Archive for the S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident Category

Inspection Group of NDC of DPRK Opens to Public Truth about Drone Case Touted by S. Korean Authorities [KCNA]

Posted in DPR Korea, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, south Korea on April 18, 2014 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Pyongyang, April 14 (KCNA) — The inspection group of the National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK on Monday opened to public the truth about the drone case touted by the south Korean authorities, terming the fiction about the “drones sent by the north” a replica of the Cheonan warship sinking case from A to Z.
According to the open statement, it was reported that crashed drones were found in various parts of south Korea recently.
It said:
The south Korean military authorities on April 2 hastily announced the “results of the first investigation” in which they concluded that the drones were sent by the north. On April 11 they announced the “results of intermediary investigation” insisting that the drones “belong to the north”.
They claimed those photos available from the drones are the most convincing evidence proving that the “drones belong to the north”.
If one follows the south side’s assertion, flying bodies coming from the north to the south and from the south to the north should belong to the NORTH [emphasis added] and if photos of south side areas are available from the flying bodies, ALL [emphasis added] of them should belong to the north.
If then, flying bodies coming from the south to the north and from the north to the south in the areas north of the Military Demarcation Line should belong to south Korea and if photos of areas of the north side are available from the flying bodies, they should belong to south Korea.
The “central joint inspection team” produced the writing style in the north marked on the engine battery as one of the most convincing [pieces of] evidence proving that the drones belong to the “north”.
It is said that the front side of the engine battery of a drone at present bears the trade mark “date of kiyong (use) June 25, 2013” and “date of [expiration] June 25, 2014.”
They insist that this is the method of writing trade mark commonly used in the north and to write “naltsa (date)” used by south Korea as “nalja” is the writing of the north Korean style.
People in the north never use the word “kiyong” on any product. There is no explanation about the word “kiyong” in the large Korean dictionary in the north.
The recent “results of investigation” claimed that Chinese and Japanese letters are seen on the back of the battery and the device supporting the flying posture of the drones was made by Futaba of Japan.
If they assert the drones belong to the “north” as they bear Korean letters, how they will explain the Chinese and Japanese letters and Japan-made device.
Fingerprints were cited as one of the evidence proving the claim that the drones belong to the north.
If one with normal way of thinking insists that the fingerprints they claim found on the drones belong to north Koreans simply because they are not south Koreans’, no one can trust the assertion.
A spokesman for the south Korean Ministry of Defense announced at the outset that “it would not be easy to find the place where the north’s drone took off even if over 30 trillion won was spent out of the defense budget.”
Some days later, he claimed that the take-off point of the drone was confirmed, adding that it was Onchon airfield in South Hwanghae Province.
Onchon airfield of the DPRK is situated in South Phyongan Province, not in South Hwanghae Province.
A few days later, he corrected the take-off point of the drone announced earlier, noting that an airfield near Ongjin in South Hwanghae Province was the place where it took off.
People in the north have never heard there is an airfield near Ongjin.
The south Korean authorities cited the blue color of the drone as evidence to proving that the drones belong to the north.
They claim blue and white colors are “colors used in north Korea”. Is there anyone who can agree with this?
“One cannot but construe that drones were sent by the north as it is a short distance for neighboring countries to launch such drones and they were not launched in the south either”. This is one clause of the “intermediary investigation results” which judged on the basis of the flying range that the drones were sent by the “north”.
If then, do all flying bodies in the world with either short or long flying range belong to the “north”?
The south Korean Ministry of Defense on Mar. 31 claimed it confirmed those drones were launched from the area of the north side as a radar of E-8 detected a drone flying to Paekryong Island from the north.
It made a poor excuse that the south side fired at least 300 shells from Vulcan artillery pieces three times the moment the drone was detected but could not shoot down the drone flying at the altitude of 5-6 km because the maximum firing range of those guns is just 2 km.
[Then, t]he “central joint inspection team,” as if it had forgotten all what it had said, made public that the drone discovered on Paekryong Island crashed due to the lack of fuel, flying zigzag at the speed of 100-120 km per hour at the altitude of 1.4 km.
When public became increasingly skeptical about its announcement, the team asserted that another drone which the authorities did not know might be sent to Paekryong Island.
Besides, the south Korean authorities made the claim as evidence proving the “north’s involvement” that the drones were “cast in iron mould”, electronic circuit board attached to wood is not the south Korean style and there is neither witness nor informer who said that they found a launching pad and additional equipment needed for the drone take-off in south Korea. This is the “results of the intermediary investigation”[,] full of lies.
Seeing these ambiguous behaviors, people whisper that it was not an easy job to cook up and prove the story about the “north’s involvement.”
The more water flows under the bridge and the more facts are known to public, the more saliently they will bring to light truth that the story about the “north’s involvement” is a sheer lie.
The open statement laid bare the sinister criminal aims sought by the south Korean authorities through the drone case:
The first aim sought by the south Korean authorities is to blame the DPRK for orchestrating the drone case and shift the responsibility for the acute north-south relations and the situation on the Korean peninsula inching close to a war on to the DPRK.
The second aim is to take the second “May 24 anti-north measure” by fabricating the second Cheonan warship sinking case in a bid to keep the north-south relations in the state of confrontation.
The third aim is to plug their American master into their arms buildup under the pretext of “strengthening the security posture” and thus make up for the “vacuum of force” and stifle the DPRK by force of arms at any cost.
It is an inveterate bad habit of the south Korean authorities to cook up shocking cases and kick up anti-DPRK confrontation hysteria by linking those cases with the DPRK whenever they are driven into a crisis.
The inspection group of the NDC has the willingness to make everything clear now that the south Korean authorities have not yet ceased floating the story about “the north’s involvement” in Cheonan warship sinking case and are fabricating the second and third Cheonan cases.
The DPRK remains unchanged in its stand to jointly investigate all cases including the Cheonan case as they claim the north was involved in them.
Security room chief of Chongwadae Kim Jang Su, who allegedly looks after “state security” of south Korea, may take part in the investigation on behalf of the south side as it will draw great attention of the nation.
If the south Korean authorities have no compunction, there will be no reason whatsoever for them to shun the just and reasonable claim made by the DPRK from the very day of the occurrence of the Cheonan case.
We will wait for the south Korean authorities’ response. -0-

Edited by Zuo Shou

KCNA English webpage:


New study says the Cheonan was sunk by mine, not NK torpedo [The Hankyoreh / 한겨레]

Posted in DPR Korea, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, Seoul, south Korea on August 28, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

The wreckage of the Cheonan warship now sits in Pyongtaek Second Naval Command Base. A new academic study says the ship may have been sunk by a mine instead of a North Korean torpedo. In this photo, Hankyoreh reporters speak with the base’s PR staff on August 16. (by Lee Jeong-ah, staff reporter)

Scientific analysis shows signs of a powerful underwater explosion

By Oh Cheol-woo, science correspondent

August 25, 2012

An article has been published in an international academic journal arguing that the explosion that sank the South Korean Cheonan warship in March 2010 may not have been from a North Korean torpedo, but from a mine discarded by the South Korean navy.

This is the second scientific study on the Cheonan sinking published in an academic journal, the first being a seismic analysis published last year by Yonsei University Department of Earth System Sciences professor Hong Tae-kyung. That study supported the findings of the government’s joint investigation team.

In the study published in the international academic journal “Pure and Applied Geophysics,” Korea Seismological Institute director Kim So-gu and the Geophysical Institute of Israel’s Yefim Gitterman wrote that analysis of the seismic waves, acoustic waves and bubble frequency made it clear an underwater explosion took place.

They said the seismic magnitude of the explosion was 2.04, that of 136kg of TNT and equivalent to the individual yield of the large number of land control mines abandoned by the Korean navy after they were first installed in the 1970s.

The findings are noteworthy in that they differ greatly from those of the Civilian-Military Joint Investigation Group (MCNJIG), which found the cause of the sinking to be a North Korean CHT-02D torpedo with a yield of 250kg of TNT exploding at a depth of six to nine meters, producing a seismic yield of 1.5… Continue reading

US-Japan-ROK drills aim to fix alliance weakness [People’s Daily]

Posted in Australia, DPR Korea, Neo-colonialism, Philippines, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, south Korea, US "War on Terror" on June 29, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

(People’s Daily Online)
June 26, 2012

Recently, the temporary tranquility in the Korean Peninsula was once again interrupted by the uproar of a series of military exercises. From June 21 to 22, the navy of the United States, Japan, and South Korea jointly held military exercises in waters to the south of the Korean Peninsula. From June 23 to 25, the United States and South Korea met again for military exercises in the Yellow Sea. Of these, the military exercise of the three countries is the first successful “matchmaking” by the United States for the joint participation of its two allies.

The United States has troops stationed in both Japan and South Korea, which are two big military allies of the United States in Northeast Asia. However, the military relations between Japan and South Korea had been quite “cold”, mainly because of the anti-Japanese public opinion in South Korea. Since South Korea had been subjected to long-term Japanese colonial rule, added by the island territorial disputes between the two, the South Korean people have a strong distrust of Japan and are especially wary of the Japanese military.

But then the United States wishes to “reconfigure the Asia-Pacific layout” and borrow as much “leverage” as possible from its allies. The United States and Japan were always trying to hook in South Korea to compensate for the “short board” of Japan-South Korea military alliance and establish a military “iron triangle”. Meanwhile, the situation on the Korean Peninsula has become tense again since a series of conflicts including the “Cheonan Warship” incident in March 2010.

Gong Keyu, researcher at Shanghai Institute of International Studies said that in the new round of tensions on the peninsula after North Korea launched a satellite in April this year, the South Korean government has the idea to make a tough response to such “provocation.” The United States takes such opportunity to once again promote their “equilateral triangular” cooperation, resulting in the “unprecedented” military exercise.

It should be noted that each of the three countries has its own intention despite standing on the same military exercise “stage”. At the beginning of the second decade of the 21st century, the United States ends the war on terrorism and starts to devote more resources toward the Asia-Pacific region, represents a significant variable in international relations in the region. Under the residual influence of the economic crisis and due to the lack of strength, the United States has adopted the “United States plus X” mode by gathering Japan, South Korea, Australia, the Philippines and other allies through strategic dialogue, military exercises and a variety of ways so as to establish an intersectional, multi-level, new type of military alliance and maintain hegemony in the Asia-Pacific region.

In regard of the recent series of military exercises, the United States stresses that the North Korean military forces threaten regional stability and seems to regard North Korea as the “imaginary enemy.” But the discerning can easily see that mere North Korean would not be worthy for the two major military powers to shovel [sic]. To a certain extent, their actual “ulterior” intention is to curb the other regional powers. However, South Korea’s participation in the military exercises still mainly aims to take advantage of the power of the United States and Japan to guard against and deter North Korea. After reluctantly tying itself to the U.S.-Japan “chariot”, whether South Korea can get off easily is quite another question.

Source: Jiefang Daily, Author: Wang Shaoji

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

China and Russia hold joint naval exercises in North East Asia [World Socialist Website]

Posted in Australia, China, DPR Korea, Encirclement of China, India, Japan, Obama, Philippines, Qingdao, Russia, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, SCO Shanghai Cooperation Organization, South China Sea, south Korea, Tokyo, US imperialism, USA, USA 21st Century Cold War, Vietnam on April 28, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

By John Chan
27 April 2012

China and Russia are conducting a major joint naval exercise in the Yellow Sea from April 22 to 27. The drills are a response by the two countries to their growing concerns about the Obama administration’s aggressive “pivot” to Asia that includes a military build-up and the strengthening of US alliances throughout the region.

Seven Russian vessels led by its Pacific Fleet flagship, the Varyag, a guided missile cruiser, arrived at Qingdao—a Chinese naval base on the Shandong Peninsula. They were joined by 16 Chinese surface ships and two submarines. Thirteen warplanes, nine helicopters and special force units also took part in the live fire drills.

Russia and China have held joint military exercises in recent years, within the framework of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) and in the name of combatting terrorism. The main object of the latest war games, however, is the joint defence of sea lanes, involving maritime air defence, as well as anti-submarine tactics and electronic countermeasures.

Although Russian and Chinese officials claimed the exercises were planned last year and did not target at any third party, the “imaginary enemies” could only be the US and its allies. A key focus of the American military build-up is to ensure US domination of key shipping routes through South East Asia.

The location and timing of the naval drills was highly sensitive. As Russian warships crossed through the Tsushima Strait between Japan and Korea last weekend, the Japanese media speculated that this was a message to Tokyo. The strait was the site of the key naval battle in 1905 Russo-Japanese war for dominance in Korea and Manchuria.

This week’s drills were held close to where several US-South Korean naval exercises were staged following the alleged sinking of a South Korean frigate by North Korea in 2010. The US-South Korean naval exercise last November was only 170 kilometres away from the Shandong Peninsula.

The Russo-Chinese exercises coincided with US-Philippine joint war games near the South China Sea, which also involved Australia, Japan and South Korea. That exercise took place amid a continuing standoff between Chinese and Philippine ships near the disputed Scarborough Shoal. The US has encouraged the Philippines and other countries to take a more aggressive stance in territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

As well as raising concerns in [China], the strengthening of the US military presence and ties in Asia has also caused unease in Moscow, which in recent years has expanded its military exercises in Russia’s far eastern regions.

The Obama administration exploited North Korea’s failed rocket launch this month to renew calls for a joint missile shield with Japan, South Korea and Australia. The plan poses a threat not only to China’s nuclear missile arsenal but also to Russia’s road- and rail-launch missiles in the Far East, as well as its Pacific-based nuclear submarines.

By stationing radar and interceptor missiles in South Korea and Japan, the US can significantly shorten the detection time of any Chinese and Russian missile launch and enhance its ability to shoot down the missiles. While promoted as a defensive measure, the missile shield would enable the US to launch a devastating first strike on China or Russia, then neutralise any surviving missiles.

China’s and Russia’s shared anxieties about the threat of US militarism have led to a strengthening of their strategic partnership over the past decade. The SCO was formed in 2001, with Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, to counter growing American influence in Central Asia, especially after the US-led invasion of Afghanistan.

In 2005, Russia and China held their first major joint military exercise, “Peace Mission 2005,” in the Yellow Sea. Then, under the [rubric] of the “war on terror,” the SCO countries staged four joint military exercises. Far from being anti-insurgency exercises to suppress “terrorists” in the region, these drills were more in line with practicing for a large-scale land conflict in energy-rich Central Asia.

[Some Chinese] have become convinced in recent years that China should form a military alliance with Russia. During a recent National Security Policy Committee forum on the impact of the “US pivot to the East,” several of China’s top analysts argued for a shift in strategic policy.

Qian Wenrong of the Institute of World Issues declared: “We must change the no-alliance policy, without openly announcing it. We must consider the issue of forming alliances. Otherwise, in the future wars, in both political and military confrontations, we by ourselves will not have the slightest chance of overcoming the global network of alliances that the US has constructed.”

At the same time, the state-run press in China has generally played down any prospect of a formal alliance with Russia. Both countries fear that an alliance would antagonise the US and its allies, on which they depend economically. Russia is a major exporter of energy to Europe, while China remains a cheap labour platform for major Western corporations.

Moreover, China and Russia remain suspicious of each other. Moscow is worried about Beijing’s growing presence in former Soviet Central Asia, where it is tapping the region’s vast energy reserves. By assimilating Russian technology, China has boosted its military strength, provoking concerns in Moscow over a potential conflict with an “overcrowded” China seeking to dominate the resource-rich and underpopulated Russian Far East.

The Chinese regime is concerned that Russia has been supplying sophisticated military hardware, including nuclear submarines, tanks and an aircraft carrier, to its regional rival, India, in an attempt to counter-balance Chinese influence in Asia. Russia is also selling submarine and strike aircraft to Vietnam, which in turn has invited India and Russia to jointly explore energy reserves in disputed areas of the South China Sea.

The very fact that China and Russia are considering closer military ties, despite these antagonisms, underscores the dangerous tensions being produced by the Obama administration’s confrontational “pivot” to Asia.

Edited by Zuo Shou

Article link:

DPRK declares no contact with S. Korea’s Lee Myung-bak gov’t [Xinhua]

Posted in Cheonan sinking, DPR Korea, Juche Idea, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jong Il, Kim Jong Un, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Korean Reunification, Lee Myung-bak, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, south Korea on January 31, 2012 by Zuo Shou / 左手

PYONGYANG, Dec. 30 (Xinhua) — The National Defense Commission of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) said the country would never contact with South Korea’s Lee Myung-bak government any more, the official KCNA news agency reported Friday.

The commission said in a statement that “the DPRK will have no dealings with the Lee Myung Bak group forever,” as it prevented the South Korean people from paying condolence visits to late leader Kim Jong Il by claiming that “sympathy to citizens separated from the north regime.”

It was the DPRK army’s self-defensive shell-firing on Yeonpyeong Island for coping with South Korea’s preemptive provocation in the wake of the warship Cheonan sinking case, which was not related to the DPRK, said the statement.

However, the South Korean government’s attempt to link the “final responsibility” for the warship Cheonan sinking and shelling on Yeonpyeong Island with the DPRK “hurt the dignity of the supreme leadership of the DPRK,” it added.

“We will unswervingly keep to the path of Juche indicated by Kim Jong Il true to the intention of President Kim Il Sung,” the statement said, citing joint authorization of the party, state, army and people of the DPRK.

It also noted that the army and people of the DPRK will keep to the path of improving north-south relations and achieving peace and prosperity through the nationwide drive, to implement the historic “June 15 Joint Declaration” and the “October 4 Joint Declaration” under the banner of independence, peace and reunification.

Article link:

“Russian chess: Russia moves to use economics to promote peace in Northeast Asia” by Tim Beal []

Posted in China, Cuba, Fukushima nuclear plant, George W. Bush, India, Iran, Japan, Lee Myung-bak, Obama, Pakistan, Russia, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, Sino-Korean Friendship, south Korea, Syria, Tokyo, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA, Venezuela on October 3, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

August 29, 2011

The visit of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il to Russia in August 2011 received little attention in the international media, and most of the articles were uninformed…The North Korean and Russian media gave little detail and scant analysis. China was a bit better but tended to focus on the Six Party Talks, highlighting Kim (and Medvedev’s) commitment to resuming the talks without preconditions.1

This is understandable, given that the establishment of the Beijing talks, bringing together the two Koreas, and the major world powers –the US, Japan, Russia, and China – was a great achievement. Too great perhaps. It was noticeable how quickly the US used the Cheonan Incident in March 2010 to sink the talks. It is likely that the Obama administration realised that Bush had made a great strategic mistake in giving this diplomatic jewel to China and was glad of a pretext to let the talks wither.

In any case, Kim’s avowed commitment to the talks was not new; it restated statements made on visits to China, most recently in May, and was consistent with long-standing North Korean policy.2 The US, and South Korean, response was the same as before – no talks without preconditions.3 It is an old diplomatic technique; if you don’t want negotiations you merely set preconditions the other side cannot accept without forfeiting their objective for negotiating. It was a common feature of US strategy during the Bush administration.4 Obama was supposed to change all that:
… when asked in a July 23, 2008 presidential primary debate, “Would you be willing to meet separately, without preconditions, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that divides our countries?” candidate Obama replied, “I would.”5
But President Obama is, as we well know now, not the same person as Candidate Obama.

However, the main problem with most of the media coverage was that it looked in the wrong direction and asked the wrong questions. Too often the focus was on Kim Jong Il rather than Medvedev, on North Korea rather than on Russia. It ascribed far too much freedom of action to Kim, a mistake that permeates discussion on North Korea and a subject to be taken up some other time. It portrayed Kim as the active initiator and Medvedev as the passive and compliant host.

In fact, a summit only takes place because both sides want it, and the bigger country has the stronger hand in determining that. There have been rumours in the past of an impending visit by Kim to Russia which have not eventuated.6 It may be that there have been requests since Kim’s previous visit in 2002, but only this time has Moscow said yes.

Kim’s reasons for the Russia visit are easy to discern. North Korea needs to develop commercial linkages with Russia to circumvent US-led sanctions which have such a devastating effect on its economy.7 It also needs Russia as an economic and political counterbalance to China. North Korea’s overdependence on China is increasingly evident. 8At the same time Kim does not want to alienate China so it was significant that he returned to Korea via China, significantly meeting with Dai Bingguo, China’s leading official for Korean affairs.9

That’s the easy part, but what about Russia? After all, just last year the Russian ambassador to Seoul was at pains to emphasise that his country was ‘not an ally’ of Pyongyang. 10 Now we have the Russian president describing it as a partner. 11 What has brought about this change? What have been the Russian objectives for the summit?

Russia’s strategy has two inter-related aspects – the economic and the geopolitical.

Russia wants to sell natural gas to South Korea. This could be shipped from Vladivostok but that would increase costs; the cheapest way is via a pipeline, and that would go through North Korea. The pipeline would be a major undertaking – 1,100 kms long, 700 of which would be through North Korea, and delivering 10 million cubic metres of gas a year.12 But it would complement existing pipelines to Europe and China so there would be no great technical barriers. South Korea itself is potentially a substantial market but the real prize is Japan, where it is anticipated that post-Fukushima antipathy to nuclear energy will boost demand for gas.13 And then there is the China factor. If Russia can develop substantial markets in South Korea and Japan this will give it leverage in what are reportedly tough negotiations with China over the price of gas imports from Russia.

If the gas pipeline goes through, so too do railways which have been bedevilled by the same political barriers. If the railway systems between the two Koreas are reconnected, and the North’s upgraded, then there is a huge rail network connecting South Korea (and perhaps Japan) with Russia and Europe via the Trans-Siberian, and China and beyond, to Southeast Asia, Central Asia, and one day to South Asia. The economic, and geopolitical, implications of this, what the late South Korean President Kim Dae-jung dubbed the ‘iron silk road’ are huge and in fact dwarf the impact of the gas pipeline.14 For the moment however, the emphasis is on the gas pipeline.

The economic imperative is clear, but it is complemented by a geopolitical one. Russia believes that a pipeline though North Korea to the south will help lock in peace on the peninsula. South Korea would get cheaper gas, North Korea would get transit fees and presumably gas as well. Both sides would have a strong inducement to keep the peace and avoid tension.15 The same goes for rail links. And there’s the rub, because this would be anathema to the United States.

The situation is analogous to the proposed gas pipeline from Iran to India via Pakistan and the objections are the same.16 The arrangement would strengthen an adversary producer (Russia, Iran), empower the intermediary country (North Korea, Pakistan) and make the consumer ally (South Korea, India) either vulnerable or less willing to accept US domination. The United States would lose leverage over the situation. A gas pipeline through the Korean peninsula has been talked about before, but has faltered on American objections.17 Will it be different this time?

It may well be. With both Russia and North Korea committed to the proposal it is difficult for South Korea openly to reject it. The economic benefits would be considerable and with National Assembly and presidential elections coming up in 2012 it could become awkward political issue. Similarly for the US; whatever pressure it might apply behind the scenes, it would have to be careful not to oppose it to openly for fear of re-igniting anti-Americanism – the massive demonstrations against imports of American beef in 2008 are a potent reminder of the dangers.18

However, the key factor is probably Dmitry Medvedev himself. It seems that Russia, like China, was much alarmed by the upsurge in tension on the Korean peninsula in 2010 produced by Lee Myung-bak’s confrontationist policies, which resulted in the first artillery exchange since the Korean War.19 On top of that he must have been annoyed by Lee’s attempt to use Russia to bolster his fabrication of the investigation into the sinking of the Cheonan. The South Korean military investigation pinned the blame on North Korea producing at the last moment, a couple of days before the report was scheduled to be released what they claimed to be a smoking gun – the remnants of a North Korean torpedo found, it was asserted, in the vicinity of the sinking.20

This failed to dispel public scepticism so Lee put pressure on Medvedev to send a Russian team to examine the South Korean evidence.21 It seems that the Russian investigators found the South Korean case so flawed that their report was never published, nor was it released to the South Korean government. Publically it was said that the evidence was ‘inconclusive’.22 Embarrassment all around. It could have been worse. Donald Gregg, a former American ambassador to Seoul, said that:

When I asked a well-placed Russian friend why the report has not been made public, he replied, “Because it would do much political damage to President Lee Myung-bak and would embarrass President Obama.”23

Leaks of the Russian report in the South Korean paper Hankyoreh showed why the Russian investigation was too explosive to publish. The Russians concluded that the Cheonan was probably accidentally sunk by a South Korea mine.24 They were also adamant that the torpedo remnant produced by the South could not have sunk the Cheonan (though a South Korean torpedo might conceivably have done so). But there was more. They said that the corrosion on the remnant showed it had been in the water for six months or more, not the two months between the sinking and its miraculous discovery.25 So it looks as if North Korea was not merely innocent, but also framed.

It is unlikely that Medvedev was much pleased by Lee’s attempt to involve Russia in this deception – a deception which raised the spectre of war on the peninsula, something which Russia (and China) feared greatly.26

It seems that the events of 2010 did much to concentrate minds in Moscow, Beijing, and Pyongyang. To this might be added the de facto Western invasion of Libya and a possible repeat in Syria.27 This is the background to Kim Jong Il’s visit to Russia (and China) and Medvedev’s initiatives. Gas and rail linkages have been talked about quite a bit over the last decade, without real progress. This time might indeed be different.

Article link, with footnotes:

Truth about Shelling Fabricated by S. Korean Military Warmongers Exposed [KCNA]

Posted in Corporate Media Critique, DPR Korea, Korean Central News Agency of DPRK, Media smear campaign, S. Korea government cover-up of Cheonan incident, south Korea, US foreign occupation, US imperialism, USA on August 11, 2011 by Zuo Shou / 左手

Pyongyang, August 10 (KCNA) — The south Korean military warmongers are faking up again the burlesque that the army of the DPRK committed shelling “provocation” in the waters around Yonphyong Island and kicking up an anti-DPRK racket by mobilizing major media including KBS, MBC and Yonhap TV.

The head of the north side to the north-south military working-level talks gave the following answer to a question put by KCNA today in this connection:

At a time when a dynamic drive is making successful progress to build a thriving nation in all parts of the DPRK, there was normal blasting in the area of South Hwanghae Province close to the five islands in the West Sea of Korea on August 10 as part of the brisk construction of a gigantic object aimed at improving the standard of people’s living,

Frightened by this, the south Korean military warmongers spread misinformation that the army of the DPRK perpetrated a shelling “provocation.” They went the lengths of militarily reacting to this under that pretext.

It was preposterous in the age of science when latest detecting and intelligence means are available that they mistook the blasting for shelling and they proved shells fell in the waters around the “northern limit line” though no shells were fired. It was a tragicomedy that they indiscriminately reacted to what happened with counter-shelling even without confirming the truth about the case in the sensitive waters of the West Sea of Korea.

In order to paint the case as a “provocation” of the army of the DPRK, the south Korean military is making much fuss that its forces made a prompt “retaliatory action” as the firing of three shells was heard from near Yonphyong Island in the West Sea and one shell might have flown across the “northern limit line, ” a sheer fiction.

In order to make their farce sound plausible, the south Korean belligerent elements made much fuss. They urgently increased the number of combat warships and flew fighters in the air near the five islands in the West Sea and alerted the frontline units. They, at the same time, ordered all the fishing boats of the south side to stop their operations and sail back to their ports and evacuated inhabitants.

The army of the DPRK cannot overlook the actions taken by the south Korean military to orchestrate another poor anti-DPRK charade in broad daylight on the basis of their misjudgment of the normal blasting made in the course of peaceable construction as shelling provocation.

The recent military racket was an extension of the inveterate bad habit of the tricksters. They fabricated the “Cheonan” warship sinking case, the hideous conspiratorial farce unprecedented in the history of the nation, launching an all-out confrontation with fellow countrymen. Not content with this, they committed the Yonphyong Island shelling, driving the situation on the Korean Peninsula to the worst war phase of exchange of fire.

Such burlesque is a product of the deliberate moves of the belligerent forces of the south Korean military to vitiate the atmosphere of dialogue in the Korean Peninsula and its vicinity and push the inter-Korean relations to the worst phase of confrontation and clash.

The DPRK side sent an open letter to the U.S. and the south Korean authorities in the name of the Panmunjom mission of the Korean People’s Army, urging them to cancel their projected Ulji Freedom Guardian joint military exercises this year. What merits a serious attention is that they faked up the above-said case to achieve their sinister aim to stage this saber-rattling as planned at any cost, defying the warning, in a bid to strain the situation on the Korean Peninsula again.

Lurking behind the recent racket is an ulterior aim: To secure a pretext for staging the above-said saber-rattling through the shelling case in a bid to have justification to launch an actual war of aggression against the north any time, while inciting atmosphere of confrontation with the DPRK through the fabrication of all kinds of “spy ring cases”, “cases of the violation of the National Security Law” and “attempted assassinations”.

Plots and fabrications are trite methods employed by those in a crisis.

What has become clear once again through the recent case is that the south Korean authorities, belligerent forces of the military, in particular, are the master hands at plots and fabrications who stoop to any infamy to escalate the confrontation with fellow countrymen.

The criminals can never escape a stern judgment by all the fellow countrymen.

The army and people of the DPRK will resolutely shatter all the plots and fabrications of those confrontation-minded elements against the DPRK and keep advancing to improve the inter-Korean relations and achieve the peace and reunification of the nation.

KCNA English language homepage: