by Jon Schwarz
7 April 2015
Archive for the Nukes Category
by Jon Schwarz
LONDON, March 20 (Xinhua) — The Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) has the ability to fire a nuclear missile at “anytime,” the country’s ambassador to Britain Hyun Hak-bong told British Sky News Friday.
“We don’t say empty words. We mean what we mean. It is not the United States that has a monopoly on nuclear weapons strikes,” Hyun Hak-bong said in a rare interview with Sky News.
Asked whether the DPRK has the ability now to fire a nuclear missile, he replied: “Anytime, anytime, yes.”
“We are prepared,” the ambassador noted. “That is why I say if a sparkle [sic] of a fire is made on the Korean peninsula, it will lead to a nuclear war.”
Hyun Hak-bong continued: “If the United States strikes us, we should strike back.”
“We are ready for conventional war, with conventional war; we are ready for nuclear war, with nuclear war,” he added.
Asked whether the DPRK would “press the button” first, the ambassador said: “We are a peace-loving people. We do not want war, but we are not afraid of war. This is a policy of the government.”
Edited by Zuo Shou
“An Antidote to Disinformation about North Korea” – Book Review; ‘North Korea: Another Country’, By Bruce Cumings, The New Press, 2004 [Globalresearch.ca]Posted in Anti-communism, Bill Clinton, CIA, Corporate Media Critique, DPR Korea, George W. Bush, India, INS, Japan, Kim Jong Il, Korean War, Nukes, Saudi Arabia, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, USSR, World War II on January 1, 2015 by Zuo Shou / 左手
by Al Olsen
28 December 2005
This Review was published nine years ago on GR.
Bruce Cumings, a history professor at the University of Chicago and a former Peace Corps volunteer in South Korea, has given us a badly needed antidote to the lies and disinformation about the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea (North Korea) being spread by the media and the Bush administration. The author has observed “the deafening absence of any contrary argument” and cuts through this smokescreen of ignorance in his well-researched historical study of North Korea.
Cumings directs his book to “the reader who wishes to learn about our eternal Korean enemy.” He believes that North Korea is a nation that cannot be understood apart from its historical past, including the “terrible fratricidal war (Korean War) that has never ended”; the 1930s guerrilla struggle against the Japanese and North [sic] Korea’s eventual emergence as a state in 1945; its relations with the South; its reaction to the end of the Cold War and collapse of the Soviet Union; and “its interminable daily struggle” with the United States.
The author…admits to empathy for the underdog, “which is something I can’t help.” Cumings charges the U.S. with a significant responsibility “for the garrison [sic] state that emerged on the ashes of our truly terrible destruction of the North a half a century ago.”
Yes, the “history” spoon fed to Americans completely omits the holocaust from the air carried out by U.S. bombers and fighter planes against North Korean cities during the Korean War.
American planes dropped tens of thousands of bombs and many hundreds of tons of napalm on cities in North Korea. Even Winston Churchill criticized the savagery of the American attack when he commented, “When napalm was invented in the latter stages of World War II, no one contemplated that it would be ‘splashed’ over a civilian population.” Three million North Koreans died during this conflict, and 18 out of its 22 largest cities were 50 percent to 100 percent obliterated.
Cumings notes that by 1952, most of the survivors living in central and North Korea lived in caves. North Korea continued to burrow underground, and today it has over 15,000 underground facilities, many made of hardened concrete to survive nuclear attacks and American bombs. These include factories, plane hangars, and many other kinds of installations. The author again emphasizes that North Korea is a garrison state “because of the holocaust the North experienced during the Korean War.”
The 50th anniversary of the armistice ending the Korean War came and went on July 27, 2003, and 40,000 American troops remain in South Korea, where they have been since occupying the country in September 1945.
Cumings bitterly criticizes U.S. policy towards North Korea. On human rights issues, he points out how the U.S. has been fast to criticize the Communists “while ignoring the reprehensible behavior of our allies, that is, U. S. support for dictators who make Kim Jung Il look enlightened (the Saudis, for example).”
In addition, Cumings blames American confusion on an “irresponsible media” which lacks good investigative reporters, and is often “egged on by government officials.” He also blames South Korean security forces who “have succeeded for decades in getting Americans to stare blankly at one side of the Korean civil conflict, like a pigeon with nystagmus such that its head turns only to the left.”
The author stridently criticizes and blames the Bush administration for the ongoing crisis with North Korea. He accuses Bush of walking away from groundwork laid by Clinton [sic] for the resolution of the crisis. Cumings compares the foreign policy of the Bush administration to “amateur night at a halfway house,” and fears a real danger from “a mix of situations in which Bush’s preemptive strike doctrine could trigger war.”
He also castigates the radical right for their predictions of North Korea’s imminent collapse; they are “wrong-wrong-wrong,” he says, and cites a 1999 speech by CNN International President Joe Eason, a frequent visitor to the North, who stated “these guys (North Koreans) will tough it out for centuries, just the way they are.”
Part of the book is devoted to North Korean society and its development under socialism. Modern Korea had emerged from a class-divided, highly stratified society in which a long-standing system of chattel slavery had only been abolished in 1894.
North Korea experienced what Cumings terms a “smooth” transition to socialism following World War II. He partially attributes the transitional change to a long-time Korean tradition of “sharing and mutual aid of all kinds.”
Agricultural land was collectivized while farmers were able to keep their own homes and small garden plots. He credits the gardens as greatly helping farmers during the famine of the 1990s. North Korean farmland was worked communally, and farmers received a share of the harvest based on the number of hours of work they had done.
Formally low- and middle-class families now occupied favored social positions, and formally wealthy families who remained in the North could work and earn their way back up the social ladder. Only the very bottom rung was permanently reserved for Japanese collaborators.
Cumings pays careful attention to the weather and crop disasters of the 1990s. North Korea experienced record-breaking floods (1995 and 1996) followed by an equally severe drought and famine (1997). The author believes that the food shortage problem “has provided little evidence of a collapse of state power, except for breakdowns at the local level.” And Cumings adds, even at its worst, “the famine only began to approach India’s year-in, year-out toll (in proportionate terms) of infant mortality and deaths from malnutrition or starvation which I only mention because the media’s recent habit of depicting Kim Jung Il’s frolicking among a heap of starved cadavers.”
Finally, Cumings describes a declassified CIA report on North Korea, and a part of that report which describes the achievements of that society. The report says “North Korea provides compassionate care for war orphans in particular and children in general; ‘radical change’ in the position of women (there are more college-educated women than college-educated men); genuinely free-housing; preventive medicine on a national scale accomplished to a comparatively high standard; infant mortality and life expectancy rates comparable to the most advanced countries until the recent famine; ‘no organized prostitution’ and ‘the police are difficult if not impossible to bribe.’”
Cumings book provides a valuable service with its informative and truthful portrayal of North Korea. This book is valuable for combating the inevitable lies of the Bush administration in its imperial quest for global domination. North Korea faces the very real danger of war and more suffering at the hands of a bellicose Bush administration — a very good reason for this work to be widely read and passed on to other interested persons.
Edited by Zuo Shou
By Niles Williamson
23 September 2014
The New York Times reported on Monday that the Obama administration is planning to spend more than $1 trillion over the next three decades to significantly upgrade its nuclear weapons capability.
The front-page article, authored by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger, serves a definite political purpose. It is a warning to Russia, China and any other country that may try to stand in the way of the American ruling class that the US military is preparing for nuclear war.
The Times writes: “With Russia on the warpath, China pressing its own territorial claims and Pakistan expanding its arsenal, the overall chances for Mr. Obama’s legacy of disarmament look increasingly dim, analysts say.”
The newspaper quotes Harvard Professor Gary Samore, Obama’s former chief nuclear weapons advisor and a stand-in for the administration itself: “The most fundamental game changer is Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. That has made any measure to reduce the stockpile unilaterally politically impossible,” he told the Times .
While the Times article is couched in the language of defense, in relation to both Russia and China the US has played the role of aggressor. The US and its allies in Europe organized a right-wing coup in Ukraine that has been followed by a campaign of sanctions and war threats against Russia. And the Obama administration has been carrying out a “pivot to Asia,” asserting its control over the Asia-Pacific while encouraging the remilitarization of Japan…
Excerpted; full article link: http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2014/09/23/nucl-s23.html
“Challengers to DPRK Will Never Be Pardoned: CPRK Spokesman” – Park Geun-hye termed ‘despicable prostitute’ [KCNA]Posted in Anti-communism, DPR Korea, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Lee Myung-bak, Nukes, Obama, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War on April 28, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手
Pyongyang, April 27 (KCNA) — The spokesman for the Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea released a statement on Sunday assailing U.S. President Obama’s tour of south Korea from April 25 to 26.
The statement said: Due to the tragedy of sinking of a ferry the whole land of south Korea looks like a mourner’s house. Had Obama have even an iota of ethics and morality, he should have postponed or shelved his trip. The American master and his servant staged the farce of insulting, threatening and blackmailing the DPRK during the former’s criminal tour of south Korea utterly indifferent to the sorrow of south Koreans. This was entirely to serve the purpose of collusion and conspiracy in their campaign against the DPRK.
What Park did before Obama this time reminds one of an indiscreet girl who earnestly begs a gangster to beat someone or a capricious whore who asks her fancy man to do harm to other person while providing sex to him.
Through her ugly behavior Park answered with a war the question put by the DPRK if she wants peaceful reunification based on the inter-Korean reconciliation or a war through the confrontation of the social systems, and fully revealed that her policy of “confidence- building process” is just the same policy of confrontation as that pursued by traitor Lee Myung Bak. She, at the same time, declared before the whole world her intention to drive the situation to the worst catastrophe through the confrontation with the DPRK to the last in utter disregard of the north-south relations.
She fully met the demands of her master for aggression, keeping mum about the nukes of the U.S. and desperately finding fault with fellow countrymen in the north over their nukes. She thus laid bare her despicable true colors as a wicked sycophant and traitor, a dirty comfort woman for the U.S. and despicable prostitute selling off the nation.
She visited together with Obama even the “south Korea-U.S. combined forces command” for the first time as a puppet chief executive and went off confrontation hysteria, crying out for “deterrence against the north” and “resolutely countering provocation from it.” She even donned a dress unfit for the atmosphere of the mourner’s house in the wake of the big tragedy and embarrassedly flattered Obama in a bid to please him, sparking off uproar.
The anti-DPRK charade staged by Obama and his servant became a laughing stock of world people as it was nothing but an odd burlesque rare to be found in the world.
The outcome of Obama’s south Korean junket clearly proved that the DPRK was entirely just when it judged and determined that it should counter the U.S., the sworn enemy, by force only, not just talking, and should finally settle accounts with it through an all-out nuclear showdown. This, at the same time, only hardens the will and resolution of the DPRK to keep to the road chosen by it. Park’s true colors and ulterior motive were brought to daylight.
There is no remedy for Park and there is nothing to expect from her as far as the inter-Korean relations are concerned as long as she remains a boss of Chongwadae.
She is steeped in sycophancy and treachery and confrontation with compatriots in the north. Her preoccupation is to realize the dream of confrontation of the social systems.
Genes remain unchanged. Needless to say, her present behavior suggests that her fate will be just the same as that of her father Park Chung Hee who met a miserable death after being forsaken by his master and public while crying out for “unification by prevailing over communism” and “unification by stamping out communism”.
The DPRK will never pardon anyone who dares challenge its dignity, social system and its line of simultaneously developing the two fronts, the statement warned. -0-
KCNA homepage, with English language links: http://www.kcna.kp
Pyongyang, April 23 (KCNA)
— The Committee for the Peaceful Reunification of Korea (CPRK) sent an open questionnaire to Park Geun Hye Wednesday asking her to give responsible answers to the questions as to whether she stands for the improvement of the north-south relations or seeks to escalate confrontation and whether she wants reunification and peace against war.
Recalling that months-long Key Resolve and Foal Eagle war exercises for invading the north are over, but the south Korean authorities’ confrontation with their compatriots and moves for a war against the north are going on and their anti-reunification hysteria under the signboard of “unification” is flouting the nation and disturbing the world, the questionnaire goes on:
1. What kind of “unification” does Park mean? Confrontation of the social systems means one side swallowing up the other side and the latter being swallowed up by the former, the showdown which is bound to lead to a war. Does she want this?
Park seems to call for the confrontation of the social systems, mistaking Korea for Germany. This is a day-dream which will never come true. The confrontation of the social systems precisely means a war. Does Park really stand for the war?
[2.] Does Park have the face to talk about “confidence-building process” while desperately pursuing the policy for confrontation with fellow countrymen?
When she met a head of state of a certain country, she talked rubbish that “the north should be made to change” and “if one hundred attempts to bring it down fail, one hundred and one attempts should be made to succeed.”
Does this mean the “confidence-building process” on the lips of Park?
Confrontation and confidence can never go together. What does she choose between the two?
3. What is the difference between the “north policy” of the present south Korean regime and Lee Myung Bak’s watchword “no nukes, opening and 3 000 dollars”? Does she wish to drive the north-south relations to a catastrophe just as traitor Lee did?
Park is blustering that she is fully ready to ensure “security of the social system” in the north and support its economy in cooperation with the international community once the north dismantles its nukes, asserting the “issue of the north’s nukes is a stumbling block lying in the way of making arrangements for the era of unification.”
Park’s claim that the “north should dismantle its nukes first” is nothing different from the above-said watchword of Lee.
To insist on the issue of the “north’s nukes” as regards the inter-Korean relations is little short of denying the process to mend the relations.
Park should explicitly clarify her stand: whether to persistently bedevil the north-south relations by following the above-said watchword or to opt for repairing the relations.
4. Park was reported to have said the “building of a world without nuclear weapons” should start on the Korean peninsula. Then, is she willing to cease staging with outside forces north-targeted nuclear war drills in south Korea with U.S. nuclear war hardware involved?
The DPRK proposed turning the Korean peninsula into a nuclear free zone long ago.
It is none other than the U.S. and south Korean puppet forces that have staged madcap nuclear war exercises against the north by introducing more than 1000 nuclear weapons, turning south Korea into the world’s biggest nuclear arsenal in utter disregard of the north’s offer.
Nevertheless, Park is finding fault with the north’s nuclear deterrent for self-defence while keeping mum about the U.S. nukes for aggression. This is, indeed, sheer sophism.
The U.S. nuclear blackmail and war drills targeting the north are the root cause of the escalating tensions on the peninsula and the worsened inter-Korean relations.
Park should now talk what she has to as regards the U.S. nukes and make a bold decision to put an end to the north-targeted nuclear war drills staged together with the U.S.
To this end, is she willing to announce the cancellation of Ulji Freedom Guardian drills scheduled to be staged again between August and September?
5. Can Park make a decision to pull down the concrete wall built by the “yusin” regime in the area south of the Military Demarcation Line to demolish the barrier between the north and the south and abolish “Security Law”?
The concrete wall dividing the peninsula into two parts is a barrier of division and confrontation conceived by Park Chung Hee after visiting the Berlin Wall during his visit to the then West Germany 50 years ago.
The ill-famed “Security Law”, an anti-reunification fascist law, is also a barrier of distrust, social and cultural barrier and a factor of severance and isolation as it is meant to antagonize compatriots and freeze the bonds between the north and the south.
If the Korean nation is truly to usher in a new era of peaceful reunification, it is imperative to pull down the barriers of confrontation against reunification, the leftover of the outdated Cold War in the last century, as early as possible.
Can Park make such a decision?
6. Does Park think the “aid to women in pregnancy and malnourished children” would help de-escalate the tensions and improve the inter-Korean relations?
The “aid to women in pregnancy and malnourished children” touted by her is an insult and mockery of the people in the DPRK including children and women who receive the greatest special benefits as the king of the country and its flowers thanks to the great politics of love for the people.
If the inter-Korean relations are to be mended, it is necessary to defuse the acute political and military confrontation.
The DPRK in the historic New Year Address clarified an important principled stand on improving the inter-Korean relations.
Does Park have the willingness to accept the proposal and appeal of the DPRK, though belatedly, not pretending ignorance of them?
7. It is self-contradiction to talk about “NGO exchange” and “cooperation” while totally blocking the inter-Korean relations, isn’t it？
Park is persistently clinging to the “May 24 steps” taken by Lee Myung Bak, a heinous confrontation maniac, to bedevil the inter-Korean relations. This is as foolish an act as tarnishing her image and binding her hands and feet by herself. This behavior only gives the impression that she is just the same confrontation element as Lee Myung Bak.
There is neither reason nor pretext whatsoever for her to keep the long bankrupt “May 24 steps” in force any longer.
Does Park have the willingness to lift the steps?
8. Is it more urgent to turn the hotspots around the five islands in the West Sea into peace waters than to build a “world peace park” in the Demilitarized Zone?
The urgent issue along the Military Demarcation Line (MDL) to be settled by the north and the south in actuality is to turn hotspots around the five islands in the West Sea into peace waters.
If Park has a “plan” to turn the MDL area into a peace zone, she should pay attention to this issue, first of all.
Does Park have intention to turn the hotspots around the five islands in the West Sea into peace waters?
9. Who is the arch criminal violating the agreement on stopping the smear campaign and escalating tensions on the Korean peninsula through political and military provocations?
The south Korean authorities now claim that the DPRK is violating the agreement made at the north-south high-level contact and slandering the south. This is just like a guilty party filing the suit first.
It is none other than the south Korean authorities and Park herself who are slinging mud at the DPRK.
Does Park have the face to grumble that the “north is reneging on the promise to halt the smear campaign and provocations”?
10. Does Park have the willingness to respect and implement the historic July 4 joint statement, June 15 joint declaration and October 4 declaration?
These are the great programmes and landmarks for national reunification common to the nation.
Is Park ready to show her will to respect and implement them, though belatedly?
If Park has a sincere stand to promote the confidence between the north and the south and open the door for peace and reunification, she should give correct answers to the solemn questions put by the DPRK on behalf of the era and the nation in the eyes of all fellow countrymen and the whole world, pondering over them, questionnaire stressed, adding:
The prospect for the inter-Korean relations entirely depends on the attitude of Park Geun Hye. -0-
KCNA homepage (with access to English-language materials): http://www.kcna.kp
Pyongyang, April 21 (KCNA)
The spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued the following statement on Monday:
It is reported that U.S. President Obama is to tour Asia soon. Pursuant to the U.S. pivot to Asia-Pacific strategy, his projected trip is a reactionary and dangerous one as it is aimed to escalate confrontation and bring dark clouds of a nuclear arms race to hang over this unstable region.
This strategy which the Obama administration adopted under the signboard of “rebalancing” in the Asia-Pacific region late in 2011 is, in essence, designed to focus efforts on this region in a bid to encircle and contain its rivals and maintain its political and military edge.
The U.S. is citing the DPRK’s “nuclear and missile threats” and “provocation” as a pretext for hiding the hegemonic nature of the above-said strategy and warding off the resistance of big countries in Eurasia.
“The Quadrennial Defense Review Report” announced by the U.S. Department of Defense early in March took issue with the DPRK over its “provocation” and “threat”, reconfirming that the U.S. would deploy 60 percent of its naval force in the Asia-Pacific region till 2020, pursuant to the “strategy for rebalancing in the Asia-Pacific region”. During his recent trip to a neighboring country, the U.S. secretary of Defense announced that the U.S. would additionally deploy two Aegis in Japan till 2017, citing “invasion” from the DPRK.
Touring south Korea and China in mid-February, the U.S. secretary of State vociferated about the DPRK’s promotion of nuclear development and possible “provocation” while blustering that the U.S.-south Korea joint military exercises would be staged in the same period and by the same method in the future, too, regardless of the crucial proposal made by the National Defence Commission of the DPRK and the north-south high-level contact.
It is as clear as noonday that Obama will trumpet about the same thing to accuse the DPRK this time, too, just as he habitually did in the past.
Clear is the reason why the U.S. is ceaselessly staging extremely offensive and aggressive joint military exercises in south Korea only among various areas in the Asia-Pacific region and steadily increasing their number and scale in a bid to deliberately keep the vicious cycle of tensions. Its aim is to steadily rattle the nerves of the DPRK and compel it to bolster up its nuclear deterrence, take military retaliatory steps and thus label it a “bellicose country” and justify Washington’s military moves.
But the U.S. is seriously mistaken.
The U.S. arms buildup in the Asia-Pacific region and joint military exercises are not justified but facing an unprecedentedly open rebuff of countries in the region.
Moreover, the DPRK is not such a country which may allow itself to make even a slight concession or seek any lucky chance over the fundamental issue related to the security of the country and the nation for fear of the nonsensical label of “bellicose country.”
It is the policy stand of the DPRK to redouble the efforts to bolster up justifiable deterrence for self-defence in every way to resolutely counter the U.S. hostile action.
If the U.S. seeks hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region as now and continues working hard to infringe upon the interests of the DPRK under this pretext, this will bring adverse consequences to the U.S. itself in the long run.
The U.S. reckless moves will have a very negative impact on resuming the six-party talks and realizing the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula for the present and, moreover, inevitably spark a nuclear arms race in the whole region.
The nuclear arms race in Northeast Asia which will prove more destructive than the nuclear issue in Mid-east is bound to end up making a mess of the initiative for building a “world without nuclear weapons” advocated by Obama.
The Obama administration would be well advised to coolly examine its hostile policy toward the DPRK whether it is in the final interests of the U.S., in actuality, when there is still time for it. -0-‘
KCNA homepage link: http://www.kcna.kp