy looks increasingly sclerotic; moneys for an aging and rotting infrastructure are long gone; state and city governments are laying off teachers, police, even firefighters; Americans are unemployed in near record numbers; global oil prices (for a country that has in no way begun to wean itself from its dependence on foreign oil) are ominously on the rise; and yet taxpayer money continues to pour into the military and into our foreign wars. It has recently been estimated, for instance, that after spending $11.6 billion in 2011 on the training, supply, and support of the Afghan army and police, the U.S. will continue to spend an average of $6.2 billion a year at least through 2015 (and undoubtedly into an unknown future) -- and that¡¯s but one expense in the estimated $120 billion to $160 billion a year being spent at present on the Afghan War, what can only be described as part of America¡¯s war stimulus package abroad.
And, of course, the talk for 2011 is how to expand the American ground war -- the air version of the same has already been on a sharp escalatory trajectory -- in Pakistan. History and common sense assure us that this can only lead to further disaster. Clear-eyed leaders, military or civilian, would never consider such plans. But Washington¡¯s 30-year high in the region, that urge to surge still coursing through its veins, says otherwise, and it¡¯s not likely to be denied.
Sooner than later, Washington, the Pentagon, and the U.S. military will have to enter rehab. They desperately need a 12-step program for recovery. Until then, the delusions and the madness that go with surge addiction are not likely to end.
Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book is The American Way of War: How Bush¡¯s Wars Became Obama¡¯s (Haymarket Books). You can catch him discussing war American-style and that book in a Timothy MacBain TomCast video by clicking here.
[Note on sources: The National Security Archive, filled to bursting with documents from our imperial and Cold War past, is an online treasure. I have relied on it for both the Soviet documents quoted on the Afghan war of the 1980s and an analysis of the American version of that war. For those who are interested in reading PNAC¡¯s ¡°Rebuilding America¡¯s Defenses,¡± click here and then on the link to the pdf file of the document.]
KCNA Blasts Japanese PM's Reckless Remarks
Pyongyang, December 15 (KCNA) -- Japanese Prime Minister Naoto Kan cried out for "dispatching" the "Self-Defense Forces" in contingency on the Korean Peninsula under the signboard of "protection of Japanese" and working out "regulations" for putting it into practice.
This brings to bolder relief the present Japanese authorities' scenario for staging a comeback to Korea.
Kan's reckless remarks about "the protection of Japanese" are the replica of the pretext of the "protection of Japanese residents" which the Japanese imperialists always used before igniting wars of aggression in the last centuries.
When the Kapo Peasant War broke out in 1894 in Korea the Japanese imperialists hurled 10,000 strong ground and naval forces into Korea under the pretext of "protecting" Japanese residents in a bid to ignite the 1894-1895 Sino-Japanese War.
Early in the 20th century, they hurled huge aggressor troops into Korea under the same pretence before putting Korea under military occupation and establishing a colonial rule over it.
They used the pretext of "protecting Japanese residents" and "purging" anti-Japanese forces when they perpetrated monstrous massacres in the history including the great "punitive operation" in Jiandao and the "punitive operation" in east Manchuria.
It was due to the policy of "protecting Japanese residents" enforced by the Japanese imperialists that Korea was eclipsed on the world map and at least 8.4 million Koreans were taken away to alien countries to do slave labor and more than one million Koreans were killed.
Historical facts prove that the "protection of Japanese residents" touted by Japan is the pronoun and prelude to aggression, war and plunder.
Japan's intention to hurl SDF into Korea in contingency on the Korean Peninsula under the pretence of "protecting Japanese residents" is to stage a comeback to Korea and realize its old dream of "the Greater East Asia Co-prosperity Sphere" which it failed to do in the last century, taking advantage of it.
Japan has already deployed main forces of SDF in its western region close to the Korean Peninsula and rounded off war legislations including "the law on the situation in the surrounding areas" and "the law on the emergency situation." In summer this year Japan let officers of the Maritime SDF get aboard nuclear carrier George Washington involved in the U.S.-south Korea joint naval exercises held in the East Sea of Korea, kicking up war hysteria.
In reality, Japan has emerged a war state having all legal, human and material preparations necessary for fighting a war of aggression.
What remains to be done is for Japan to secure a pretext for launching reinvasion. To this end, Kan repeated such rhetoric as "protection of Japanese" which the Japanese imperialists used for starting wars in the last century.
What should not be overlooked is the fact that the present Japanese authorities are craftily working to justify their policy for invading Korea at a time when the situation on the Korean Peninsula reached the brink of war due to the military clash on Yonphyong Island.
It is the trite and sinister method of Japan to add fuel to the fire and craftily make it serve its purpose in a bid to fish in troubled waters.
Japan did so whenever the situation got tense on the peninsula, to say nothing of the time when the Korean War was fought.
When the warship "Cheonan" sinking case broke out in south Korea Japan used it for quelling the discontent and anger of the Japanese people over the issue of the U.S. military base in Futenma to please its American master and get a great benefit. This helped reinforce its military foundation for staging a comeback to Korea.
Japan is now so emboldened that it is set to launch a war of aggression by openly hurling its forces into the peninsula, taking advantage of the military clash on Yonphyong Island.
The Japanese militarists can never realize their wild ambition for reinvading Korea as all the Koreans are highly vigilant against it.
The army and people of the DPRK will never pardon Japan watching for a chance of reinvasion, far from making apology and reparation for its crimes committed against the Korean people in the past.
North Korea's consistent message to the U.S. - Jimmy Carter
No one can completely understand the motivations of the North Koreans, but it is entirely possible that their recent revelation of their uranium enrichment centrifuges and Pyongyang's shelling of a South Korean island Tuesday are designed to remind the world that they deserve respect in negotiations that will shape their future. Ultimately, the choice for the United States may be between diplomatic niceties and avoiding a catastrophic confrontation.
Dealing effectively with North Korea has long challenged the United States. We know that the state religion of this secretive society is "juche," which means self-reliance and avoidance of domination by others. The North's technological capabilities under conditions of severe sanctions and national poverty are surprising. Efforts to display its military capability through the shelling of Yeongpyeong and weapons tests provoke anger and a desire for retaliation. Meanwhile, our close diplomatic and military ties with South Korea make us compliant with its leaders' policies.
The North has threatened armed conflict before. Nearly eight years ago, I wrote on this page about how in June 1994 President Kim Il Sung expelled International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors and proclaimed that spent fuel rods could be reprocessed into plutonium. Kim threatened to destroy Seoul if increasingly severe sanctions were imposed on his nation.
Desiring to resolve the crisis through direct talks with the United States, Kim invited me to Pyongyang to discuss the outstanding issues. With approval from President Bill Clinton, I went, and reported the positive results of these one-on-one discussions to the White House. Direct negotiations ensued in Geneva between a U.S. special envoy and a North Korean delegation, resulting in an "agreed framework" that stopped North Korea's fuel-cell reprocessing and restored IAEA inspection for eight years.
With evidence that Pyongyang was acquiring enriched uranium in violation of the agreed framework, President George W. Bush - who had already declared North Korea part of an "axis of evil" and a potential target - made discussions with North Korea contingent on its complete rejection of a nuclear explosives program and terminated monthly shipments of fuel oil. Subsequently, North Korea expelled nuclear inspectors and resumed reprocessing its fuel rods. It has acquired enough plutonium for perhaps seven nuclear weapons.
Sporadic negotiations over the next few years among North Korea, the United States, South Korea, Japan, China and Russia (the six parties) produced, in September 2005, an agreement that reaffirmed the basic premises of the 1994 accord. Its text included denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, a pledge of non-aggression by the United States and steps to evolve a permanent peace agreement to replace the U.S.-North Korean-Chinese cease-fire that has been in effect since July 1953. Unfortunately, no substantive progress has been made since 2005, and the overall situation has been clouded by North Korea's development and testing of nuclear devices and medium- and long-range missiles, and military encounters with South Korea.
North Korea insists on direct talks with the United States. Leaders in Pyongyang consider South Korea's armed forces to be controlled from Washington and maintain that South Korea was not party to the 1953 cease-fire. Since the Clinton administration, our country has negotiated through the six-party approach, largely avoiding substantive bilateral discussions, which would have excluded South Korea.
This past July I was invited to return to Pyongyang to secure the release of an American, Aijalon Gomes, with the proviso that my visit would last long enough for substantive talks with top North Korean officials. They spelled out in detail their desire to develop a denuclearized Korean Peninsula and a permanent cease-fire, based on the 1994 agreements and the terms adopted by the six powers in September 2005. With no authority to mediate any disputes, I relayed this message to the State Department and White House. Chinese leaders indicated support of this bilateral discussion.
North Korean officials have given the same message to other recent American visitors and have permitted access by nuclear experts to an advanced facility for purifying uranium. The same officials had made it clear to me that this array of centrifuges would be "on the table" for discussions with the United States, although uranium purification - a very slow process - was not covered in the 1994 agreements.
Pyongyang has sent a consistent message that during direct talks with the United States, it is ready to conclude an agreement to end its nuclear programs, put them all under IAEA inspection and conclude a permanent peace treaty to replace the "temporary" cease-fire of 1953. We should consider responding to this offer. The unfortunate alternative is for North Koreans to take whatever actions they consider necessary to defend themselves from what they claim to fear most: a military attack supported by the United States, along with efforts to change the political regime.
The writer was the 39th president of the United States.
Japan's Shameless Bid to Sit on UNSC Denounced
Pyongyang, September 26 (KCNA) -- Okada, former foreign minister of Japan, had separate talks with foreign ministers of different countries making up the Caribbean Community and Common Market on Sept. 1. There he begged them to support Japan's bid for permanent membership of the UN Security Council, uttering such sugar-coated words that Japan would render technical aid to those countries through cooperation for their economic development.
Minju Joson Sunday observes a signed commentary in this regard:
Japan's desperate efforts to create circumstances favorable for assuming permanent seat of the UNSC is a shameless and impertinent act of a political pigmy.
Japan has been recorded as an enemy state in the UN Charter as it invaded Asian countries including Korea and imposed immeasurable miseries and disasters upon the people in those countries in the past.
It has not yet shaken off the disgraceful fame of an enemy state.
It has made neither repentance nor reparation for its past crimes but tried hard to calm down the international community's demand for the settlement of the past crimes through statement of "apology".
No country in the world has so persistently denied and distorted its past crimes and evaded abolition of them as Japan.
Japan is a chief culprit upsetting the strategic balance in Northeast Asia and threatening peace there as it opted for becoming a military giant and launching overseas expansion, challenging the wishes of humankind for peace.
It is as clear as noonday that Japan will more openly rush headlong into overseas expansion if it is allowed to sit on the UNSC.
Therefore, Japan should be the first target to be excluded in the discussion of the issue of expanding the permanent members of the UNSC.
Japan should sincerely reflect on its past blood-stained crimes and liquidate them before giving its eye-teeth for the responsible seat of the UNSC the mission of which is to champion international justice, democracy and peace.
KCNA Warns US and S. Korea Military Maneuvers
Pyongyang, August 16 (KCNA) -- A grave situation prevailing on the Korean Peninsula due to the U.S. reckless military adventure is now inching close to the point of explosion.
The U.S. kicked off Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercises together with the south Korean puppet forces, defying strong protest and denunciation from the DPRK and the international community.
The exercises will reportedly involve the U.S. nuclear-powered carrier "George Washington", at least 30,000 U.S. troops in south Korea and abroad and huge troops of the puppet army.
UFG means an escalation of the adventurous nuclear war maneuvers of the U.S. and the south Korean puppet forces to ignite an all-out war on the Korean Peninsula at any cost.
The aggressive and offensive nature of the war maneuvers was brought to light by the recent open remarks made by the U.S. and the south Korean warmongers that through a series of joint military exercises they would increase their coordinated defense capability and send a clear message to the DPRK that it should halt its "hostile acts".
It is quite preposterous for them to send such message after falsifying the truth about the warship case and kicking off offensive exercises against the DPRK under that pretext.
The nuclear war exercises are actions for a war of aggression against the DPRK, to all intents and purposes, as the master and his servant put their loud-mouthed stringent "sanctions" and "strong pressure" upon the DPRK into practice.
The U.S. and the puppet forces' military provocation is by no means a military demonstration of defensive nature or annual military maneuvers to cope with "threat" from someone.
This goes to clearly prove that the U.S. and the south Korean warhawks' reckless scenario to mount a preemptive surprise nuclear strike at the DPRK is becoming a reality as it is an outright challenge to the international community demanding detente on the Korean Peninsula while refuting the story about the DPRK's "linkage" to the "Cheonan" case.
The prevailing situation in which the U.S. is bringing the dark clouds of a nuclear war to hang heavily on the Korean Peninsula while escalating military pressure upon the DPRK once again convinces its army and people how it was just when it had access to nuclear deterrent for self-defence.
The U.S. and the south Korean puppet forces will face the serious consequences to be entailed by their reckless military provocations driving the situation on the peninsula to the worst phase under the pretext of "Cheonan" case.
The U.S. and the Lee Myung Bak group of traitors should clearly understand the army of the DPRK highly alerted with iron will and firm stand never says empty words.
KCNA on Tricksters' Selfish Sophism about "Cheonan" Case
Pyongyang, July 13 (KCNA) -- The U.S. and the south Korean puppet authorities tried to save their lost faces even a bit, uttering that they feel disappointment with the presidential statement of the UN Security Council concerning the "Cheonan" case but there was what they called "success" at least.
World media, however, consider the presidential statement as a total fiasco for them.
No wonder, media put it that the south Korean authorities' original plan to wrest "apology and compensation" from the DPRK by prodding the UNSC into adopting a "resolution" of legal binding force went up in smoke, terming the presidential statement an absurd and toothless one.
A particular mention should be made of the fact that media are jeering at the U.S. and south Korea, saying: The fact that the presidential statement took note of the DPRK's stand that it has nothing to do with the case of "Cheonan's" sinking now that the "chief culprit" of the case has not yet been probed means, in the final analysis, that the UNSC does not view the case as "something done by north Korea", and the U.S. and south Korea raised a hue and cry over the case but it ended in the publication of a very ambiguous presidential statement that seems to defend north Korea.
This is a natural outcome based on the objective reality in which the international community terms the U.S. and the south Korean authorities' "Cheonan" diplomacy a fiasco.
A scrutiny into the presidential statement proved that the DPRK was right when it asserted that the case is an issue to be settled between the north and the south, not an issue to be referred to the UNSC in view of its nature.
By nature the UNSC has to perform the function of handling any incident posing "threat to international peace and stability" and finding out its culprit and "punishing" him.
However, the presidential statement not only took a deformed attitude of condemning the recent case itself without singling out the author of it but also called upon the parties concerned to settle the case peacefully through their direct dialogue after considering it as a regional affair.
This amounted to the UNSC's affirmation of the DPRK¡¯s stand that the "Cheonan" case is not a matter to be dealt with at the UN forum as asserted by the United States and the south Korean authorities, but a matter to be settled by the north and the south of Korea.
Such being the case, the U.S. and the south Korean authorities are misinterpreting the presidential statement in favor of them, adding something to it as they please in a bid to save their face even a bit. But such behavior will only reveal how poor their position is.
Every sin brings its punishment with it and one bereft of any reason would talk much.
Though the U.S. and the south Korean authorities are talking a lot like a thief afraid of his own shadow, they can neither cover up the truth behind the "Cheonan" case nor hide up their despicable true colors.
In keeping with the presidential statement saying that "the Security Council encourages the settlement of outstanding issues on the Korean Peninsula by peaceful means to resume direct dialogue and negotiation through appropriate channels," the DPRK will do its utmost to probe the truth about the case to the last and achieve peace, stability and denuclearization of the peninsula.
KCNA Memorandum Discloses US True Nature as Provocateur of Korean War
Pyongyang, June 24 (KCNA) -- The Korean Central News Agency released a memorandum Thursday laying bare the truth about how the U.S. imperialists launched the Korean War of aggression, 60 years since they provoked the war to achieve their ambition to dominate the world.
The memorandum disclosed the fact that the U.S. imperialists have worked hard to cover up their true colors as war provocateurs and aggressors and shift the blame onto the DPRK while falsifying the truth of history.
Laying bare the truth about how they started the war, the memorandum said: The U.S. imperialists crafted a plan to use the 38th parallel for dividing Korea and put south Korea under their occupation.
In August 1945 the U.S. was informed by Japan of its decision to accept the Potsdam Declaration and surrender to the allied forces side. Then it hatched a plot to find a "substantial solution" aimed at realizing its wild ambition to put even half of Korea under their control.
A draft document on sharing the areas formerly occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army between the USSR and the U.S. with the 38th parallel as a demarcation line was worked out according to a scenario proposed by the then U.S. President Truman. The U.S. imperialists then went into action to occupy south Korea.
At a meeting of the chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff on August 13, 1945 the U.S. imperialists ordered its Far East Forces Commander MacArthur to wrest surrender from the Imperial Japanese Army in the areas under the U.S. charge including south Korea. MacArthur instructed Commander of the 24th army corps Hodge to wrest a surrender document from the Japanese army and occupy and control south Korea on behalf of the U.S.
An advance party of the 24th army corps of the U.S. imperialist aggression forces arrived at Kimpho Airport on Sept. 4, 1945 and the army corps landed in Inchon, Pusan and Mokpho from Sept. 8 to mid-October, unhindered.
The memorandum cited facts to prove that the U.S. imperialists made thorough military preparations for the Korean War.
After openly pursuing the strategy to dominate the world since the end of World War II the U.S. imperialists studied and rounded off a new world war scenario including the Korean War in real earnest to put it into practice.
The U.S. imperialists organized G-2 and G-3 at the MacArthur Command which worked out and completed "Plan A, B and C" envisaging the occupation of Korea, Manchuria and Siberia for years.
The U.S. imperialists and the south Korean puppet forces drafted a military action program for "northward expedition" as part of "Plan A."
By about July 1949 the south Korean "government" rounded off the preparations to invade the DPRK at the instruction of MacArthur.
The Syngman Rhee puppet clique completely rounded off the preparations for attack by May 1950 and military operational plans were also completed by that time.
The U.S. imperialists also worked out top secret document "NSC-68" reflecting their strategy for world domination.
This was agreed upon at the U.S. Department of Defense and the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in January 1950 at the instruction of Truman and ratified at the U.S. National Security Council on April 2 to provoke the Korean War.
The U.S. imperialists started organizing the south Korean puppet army as part of the preparations for the war of aggression.
To this end, the U.S. imperialists increased the strength of the south Korean puppet army in a phased way to make it ten times as much as that of troops in the north. The puppet army was educated and trained the American way and in this course the U.S. established its prerogative of the supreme command over it.
According to the "war theory at the second phase" the U.S. imperialists ordered the south Korean puppet army to start a war, and organized the aggression troops in the offensive formation in order to allow the future involvement of the U.S. forces.
The U.S. forces in the Far East had three services just before the start of the Korean War. The Far East Forces commander took command of them.
The memorandum also recalled that the U.S. imperialists carried out unheard-of deception and camouflage offensives to commit ceaseless armed provocations against the northern half of Korea, ensure surprise attacks in the Korean War and shift the responsibility for the provocation of the war on to the DPRK.
The number of armed provocations perpetuated by the south Korean puppet army totaled more than 5 150 in three and half years from 1947 to right before the outbreak of the war.
The U.S. directly organized and commanded armed provocations in areas along the 38th parallel.
The Korean War was by no means the result of a sudden conflict at dawn on June 25, 1950. For several years before the outbreak of the war, conflicts persisted between the two sides on the peninsula and they grew fiercer under the pressure of Seoul in 1949. It was the view of some experts on the Korean issue that the Korean War actually started that year.
The U.S. imperialists created impression that all officers and men left their posts on "weekend" or did something completely irrelevant to combat power at that time.
According to the scenario of the U.S. imperialists, Syngman Rhee lifted an emergency martial law, allowed outing and outdoor lodging of the puppet troops and organized dinner parties as part of deception and camouflage offensives in a bid to cover up the true colors as provocateurs of a war just before the outbreak of the war.
On the basis of these final preparations for the Korean war the U.S. imperialists started to put their war scenario into practice.
In order to inspect and confirm on the spot the preparations for the war and issue a Zero hour, Truman dispatched the then U.S. Secretary of Defense Johnson and the then Chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff Bradley to the MacArthur Command in Tokyo and Adviser to the U.S. Department of State Dulles to south Korea as his special envoy. Dulles's visit to Seoul was to give the green light to the attack and assure Syngman Rhee at the highest level of the U.S. navy and air force support.
The secret war order confirmed by Dulles on the spot and finally approved by Truman was given to the Syngman Rhee puppet army.
Chae Pyong Dok, chief of the General Staff of the south Korean puppet army, issued on June 21, 1950 an order to the 1st and 2nd combat commands to commence attack on the northern half of Korea at dawn on June 25.
According to this operational plan, the south Korean puppet army launched a surprise armed invasion against the northern half of Korea in all areas along the 38th parallel at 4 a.m. on June 25 under the command of the U.S. military advisers.
The U.S. imperialists abused UN in order to cover up their true colors as war provocateurs and aggressors and shift the responsibility for the outbreak of the war on to the DPRK and launch all-out armed invasion against the DPRK.
A meeting of the UNSC was held on June 25, 1950 due to the gimmick of the U.S. imperialists and their brigandish demand and it adopted a "resolution" terming the invasion against the north "the invasion against the south."
The U.S. imperialists tried to "legalize" their aggression through UNSC "resolutions".
The UN, 2-3 hours after Truman declared that the U.S. forces are going into actions, adopted a "resolution" calling upon all the member states to give assistance to south Korea.
The history has already rightly proved the injustice of the UNSC "resolutions."
The memorandum clarified how the U.S. imperialists falsified the truth about the Korean War started by them and fabricated stories.
Whenever an opportunity presented itself they underscored the "necessity for the Syngman Rhee puppet clique to make the world recognize that south Korea was the first to be attacked," thus kicking off a false propaganda offensive about the "conquest of the south" and "southward expedition".
The U.S. imperialists craftily fabricated stories that the launch of the Korean War was "a surprise attack from the north" and an "entirely sudden event."
U.S. Ambassador in south Korea Muccio tried to realize this through his "first report" sent to the U.S. State Department on June 25, 1950.
The U.S. imperialists and their stooges, however, admitted that the Korean War broke out not because of "southward invasion" but because of northward invasion from A to Z.
The war was actually kicked off due to provocations from the south.
MacArthur who was the main player in starting the Korean War admitted that this war was his plan.
The U.S. imperialists could not utter even a single word for the time being when the truth behind the provocation of the Korean War was disclosed by the secret documents confiscated by the Korean People's Army when liberating Seoul during the war. But they came out with false documents in May 1951 to "prove" the "June 25 invasion of the south" and worked hard to falsify the truth behind the start of the war.
Even in the post-war period, too, they employed old methods to evade the responsibility for the provocation of the Korean War. In the meantime they came out with "the proposal for joint assessment between the belligerent parties" in which re-lighting through the declassification according to the "free information act" and the open-door policy of the Eastern Europe were craftily used in a bid to persistently distort the history of the provocation of the war. When the Cold War was over, they tried to play down and write off the truth behind the provocation of the war from the stand of strength guided by the American "philosophy".
The above-said moves of the U.S. imperialists and their stooges to falsify the truth about the provocation of the Korean War and fake up stories about it are aimed at perpetuating their presence in south Korea and starting another Korean war for world domination.
No matter what gimmick the U.S. imperialists may employ, they can never hide their true colors as provokers of the Korean War and aggressors, concluded the memorandum.
SPA Greets Chongryon Congress
Pyongyang, May 21 (KCNA) -- The Presidium of the Supreme People's Assembly of the DPRK Friday sent a message of greetings to the 22nd Congress of the General Association of Korean Residents in Japan (Chongryon).
Over the past three years since its 21st Congress Chongryon and Koreans in Japan have firmly protected itself, bravely overcoming manifold difficulties and ordeals, and gained precious achievements and a wealth of experience in the sacred struggle to usher in a fresh heyday in the movement of Koreans in Japan, the message said, and went on:
Keeping pace with the dynamic general advance of the people in the homeland, Chongryon should give full play to the mental power and potentials of its officials and compatriots and thereby bring its overall work to normal and put it on a higher stage and continue glorifying the honor as a patriotic pioneer and a model in the movement of overseas compatriots in the new century, too.
Chongryon should make a tangible contribution to accomplishing the independent reunification of the country and the cause of building a great prosperous and powerful nation, positively promote the friendship with the Japanese people, boost solidarity with the world progressives and thus create environment favorable for the development of its work and the Korean community in Japan.
Expressing belief that the 22nd Congress of Chongryon would prove to be one of victory and unity, inheritance and innovation to be specially recorded in the history of the movement of Koreans in Japan and mark an occasion in providing a springboard from which to usher in a new heyday of the patriotic cause, the message wished it good success in its work.
Foreign Ministry of DPRK Dismisses US Nuclear Plan
Pyongyang, April 9 (KCNA) -- A spokesman for the Foreign Ministry of the DPRK gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA Friday as regards the U.S. publication of its "Nuclear Posture Review":
The review made public on April 6 proves that the present U.S. administration still regards nukes as a mainstay in carrying out its strategy for world domination.
President Obama blustered that the U.S. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that comply with the provisions of NPT but exception is made for countries such as the DPRK and Iran. This proves that the present U.S. policy towards the DPRK is nothing different from the hostile policy pursued by the Bush administration at the outset of its office during which it was hell-bent on posing a nuclear threat to the DPRK after designating it as a "target of preemptive nuclear strike."
By releasing the review the U.S. completely backpedaled its commitment made in the September 19 Joint Statement of the six-party talks that it has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear weapons or conventional weapons, and again chilled the hard-won atmosphere for the resumption of the talks.
As far as the NPT is concerned, it is not a treaty to last long because it is a transitional step to prevent nuclear proliferation till the world is denuclearized. The DPRK pulled out of the treaty after going through legitimate and legal procedures as the U.S. more undisguisedly used the NPT as a lever for isolating and stifling it.
The DPRK manufactured nukes, not prompted by any nuclear ambition. It produced them for the purpose of deterring the U.S. attack and defending its sovereignty and right to existence because the latter posed substantial nuclear threat to it after singling it out as "a target of preemptive nuclear attack." The DPRK has so far sincerely implemented its international obligation as a responsible nuclear weapons state.
The denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula is the invariable goal of the DPRK. If the peninsula and the rest of the world are to be denuclearized, the U.S. should stop such hostile acts as trampling down upon other countries' sovereignty and right to existence, pursuant to its policy of strength based on nuclear supremacy. What is most urgent is for the U.S. to roll back its hostile policy towards the DPRK in practice, not with an empty talk, and take a confidence-building measure.
As long as the U.S. nuclear threat persists, the DPRK will increase and update various type nuclear weapons as its deterrent in such a manner as it deems necessary in the days ahead.
The DPRK is fully capable of doing so. It is the U.S. that gives the former ground and justification to do so.
The U.S. should know that gone are the days never to return when the DPRK was only exposed to the blackmail and pressure slapped by the former on the strength of its nuclear weapons.
S. Korea world's 3rd-largest arms importer: SIPRI
SEOUL, March 16 (Yonhap) -- South Korea was the world's third-largest arms importer in the five years from 2005, and the United States remained the biggest supplier of weapons, a leading Swedish peace research group said Tuesday.
A report released by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI) showed that China and India were the biggest arms buyers in 2005-2009, accounting for 9 percent and 7 percent, respectively.
South Korea and the United Arab Emirates were tied for third, each accounting for 6 percent.
South Korea was also the largest customer for American weapons, with 14 percent of U.S. arms exports bound for the Asian nation during the period. Other big buyers of U.S.-made weapons were Israel and the UAE, the study found.
South Korea faces a nuclear-armed North Korea across the world's most heavily fortified border. The two sides are still technically at war as the 1950-53 Korean War ended in a truce, not a peace treaty. North Korea ratchets up tensions from time to time with military provocations and threats.
According to the report, the United States accounted for 30 percent of global arms exports, followed by Russia with 23 percent, Germany with 11 percent and France with 8 percent.
U.S.-produced weapons accounted for 66 percent of arms imported by South Korea, while German and French weapons accounted for 20 and 10 percent, respectively, the report said.
The total volume in conventional weapons trade rose 22 percent in 2005-2009 compared to the previous five-year period, with China and India being the biggest importers of these weapons, the report showed.
Combat aircraft accounted for 27 percent of the total volume of trade in conventional arms during the period, with the United States selling 72 F-16 jets to the UAE and 40 F-15 jets to South Korea during the period, the report said.
Referring to fighter jets, the group noted that orders and deliveries of these "potentially destabilizing" weapon systems have led to arms race concerns in the Middle East, North Africa, South America, South Asia and Southeast Asia.
SIPRI, established in 1966, is an independent international institute dedicated to research on conflict, armament, arms control and disarmament.
The institute's data on global arms transfer is a fully searchable on-line database containing information on all international transfers of seven categories of major conventional weapons from 1950 to the most recent full calendar year.