Archive for the Disarmament Category

Spokesman for DPRK FM Lays Bare Reactionary, Dangerous Nature of Obama’s Asian Junket [KCNA]

Posted in Anti-communism, Disarmament, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Nukes, Obama, Pentagon, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA on April 23, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

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:


DPRK NDC Issues Statement Refuting UNSC Resolution [KCNA]

Posted in Disarmament, DPR Korea, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Nukes, Sanctions as weapon of war, Songun policy, US imperialism, USA on January 24, 2013 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Pyongyang, January 24 (KCNA) — The National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK issued a statement on Thursday.

It said:

Our successful launch of satellite Kwangmyongsong 3-2 was a great jubilee in the history of the nation as it placed the nation’s dignity and honor on the highest plane and a spectacular success made in the efforts to develop space for peaceful purposes recognized by the world.

The world people who love justice and value conscience unanimously rejoice as their own over the signal success made by our country, not a big one, by its own efforts.

Even space institutions of a hostile country accustomed to have repugnancy towards others could not but recognize the DPRK’s successful satellite launch for peaceful purposes, from a low-profile stance.

This being a hard reality, the U.S. at the outset of the year termed our satellite launch “long-range missile launch,” “wanton violation” of the UN resolutions and “blatant challenge” to world peace and security in a bid to build up public opinion on this. Finally, it prodded the UNSC into cooking up a new resolution on tightening sanctions against the DPRK.

The keynote of the resolution was worked out through backstage dealing with the U.S. as a main player and it was adopted at the UNSC with blind hand-raising by its member nations. This goes to clearly prove that the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK has entered a new dangerous phase.

This shows, at the same time, that those big countries, which are obliged to take the lead in building a fair world order, are abandoning without hesitation even elementary principle, under the influence of the U.S. arbitrary and high-handed practices, failing to come to their senses.

Moreover, this also indicates that the UNSC, which should regard it as its mission to guarantee sovereign rights and security of its member nations, has turned into a defunct marionette international body on which no hope can be pinned.

The DPRK National Defence Commission solemnly declares as follows as regards the adoption of the entirely unreasonable resolution on the DPRK:

We totally reject all the illegal resolutions on the DPRK adopted by the UNSC.

We have never recognized all forms of base resolutions tightening sanctions cooked up by the hostile forces to encroach upon the DPRK’s sovereignty.

Sovereignty is what keeps a country and nation alive.

The country and the nation without sovereignty are more dead than alive.

The satellite launch was the exercise of an independent right pertaining to the DPRK as well as its legitimate sovereignty recognized by international law.

Therefore, the U.S. and those countries which launched satellites before have neither justification nor reason to find fault with the DPRK’s satellite launch.

They are making a brigandish assertion that what they launched were satellites but what other country launched was a long-range missile. They are seriously mistaken if they think this assertion can work in the bright world today.

The U.S. should clearly know that the times have changed and so have the army and the people of the DPRK.

Along with the nationwide efforts to defend the sovereignty, the DPRK will continue launching peaceful satellites to outer space one after another.

2. As the U.S. hostile policy toward the DPRK has entered more dangerous phase, overall efforts should be directed to denuclearizing big powers including the U.S. rather than the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula.

The biggest threat to the peace and security on the Korean Peninsula is the hostile policy toward the DPRK being pursued by all kinds of dishonest forces including the U.S. as well as the U.S. huge nuclear armed forces that back the policy.

The army and people of the DPRK drew a final conclusion that only when the denuclearization of the world is realized on a perfect and preferential basis including the denuclearization of the U.S., will it be possible to denuclearize the Korean Peninsula and ensure peace and security of the DPRK.

The U.S. is taking the lead in encroaching upon the sovereignty of the DPRK, its allies are siding with it and the UN Security Council has been reduced into an organization bereft of impartiality and balance. Under this situation the DPRK can not but declare that there will no longer exist the six-party talks and the September 19 joint statement.

No dialogue on the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula will be possible in the future even though there may be dialogues and negotiations on ensuring peace and security in the region including the Korean Peninsula.

3. We will launch an all-out action to foil the hostile policy toward the DPRK being pursued by the U.S. and those dishonest forces following the U.S., and safeguard the sovereignty of the country and the nation.

The UN Security Council resolution on expanding sanctions against the DPRK, which was adopted on the initiative of the U.S., represents the most dangerous phase of the hostile policy toward the DPRK.

The army and people of the DPRK will never remain an on-looker to such happenings in which the sovereignty of the nation is encroached upon and the supreme interests of the country are violated.

Under the prevailing situation, the army and people of the DPRK will turn out in an all-out action to defend its sovereignty which is more precious than their own lives and frustrate the moves of the U.S. and its allies to isolate and stifle the DPRK.

The drive for building an economic power being pushed forward by the army and people of the DPRK, the effort to conquer space that has entered a new phase and the endeavors to bolster the deterrence for safeguarding the country and defending its security will all orientate toward the purpose of winning in the all-out action for foiling the U.S. and all other hostile forces’ maneuvers.

We do not hide that a variety of satellites and long-range rockets which will be launched by the DPRK one after another and a nuclear test of higher level which will be carried out by it in the upcoming all-out action, a new phase of the anti-U.S. struggle that has lasted century after century, will target against the U.S., the sworn enemy of the Korean people.

Settling accounts with the U.S. needs to be done with force, not with words as it regards jungle law as the rule of its survival.

The world will clearly see how the army and people of the DPRK punish all kinds of hostile forces and emerge as a final victor while following the just road of defending its sovereignty, convinced of the justice of its cause. -0-

KCNA English link:

Post-Kim Jong Il DPRK [Strategic Culture Foundation]

Posted in China, Corporate Media Critique, Disarmament, DPR Korea, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Hu Jintao, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Libya, Nukes, Russia, south Korea, Switzerland, US imperialism, USA on January 17, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Alexander Vorontsov

Dec. 25, 2011

The death of Kim Jong Il two months before his 70th birthday grabbed the headlines worldwide. False reports of his death had been a recurrent phenomenon, but his passing, when it did happen, came unexpectedly. The communist leader’s death possibly marks a watershed moment between distinct epochs in the history of the DPRK, prompting intense debates over the scenarios of the anticipated transition.

Three overarching themes are present in the flow of essentially unfriendly projections for North Korea:

• Kim Jong Un, late Kim Jong Il’s 28-year old third son and successor, is too young, clearly lacks experience, and possibly has mental health problems, which altogether means that he is unable to be a leader of his country, has no chance to be accepted as such by the population, and is going to be controlled by the elder members of his family clan.

• As a result, various groups within the North Korean political elite will be confronted with the irresistible temptation to not only run the county from behind the scenes, but in the full sense to seize power in the country, the likely outcome being a period of internal strife and a series of military coups, plus total destabilization if not a civil war in the DPRK.

• Given the above, an intervention – launched by the US in tandem with South Korea, by China, or even by both forces – will quickly become imminent, and the North Korean population which is lethally tired of the dictatorial rule will welcome the invaders as liberators. At the bottom line, North Korea will see the long-awaited regime change.

The following circumstances should be taken into account to assess the forecasts realistically. The permanently reiterated doubts over the abilities and mental health of Kim Jong Un, whose status of the “great successor “ has already been confirmed in Pyongyang, notably resemble those expressed regarding Kim Jong Il at the time of his ascension to power in 1994. The myth of Kim Jong Il’s complete inferiority to his father was inflated by the Western media but failed the test of the empirical reality during the June, 2000 inter-Korean summit, as foreign journalists flocked to Pyongyang to accompany the ROK president Kim Dae-jung to discover that the DPRK leader was a healthy, energetic, and highly competent individual. These days, the Western media are putting together the image of a sickly Kim Jong Un but also mention that he went to college in Switzerland, received decent European education, and used to play basketball – and pretend to be overlooking the contradiction.

The current mass expressions of grief in North Korea may seem shocking to foreigners but certainly cannot be written off as insincere. It is true that collectivism is pervasive in the heavily organized North Korea, and that the arrangement affects the way emotions are displayed, but denying that – in line with the Confucian tradition – the perception of the country leader as the father of the nation is widespread among the population and that people are indeed mourning Kim Jong Il would be unfair. The phenomenon – the tendency within the original North Korean political culture to ascribe a special role to the country leader – has a legitimizing impact on Kim Jong Un’s claim to power. It is true that Kim Jong Un is very young, has a minimal record of involvement in state affairs, and, in fact, has held the official successor status for just slightly over a year. Still, he learned a lot over the period of time acting as his father’s apprentice and made no blunders in the process. Importantly, the nation actually sees him as the successor. For example, I gathered from conversations with ordinary North Koreans that they feel deeply impressed by the fact that outwardly Kim Jong Un looks very much like his grandfather, founder of N. Korea Kim Il Sung.

Obviously, both Kim Jong Un and the whole the DPRK are at the moment picking up a tough challenge. From now on a lot will depend on Kim Jong Un’s aptitude, willpower, etc. His elder peers – the stalwarts from his father’s inner entourage – will certainly do their best to help him at the initial phase, but the type of interaction should not be interpreted as evidence that Kim Jong Un will have a purely nominal status. For North Korea, combining the leader’s singular status with collectivism in top-level decision-making is a long-standing tradition, though the balance between the two elements fluctuates. It is worth mentioning in the context that even Kim Il Sung was not invariably the number one figure in North Korea’s party and administration (in the initial stages) and that, even at the peaks of their careers, neither he nor Kim Jong Il sidelined such collective governance bodies as the central committee of the Labor party, the state defense committee, etc.

Predictions that the DPRK will shortly plunge into chaos and that a tide of infighting will sweep over its leadership are completely groundless. Any serious watcher is fully aware of the country’s robust political stability, with nothing like an organized opposition or public protests of considerable proportions in sight.

It is natural that divisions over individual issues do exist in the administration of the DPRK as in that of any other country. Limited controversy erupted over the forms and pace of the economic reform which was launched in North Korea in 2002. An attempt was made in November, 2009 to implement a national currency devaluation which could de facto translate into savings confiscation and was read by experts as an effort meant to make the country revert to the pre-reform condition. In a matter of months, the North Korean government realized that the step was counterproductive and abandoned the whole plan, removing the restrictions fleetingly imposed on market activity. The reversal showed that the reformist faction in the North Korean administration generally prevails over conservatives.

At the same time, the divisions in the DPRK do not seem to escalate into irreconcilable discord. The constant external threat facing the country further cements its administration. Pyongyang is mindful of its opponents’ strategy focused on inducing regime change in the DPRK and monitors the emergency military planning of the US-S. Korea alliance which certainly had special designs to set in motion in the event of a sudden death of the North Korean leader. The developments in Libya and the killing of M. Gadhafi made North Koreans realize what kind of punishment the West administers for defiance. The conclusions drawn in Pyongyang took the shape of a special official statement to the effect that Gadhafi’s key mistake had been to rely on the West’s promises and to scrap Libya’s nuclear program in return for international security guarantees. The statement said that Gadhafi’s regime came under strike as soon as it showed it would not acquire a nuclear deterrent and that N. Korea would never make the same mistake but would upgrade its defense potential including the nuclear capabilities.

The N. Korean political elite and the politically active part of the country’s society have no illusions as to their survival chances in the case of a regime change. More than any ideological directives, such concerns make it maintain full cohesion, stay loyal to the country leader, and ruthlessly suppress any tendencies towards internal discord.

At least in the mid-term, we will see complete continuity in the DPRK’s foreign and domestic policies, with its young leader likely emphasizing allegiance to his father’s legacy. The North Korean approach to the key foreign-policy issues including its relations with Russia and involvement in the six-party talks over the nuclear problem of the Korean Peninsula will therefore remain unchanged. Symbolically, the last foreign visit paid by late Kim Jong Il was a tour of Russia during which he met with Russian president D. Medvedev in August, 2011 in Ulan-Ude. It is a safe bet that the cooperation between Russia and the DPRK will continue and that the key bilateral economic projects will be implemented in its framework as planned.

It should be noted that the recent developments in North Korea opened up new opportunities to its opponents, and time will show in what form they are going to seize them. At the moment US conservatives such as the Republican party’s candidate for presidential nomination M. Romney are urging greater pressure on North Korea in connection with the inexperienced Kim Jong Un’s taking late Kim Jong Il’s place with regime change as the end goal. On the other hand, now comes up an opportune situation to turn the page on the past conflicts and to start cultivating contacts with the young North Korean leader. An expression of condolences is a typical first step under the circumstances. It instills hope that, in contrast to how the situation was handled when Kim Il Sung died in 1994, Seoul sent those this time. No doubt, the biggest role in rebuilding bridges to North Korea could be taken by the USA. Washington’s usual foreign-policy planning strategy is to compile parallel scenarios and to permanently stay prepared to make a political U-turn. The switching from a condition bordering on a real war to fruitful cooperation in the wake of Kim IL Sung’s death and the signing of the 1994 framework agreement provided a vivid example of such flexibility. The Administration of G. Bush made a similar maneuver in 2007.

It became known that over the past several days US Secretary of State H. Clinton engaged in intense consultations with representatives of the countries neighboring North Korea. In particular, she had several phone conversations with the foreign ministers of Russia and China. The contents of the talks remained undisclosed, but hypothetically Washington could be trying to bounce at least some kind of unarticulated consent to regime change in the DPRK out its partners. If this is the case, the probability that the endeavors produced any results is minimal. To stress the importance of its ties with the DPRK, Beijing took an unprecedented diplomatic step when China’s leader Hu Jintao and eight other top Chinese officials visited the N. Korean embassy to deliver condolences.

Alternative schemes may nevertheless materialize in the game played out between Washington and Pyongyang. H. Clinton’s visit to Burma, the country that used to draw Washington’s condemnations in unsurpassed quantities as a “rogue state”, was a bold initiative, and an analogous breakthrough in dealing with N. Korea may yet be brewing (the precedent being M. Albright’s 2000 visit to Pyongyang). In any case, today’s situation offers unique opportunities to break the stalemate in the US-DPRK and inter-Korean relations.

Overall, the situation in the DPRK remains stable, with Moscow and Beijing firmly espousing the peace, stability and status quo on the Korean Peninsula. Washington and Seoul are facing a dilemma of either boosting pressure on Pyongyang with the aim of irreversibly breaking its resistance (a strategy loaded with unlike results and extreme risks, it should be noted) or giving their policies vis-a-vis North Korea a serious facelift.

Article link:

USA spending more on nukes now than during Cold War [RT]

Posted in Disarmament, Hiroshima, Japan, Nukes, Obama, Russia, US imperialism, USA, USSR on November 26, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

10 November 2011

Though it has been decades since the Cold War came to a close, the United States government spends more money on nuclear warheads now than it did during its stand-off with the Soviet Union.

As the US vows to cut down its arsenal of nuclear weapons, the cost the country spends annually on maintaining its supply is much more than America invested each year during the Cold War. Estimates suggest that currently the US puts around $55 billion annually into its nuclear weapons program, reports Mother Jones; by comparison, the cost of the nuke complex for the country during the Cold War ran at an average of only $35 billion each year.

Only three months into his presidency, Barack Obama said in April 2009 that he envisioned an Earth in the future fee of nuclear weapons. Just two years later, however, America’s arsenal of those warheads amounts to roughly 2,500 nukes ready to be deployed.

It was only less than two weeks ago that the United States finally dismantled its largest atomic bomb, the B53, which was said to be 600 times more powerful than the nuke that was dropped on Hiroshima, Japan towards the finale of the Second World War. As that nuke was dismantled, Deputy Secretary of Energy Dan Poneman told NPR that the bomb was a “Cold War relic” and showed the direction of dismantling that the United States was heading towards.

Even if the country is cutting back on its nukes, the United States has a backup stash larger than the active bombs, allowing for the country to in total have 5,113 nuclear warheads in its position [sic]. The surplus of not-quite-ready nukes is at 2,600, and though they cannot be deployed at a drop of a hat like the others, they can be reanimated as full-fledged warheads.

Peter Fedewa of the pro-disarmament Ploughshares Fund says that those nukes “could be ‘raised from the dead’ and brought back into deployment with relative ease.”

Under the START treaty that the US signed with Russia last year, both countries vow to soon enough limit their stash of active warheads to only 1,500. The document does not, however, say how many back-up nukes either country can have. In the interim, Mother Jones reports that the Pantex plant near Amarillo, Texas holds around 3,000 warheads that are on the schedule to be dismantled, something America used to do at a pace of around 1,300 per year. Last year, however, both Congress and the White House said that the country would cut back on the cost of dismantling the warheads and instead now invest the money on the upkeep of already dead nukes.

At the country’s current rate, dismantling the thousands of atomic nukes would take longer than a decade Joe Cirincione, a longtime analyst of nuclear weapons policy, [told] NPR. Currently, only around 250 warheads are dismantled at Pantex each year.

It doesn’t help that the country is more interested in revamping the retired nukes than pulling the plug on them entirely, either.

In 2012, the country will spend $4.1 billion on the “refurbishment” of retired nukes, while only a fraction of that — $57 million — will be invested in dismantling them. That figure accounts for less than one percent of the country’s total budget for the nuclear program. In all, America’s nuclear program operates at a cost of around $55 billion, which is spread across the Departments of Defense, Energy and Homeland Security. Despite Obama’s instance on curbing the program, the tally of funding is believed to have gone up by around $3 billion since only 2008, which at the time accounted for five times the budget of the Department of State — or 14 times what the Energy Department spends on everything else.

“The same facilities that dismantle U.S. nuclear warheads are also refurbishing US warheads,” Cirincione adds to NPR. “And right now a decision has been made to prioritize refurbishment. So we’re actually building more nuclear weapons than we’re dismantling. That didn’t use to be the case, but it is now.”

When weapons are dismantled and the current snail’s pace, the risks in place are of immense danger as well. “There are very strict manuals on exactly what you have to do,” Hans Kristensen, spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists, tells MSNBC. “How much pressure can you apply to each screw, what kind of glue holds the chemical high explosives together around the spear of highly enriched uranium.”

Both Russia and America have agreed to have an arsenal of only 1,550 deployed nukes come 2018, only a fraction of the 22,000-plus on hand at the end of the Cold War. Obama told an audience in Prague in 2009 he aimed “To put an end to Cold War thinking,” adding that America “will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same.” As the country is investing more money in rebuilding nukes than kicking them to the curb, however, will the president follow through with his plea or will it be added to the list of other promises gone unfulfilled?

Article link:

“Happy Birthday Fidel Castro”, 2011 August 13 []

Posted in 9/11, Bourgeois parliamentary democracy, Cuba, Disarmament, Fidel Castro, Media smear campaign, Nukes, Switzerland, U.K., US imperialism, USA on August 15, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Sweet & Sour Socialism also warmly wishes Comrade Fidel a “Healthy and Happy Birthday”. One of my most treasured memories is seeing him speak in Cuba, at that time I wasn’t far from where he was standing. – Zuo Shou

August 13, 2011

by Michel Chossudovsky

…August 13, 2011 it is the birthday of Fidel Castro Ruz, leader of the Cuban Revolution.

The Global Research team extends its warm greetings and best wishes to Comandante Fidel.

At the height of a US sponsored war and Worldwide economic crisis, Fidel Castro, the leader of the Cuban revolution, who to this day defies America’s imperial design, remains a source of hope and inspiration to those committed to social justice and international solidarity.

Last October, I had the opportunity of spending several days at Fidel Castro`s home in the suburbs of Havana. Our conversation and exchange focussed on the dangers of nuclear war.

I had read Fidel Castro and Che Guevara during my high school days in Geneva, Switzerland and later at university in Britain and the US. When meeting him in person, I discovered a man of tremendous integrity, with an acute mind and sense of humor, committed in the minute detail of his speech to social progress and the advancement of humankind, conscious of the dangers of the US led war and the Worldwide crisis, with exceptional skills of analysis and understanding of his fellow human beings, with a true sprit of internationalism and a tremendous knowledge of history, economics and geopolitics.

On a daily basis, Fidel spends several hours reading a large number of detailed international press reports (As he mentioned to me with a smile, “I frequently consult articles from the Global Research website”…)

…In this broad exchange of ideas, Fidel was invariably assertive in his views but at the same time respectful of those whom he condemned or criticized, particularly when discussing US presidential politics.

Fidel is acutely aware of the mechanisms of media disinformation and war propaganda and how they are used to undermine civil rights and social progress, not to mention the smear campaign directed against the Cuban revolution.

A central concept put forth by Fidel Castro in our discussions was the ‘Battle of Ideas”. The leader of the Cuban Revolution believes that only a far-reaching “Battle of Ideas” can change the course of World history.

In addressing and understanding this Worldwide crisis, commitment to the Truth and analysis of the lies and fabrications which sustain the corporate and financial elites is of utmost importance.

The overriding powers of the Truth can, under appropriate conditions, be used as a revolutionary instrument, as a catalyst to unseat the war criminals in high office, whose role and position is sustained by propaganda and media disinformation.

In relation to 9/11, Fidel had expressed his solidarity, on behalf of the Cuban people, with the victims of the tragic events of September 11 2001, while underscoring the lies and fabrications behind the official 9/11 narrative and how 9/11 has been used as a pretext to wage war.

Our focus was on nuclear war, which since our meeting last October has motivated me to write a book on the Dangers of Nuclear War. (Michel Chossudovsky, Towards a World War III Scenario. Global Research, Montreal, 2011)

The corporate media is involved in acts of camouflage. The devastating impacts of a nuclear war are either trivialized or not mentioned. Against this backdrop, Fidel’s message to the World must be heard; people across the land, nationally and internationally, should understand the gravity of the present situation and act forcefully at all levels of society to reverse the tide of war.

The “Battle of Ideas” is part of a revolutionary process. Against a barrage of media disinformation, Fidel Castro’s resolve is to spread the word far and wide, to inform world public opinion, to “make the impossible possible”, to thwart a military adventure which in the real sense of the word threatens the future of humanity.

When a US sponsored nuclear war becomes an “instrument of peace”, a “responsibility to protect” condoned and accepted by the World’s institutions and the highest authority including the United Nations, there is no turning back: human society has indelibly been precipitated headlong onto the path of self-destruction.

Fidel’s “Battle of Ideas” must be translated into a worldwide movement. People must mobilize against this diabolical military agenda.

This war can be prevented if people pressure their governments and elected representatives, organize at the local level in towns, villages and municipalities, spread the word, inform their fellow citizens regarding the implications of a thermonuclear war, initiate debate and discussion within the armed forces.

What is required is a mass movement of people which forcefully challenges the legitimacy of war, a global people’s movement which criminalizes war.

In his October 15, 2010 speech, Fidel Castro warned the World on the dangers of nuclear war:

“There would be “collateral damage”, as the American political and military leaders always affirm, to justify the deaths of innocent people. In a nuclear war the “collateral damage” would be the life of all humanity.

Let us have the courage to proclaim that all nuclear or conventional weapons, everything that is used to make war, must disappear!”

The “Battle of Ideas” consists in confronting the war criminals in high office, in breaking the US-led consensus in favor of a global war, in changing the mindset of hundreds of millions of people, in abolishing nuclear weapons. In essence, the “Battle of Ideas” consists in restoring the truth and establishing the foundations of World peace.

“The Battle of Ideas” must be developed as a mass movement, nationally and internationally, waged by people across the land.

Fidel Castro Ruz has indelibly marked the history of both the Twentieth and Twenty-first Century…

…The American and European media in October 2010 decided in chorus not to acknowledge or even comment on Fidel Castro’s October 15, 2010 speech on the Dangers of Nuclear War. The evolving media consensus is that neither nuclear war nor nuclear energy constitute a threat to “the surrounding civilian population”.

Our “wish-list” to Comandante Fidel Castro on his 85th Birthday is:

For a World of Peace,

For a World of Truth, where people Worldwide join hands,

For a World of understanding, a World of tolerance and respect,

For the concurrent demise of neoliberalism and militarization which destroy people’s lives,

For the outright criminalization of America’s imperial wars,

For a World of Social Justice with a true “responsibility to protect” our fellow human beings,

To Truth in Media. For a World in which journalists are committed to reporting the truth,

Happy Birthday Comandante Fidel,

You are the source of tremendous inspiration. Our thoughts are with you.

Long Live Fidel Castro Ruz

Michel Chossudovsky, on behalf of the Global Research Team, Montreal, August 13, 2011

Article link:

China Focus: China, DPRK seek stronger bonds as Kim Jong Il visits – Dear Leader Comrade’s unofficial trip to China, 2011 May 20-26 [Xinhua]

Posted in Beijing, China, CPC, Disarmament, DPR Korea, Heilongjiang Province, Hu Jintao, Jilin Province, Kim Jong Il, Nukes, Reform and opening up, Scientific Outlook on Development, Sino-Korean Friendship, Workers Party of Korea WPK on May 27, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

BEIJING, May 26 (Xinhua) — Top leaders of China and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) pledged to seek stronger bilateral ties and pass on their traditional friendship to the next generation when Kim Jong Il visited China for the third time in the past year.

Kim paid an unofficial visit to China from May 20 to 26 at the invitation of Hu Jintao, general secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of China (CPC) and China’s president.

The visit, Kim’s third since May 2010 and the seventh since the dawn of the 21st century, brought him to the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Jiangsu before his talks with Hu in Beijing.


In their talks, Hu extended a warm welcome to Kim on behalf of the CPC, the Chinese government and the Chinese people, saying that the visit fully reflects the great attention Kim and the WPK Central Committee has paid to consolidating and developing the China-DPRK relationship and will definitely boost bilateral relations to a higher level.

In regards to DPRK-China ties, Kim has repeatedly stressed that the younger generation should continue the DPRK-China friendship, Hu said.

Hu stressed that the CPC and the Chinese government have always dealt with China-DPRK ties from a strategic and long-term perspective.

The Chinese side has firmly adhered to the spirit of carrying forward traditions, embracing the future, maintaining a neighborly friendship and strengthening cooperation with the DPRK, and has unswervingly observed the principle of consolidating and developing China-DPRK relations, Hu said.

Hu said China will work with the DPRK to boost the continuous growth of their bilateral cooperative relationship and promote regional peace, stability and prosperity. Hu made five proposals concerning bilateral ties during their talks:

— Step up high-level visits and deepen the China-DPRK friendship. Hu said that he welcomes DPRK leaders to visit China.

— Make more efforts to share experiences in party-building and state governance and promote economic and social development.

— Improve mutually beneficial cooperation to benefit people of both countries.

— Deepen exchanges in culture, education and sports, particularly exchanges between young people, in order to pass on the China-DPRK friendship from generation to generation.

— Increase communication and maintain coordination on international and regional situations as well as crucial issues, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability.

Kim hailed the friendship between the two countries, saying that it is a historic mission for both countries to pass on their friendship from generation to generation.

This year marks the 50th anniversary of the signing of the DPRK-China Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance. The treaty is significant, as it is an important piece of heritage from the elder generation of leaders from both nations, Kim said.

Kim invited Hu to visit the DPRK, which Hu accepted with pleasure.

[Highlights of article:]





Kim visited the municipality of Beijing and the provinces of Heilongjiang, Jilin and Jiangsu during his week-long China tour.

He paid visits to projects related to industrial production, agriculture, technological development and trade. Kim also spoke with the families of farmers, visited assembly lines for sedans and heavy-duty trucks, dropped by IT and electronics companies and paid a visit to China’s Smart Grid Demonstration Center.

Kim was also briefed about China’s research and development of high-tech products.

He said he has witnessed China’s progress in the fields of economic development, social construction, technology and culture.

Kim said the CPC’s reform and opening-up policy has been proven correct, and that its path of scientific development is full of vigor. The DPRK people have been encouraged by China’s achievements and hope that the Chinese people will make greater progress in the implementation of the 12th Five-year Plan (2011-2015) for National Economic and Social Development, Kim said.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Full article here:

US nuclear stockpile “transparency” and Chinese editorialist’s response: “Pentagon has guts, but not sincerity” [People’s Daily Online]

Posted in China-US relations, Disarmament, Japan, Nukes, US foreign occupation, US Government Cover-up, US imperialism on May 24, 2010 by Zuo Shou / 左手

“All war is deception / All war is based on deception.” — Sun Tzu [Sun Zi], The Art of War

Earlier this month, the Pentagon made a grandstand play of announcing their total number of nuclear warheads (exactly 5,113 – so it was said).  By so doing the US government in one fell swoop allegedly settled years of debate and set the stage for future steps towards nuclear disarmament, among other sweet-smelling rationales.

What was not said that this was a kind of challenge and bluff in one move.  It was centered around the fetishized neo-liberal  term “transparency”, which is a code word for “truth” in those times when truth is just too absurd in the speakers’ mouth.  These days we don’t have many imperialist politicians and brass asserting the “truth”, so they have to fall back on this word. 

Do this easy interactive media experiment yourself; anytime some bourgeois politico or other mouthpiece of the global oligarchy deploys the word “transparency”, substitute the word “truth” and you will have a guaranteed good laugh.   Case in point:  imagine Hillary Clinton saying “It is in our national security interest to be as truthful as we can be about the nuclear program of the United States” (as she actually did this month, but with transparent).  It’s a good joke, isn’t it?  The resulting smiles and/or laughter are  irrepressible, like those of Chinese students listening to a speech by Tim Geithner.

The US federal government, its oligarchic masters, and their international clients can’t be sincere about their foreign policy.  They want to rule the world by hook or by crook.  That’s why the US has hundreds of military bases all over the world.  So it constantly, truly constantly, must deceive its own citizens about this appalling strategy; since  most of them don’t want take part in goals so Nazi-esque; it also must allay the fears of world citizens who might join forces to oppose the US and NATO sooner or later, either peacefully or through arms.

What did this alleged display of nuclear ‘transparency” by the Pentagon actually conceal?  What was not said?

  1. The US is far and away the #1 nuclear warhead stockpiler.
  2. The US is the only country to ever use nuclear (atomic) weapons, as it did on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.  And it’s not sorry about it.
  3. The US has a ‘first-strike’ pre-emptive policy of using nukes.  “All options are on the table.”
  4. The US has a history of threatening other countries with nukes, from Vietnam during its involvement there, to (North) Korea, to Iran (just this year!), just for a few examples.
  5. The US is currently developing new generation nuke weapons, including but not limited to “bunker busters”.
  6. The US has weaponized nukes in conventional weapons through use of depleted uranium munitions, used copiously in the Gulf War, bombing of Yugoslavia, invasion of Iraq, and most likely in the invasion of Afghanistan.  DU “burns” on impact and releases tiny radioactive particles that irradiate the environment for generations if not millennia, and easily pass into humans and other living organisms to do severe cellular-level damage.  There are links between DU use, Gulf War Syndrome, and widespread birth defects in both children of US soldiers and Iraqis from heavily bombarded areas, like Fallujah.  The use of DU is a heinous  — and nuclear  — war crime.
  7. The US has never allowed anybody to inspect its nuclear warhead stockpiles and the Pentagon provided no evidence to back up its numerical claims.  How’s that for transparency?  These numbers also include (or leaves out, depending on your inclination) aging or “retired” warheads which could still be re-cycled to proper effect.

The list could go on, but you get the point.

I’ll not say that any concrete efforts between nations to reduce or eliminate nuclear weapons aren’t worthwhile.  My thrust here is just to point out that the US federal government has a vision of global domination which it works sedulously to realize, and it will never give up military advantages. 

All announcements such as the “nuclear transparency” at issue here are a form of psychological warfare  and fundamentally deceptive in intent, if not in quantity (see the Sun Tzu quote above).  It’s part of a horizonless, name-shifting, anti-democratic global war that’s been going on at least since WWII, directed against a broad spectrum of humanity both at home and abroad.

And this is where China comes into it.  Chinese were instantly skeptical of the Pentagon playing the “transparency” card, especially regarding nukes.  As well they should be!  Sun Tzu’s strategy was formulated in China, after all… 

Plus there’s less ancient facts readily at hand.  Remember this bit of news from earlier this year:  

Japan confirms secret nuclear pacts with U.S. during Cold War”

TOKYO, 2010 March 9 (Xinhua) — Japan’s Foreign Ministry on Tuesday confirmed the existence of three Cold War-era secret agreements with Washington that included stipulations allowing the U.S. military to bring nuclear weapons onto its territory.

The public announcement ended a decades-long policy in Japan of keeping the agreements secret from the public.  Information about the agreements, however, had already been revealed in the United States more than a decade ago.

One of the pacts, signed in 1960, effectively allowed the United States to bring nuclear weapons into Japan without prior consultation.  This overturned previous agreements that had stated that Washington must first speak with Tokyo before bringing in any nuclear weapons, in light of Japanese sentiment after atomic bombs were used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of world War II in 1945.

Japanese Foreign Minister Katsuya Okada said the possibility that nuclear weapons had entered Japan during the era “cannot be ruled out”, after the ministry expert panel made the confirmation in a report.

“We cannot clearly state that there was no nuclear introduction (to Japan),” Okada told a press conference after receiving the panel report.

He added, however, he believed nuclear arms had not been introduced since 1991, when U.S. President George H.W. Bush announced the withdrawal of tactical nuclear weapons from U.S. ships and submarines, and said he believed such introduction would not happen in the future…     [Full article link]

Don’t you just love the transparency?  Uncle Sam brings nukes next door to China, but didn’t necessarily tell anybody, not even the Japanese.

And who knows about US nukes on the Korean peninsula or in Korean waters, again right next door to China.

Here’s what Peoples’ Daily editorial writer Li Hongmei has to say about the Pentagon’s disclosure, in a rare display of Chinese journalistic directness: 

“Pentagon has guts, but not sincerity” (May 6, 2010)

…[the] Pentagon’s abrupt about-face from its secretive mood shrouding the nuclear program baffles other nuclear states, including China.  But if it is given more than a passing thought, the intention behind would loom abundantly clear.  At least the unveil of nuclear warheads by no means indicates Pentagon’s 100 percent sincerity to contribute to building a nuclear-free world…even if the courage to take such steps in itself is commendable.

What’s veiled behind the unveil?  A US defense official said the administration hoped more transparency from Washington would set a standard that would encourage countries to be more open.  “We hope that others will follow,” said the official.  In particular, China is singled out…to follow suit immediately.

The U.S. newspaper L.A. Times commented [the] Pentagon’s move is intended to ‘stimulate the countries like China,’ and this is also echoed by a Pentagon official.  He also explained why the U.S. cast doubt on China’s nuclear figures saying China lacks transparency in its nuclear stockpile and its nuclear program has a “low visibility.”

Isn’t it that the true intention behind the voluntary announcement is nothing but the bait designed to “lure the snake out of its hole”?  If so, should China take it, and how could China respond to it ?

If turning to the flip side of the already “transparent” US nuke program, the phony content would be laid bare.  First, nobody has the actual access to finding out how much of the reliability about the number of warheads publicly declared by Pentagon.  Experts doubt the actual stockpile should be far beyond the known figures.  Secondly, the nuke weaponry declared by the U.S. to be dismantled is mostly out-of-date.  Last, but not the least, the U.S. has never made a pledge of “no first use of nuclear weapons”.

On this basis, it is now still too early to say Pentagon’s nuke confession sets a beacon of hope for a nuclear-free globe.  Likewise, it also takes time to prove what Pentagon has said and done thus far is in all sincerity.”

People’s Daily full editorial by Li Hongmei here