Quotes
Illegitimacy and Injustice of the “UN Command” in South Korea: DPRK Calls for Its Immediate Dissolution
Briefing by
H.E. Mr. Sin Son Ho,
Ambassador and Permanent Representative of
the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea to the United Nations
June 21, 2013
I have organized today’s press conference to brief you on the theme; “Dissolution of the ‘UN Command’ in south Korea is a prerequisite requirement of the times in easing tension and guaranteeing peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the Asia Pacific region”.
As is already known well, this year is the 60th year since the Korean Armistice Agreement was signed. On July 27, 60 years ago, the gunfire of war stopped on the Korean peninsula, but the war not terminated legally.
There still remains a fragile ceasefire status of neither peace nor war on the Korean peninsula which has yet to build up a mechanism to ensure peace.
The fundamental reason of the instability on the Korean peninsula is because the Korean Armistice Agreement has been nullified by the United States. Therefore, a pressing task for the Korean peninsula today is how to prevent war and guarantee peace.
The Government of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from its peace loving policy has proposed to conclude a Peace Treaty which could replace current Armistice Agreement and strived tirelessly so far in order to end the unstable ceasefire status.
In particular, on last June 16, this year, the spokesperson of the National Defense Commission of the DPRK issued a crucial Statement. In the statement we have proposed senior-level talks between the authorities of the DPRK and the US in order to defuse tension on the Korean peninsula and ensure peace and security in the region. The DPRK-US talks can have broad and in-depth discussions including the issue of replacing the armistice system with peace mechanism and other issues of mutual concern.
In establishing the peace mechanism on the Korean peninsula, the dissolution of the“UN Command” is one of the prerequisite requirements. Unfortunately, the US has gone defiant against the proposal of the DPRK Government to replace the Armistice Agreement with a Peace Treaty. Rather it tries to maintain the ceasefire status as today.
Then what is the background behind that the US is so negative to accepting the reasonable proposal of the DPRK. There is very dangerous move of the US to revive the“UN Command” which is only in name, as a tool for an aggressive war against the DPRK.
The true nature of the “UN command” and its history
To have a correct understanding on the unstable situation of the Korean peninsula, it is necessary to know the true nature of the “UN Command” in south Korea.
The “UN Command”, fundamentally speaking, was a tool of war for aggression which was organized by the US for the purpose of deploying its satellite forces and exercising its control over them during the Korea war.
The “UN Command” is a ghost, nothing more than an illegal tool from the very beginning of its inception. The “UN Command” has nothing to do with the UN, but its name was only misused by the US.
All the facts clearly shows that this tool of war has nothing to do with the unanimous will of the United Nations member states.
On June 25, 1950 the US instigated south Korea to start full-scale military invasion against the DPRK. On the same day, the US convened the meeting of the United Nations Security Council where it had forcibly adopted a resolution UNSC 82(1950) branding the DPRK as an “aggressor”.
On July 7 same year the US has also cooked up UNSC resolution 84 (1950) allowing the UN member states to dispatch their forces to Korean War and placed those forces under the control of the Unified Command, practically under the authority of the US, using UN flag.
On July 24, the US formally established the “Unified Command” in Tokyo, Japan and submitted a report of this Command to the United Nations Security Council on July 25 where the US had unwarrantedly changed the name of the “Unified Command” into the “UN Command”.
Therefore, even today controversy continues to rise on the legitimacy of the existence of the “UN Command” since it was the “Unified Command”, not the “UN Command” that the United Nations Security Council recommended to establish. The“UN Command” is the US command in essence.
The United Nations itself has clearly recognized that the “UN Command” in south Korea is neither a representative nor the subsidiary body of the United Nations.
On June 24 1994, the then UN Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali in his letter to the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the DPRK recognized that “the United Nations Security Council did not establish the ‘Unified Command’ as a subsidiary organ under its control and that it became to be placed under the authority of the United States.”
On December 21,1998, the then UN Secretary-General Kofi A. Annan made it clear in his letter to the President of the Presidium of the Supreme People’s Assembly of the DPRK that “none of my predecessors have granted any authorization to any State to make the use of the name of the UN”.
On July 27, 2004 and March 6, 2006, the UN spokesperson confirmed that the“‘UN Command’, despite its name, is not the army of UN, but a US-led force”.
This fact was also confirmed by the ex-commanders of the “UN forces”. The US congress also confirmed that it is not the UN, but the US Government which has power to revise the Armistice Agreement. It is also not the United Nations but the US which has the power to appoint the “UN forces commander”.
It is only the US administration that can decide on reduction or reinforcement of the US forces in south Korea that are under the helmets of the “UN forces”.
The US is dishonoring the United Nations by abusing the name of “UN Command” as if the United Nations is a warring party in the Korean War. Like so, the dignity and fairness of the UN is so much damaged. This is shame and another product of anachronism.
Necessity of dissolution of the “UN Command”
The ceasefire mechanism has been systematically destroyed and completely nullified today by the US. Given the fact that relevant armistice organs which the “UN Command” can deal with were already perished, the “UN Command” should be dismantled legally.
Furthermore, the “UN Command” is the refuse of the times. Its dissolution was already declared by the UN General Assembly. The 30th session of the UN General Assembly held in November 1975 adopted a resolution 3390 (xxx) B on the dissolution of the “UN Command”. Even the US has agreed and recognized its necessity, although conditional.
It was because the “UN Command” was no longer the multinational forces in its composition but turned into US Command which has only the US troops stationed in south Korea in particular.
As soon as the Armistice Agreement was signed, all member states of the United Nations who participated in the Korean War withdrew their forces except the United States. Afterwards, Luxemburg and Ethiopia removed their flags from the “UN Command” which they had left as a symbol. Even those countries that still have their own flags neither have their staff is working in the “UN Command” nor participate in its activities.
In 1956, the US had expelled by force the members of Neutral Supervisory Commission, whose mandate was to supervise the introduction of the US armament into south Korea making their supervisory function completely paralyzed. Later in 1990s with the collapse of the Czechoslovakia, the Czech Republic and Poland lost their neutral state status after they have joined in the US-led NATO.
The US asserted that the dissolution of the “UN Command” would be possible only when another mechanism to maintain the Armistice is set up. But, the current ceasefire status is not maintained by the “UN Command” in practice.
In March 1991, the US made an unannounced decision of replacing the chief delegate to the “UN forces” at the Military Armistice Commission with the south Korean army general. That post had been seated by the US army general pursuant to the Armistice Agreement.
It was a clear violation of the Armistice Agreement that the US did not consult with the DPRK side prior to changing the chief delegate. It has brought the Military Armistice Commission virtually into a state of paralysis.
Under such circumstances, the DPRK side established its Panmunjom Mission of the Korean People’s Army (KPA) to maintain the ceasefire on the Korean peninsula. It was since then that all the issues related to the controlling over the ceasefire status have been consulted and dealt between the KPA and the US military authority.
Now 13 countries with exception of the US and France which their national flags are in the “UN Command” have already normalized their relations with the DPRK, fully pledged member of the United Nation. China, a signatory party to the Armistice Agreement is now UNSC member. In view of all facts, the existence of the“UN Command” is anachronism. It is an expression of ignorance to place their national flags in the “UN Command” until now disregarding stern reality of the international relations and following blindly to the US.
The dangerous nature of existence of the “UN Command” lies in the fact that the US is trying to transform the “UN Command”, instead of dissolution, into a“multinational force command” which would serve as a matrix of the Asian version of NATO.
If the peace mechanism was established pursuant to the 30th UN General Assembly Resolution, it could be possible to prevent such deterioration of DPRK-US relations as today. Nevertheless, due to the US’s ambition to transform the ghost-like “UN Command” into a multilateral military organization, the situation on the Korean peninsula this year has reached to the full-scale nuclear showdown and to the brink of war between the DPRK and the US. Due to the existence of the “UN Command”, the security mechanism on the Korean peninsula has become war-oriented, not peace-oriented.
In other words, the existence of the “UN Command” is not serving the peace building efforts on the Korean peninsula. On the contrary, it is the root of evil or tumor laying a stepping stone for the US armed forces for aggression toward the DPRK and the realization of the America’s Pivot to Asia strategy.
The US has its strategic self-interest to make south Korea as a forward base for domination of Asia Pacific region and hold fast to it as a cannon fodder for an aggressive war under changed situation by reviving the functions of the “UN Command”.
The US and south Korea held their 44th annual security meeting in Washington in October 2012 and issued a joint statement “reaffirming that the ‘UN Command’ is an indispensable for maintaining peace and stability on the Korean peninsula.”
All the facts are telling that the US is gradually transforming the “UN Command” into the multinational military alliance.
The “UN Command” with such potential danger should have been legally dismantled already long ago.
The DPRK efforts to keep peace and stability on the Korean peninsula
While the US trying to keep the fragile ceasefire status intact which is neither peace nor war, the DPRK government has made every effort to establish the permanent peace regime on the Korean peninsula for over half a century.
On April 28, 1994 the DPRK government proposed to establish a new peace-making mechanism on the Korean Peninsula.
On February 22, 1996 the DPRK also proposed to sign a provisional agreement between the DPRK and the US that could replace the current Armistice Agreement in order to prevent armed conflicts, remove the danger of war.
The DPRK and the US held talks in Washington in October 2000 where both sides confirmed that there might be several ways, including the four-party talks, to put a formal end to the Korean War by replacing the Armistice Agreement with a durable peace regime on the Korean peninsula.
In October 2007, the north and south of Korea at the summit level have reached an agreement to proceed with the declaration of the end of war by the leaders of three or four parties that are direct parties to the Korean question.
All the facts show that while there were many discussions and agreements between the concerned parties on changing ceasefire status to a durable peace on the Korean Peninsula, we can find no mention of any method which allows the existence of the “UN Command”.
As a whole, the “UN Command” can no longer play its functions for ceasefire management and is doomed to be dissolved under the relevant United Nations General Assembly resolution.
As I have said earlier, the existence of the “UN Command” has a potential danger to be turned into a tool of war for aggression comprising multinational forces at any moment.
Nevertheless, the US blames over the DPRK’s effort to bolster its national defensive power is causing tension in the region.
This is nothing but an imprudent trick to cover up its aggressive nature on the Korean peninsula and Asia Pacific region.
It is not the DPRK but the US that increase military tension in the region around the Korean peninsula.
The US have waged the ever largest nuclear war joint drills continuously with south Korea against the DPRK under the code names of “Key Resolve” and “Foal Eagle”in March and April this year.
The US is going to conduct another large-scale joint military war games with south Korea under the code name of “Ulji Freedom Guardian” in coming August.
All these kind of war games have been conducted by the US and south Korea in various codenames on the Korean peninsula for over the half a century.
It is the only Korean peninsula in Asia Pacific region where the US conduct the exercise of nuclear war games on the annual basis mobilizing all kinds of nuclear weapons and hundreds of thousands of armed forces.
After all, it is the US military exercise which is causing the tension and troubles on the Korean peninsula and in the region.
Since the US is threatening the DPRK with its largest nuclear arsenal in the world, the DPRK has legitimate sovereign rights to self-defense deterrent.
As long as the US continues its hostile policy toward the DPRK and threaten it with nuclear weapons, the DPRK will never give up self-defense war deterrent.
This will definitely lead the situation on the Korean peninsula to a vicious cycle of tensions and conflicts.
It is the fact that the ceasefire status which is neither war nor peace will never serve anybody’s interests eventually.
As long as the “UN Command” is in existence, the Korean peninsula will never be free from the root cause of another war.
The DPRK will never give up its nuclear deterrent unless the US fundamentally and irreversibly abandons its hostile policy and nuclear threat toward the DPRK and dissolve the “UN Command”, an aggressive military tool against the DPRK.
The dissolution of the “UN Command” is the pressing issue not only necessary for removing the root cause of war on the Korean peninsula but also for peace and stability in Asia Pacific region.
The most pressing issue in Northeast Asia today is the hostile relations between the DPRK and the US which can lead to another war at any moment.
The US, as a signatory to the Korean Armistice Agreement is entirely responsible for the ever worsening situation on the Korean peninsula.
The US should not go against the time by abandoning the hostile policy and nuclear war threat against the DPRK.
If the United States has real intention to put an end to hostile relations with the DPRK, it should make a right decision to dissolve the “UN Command” and replace the Armistice Agreement with a peace regime as proposed by the DPRK this year when we mark the 60th year since the Armistice Agreement was signed.
If the US continues to go defiant of our proposal, the situation will continue to be intensified and removal of war danger will be impossible.
In other words, every issue could be possible to be settled once and for all, if the United States has a true and genuine willingness to cooperate with the DPRK without any hostility for establishing peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the region.
Whether or not the US immediately dismantles the “UN Command” will serve as the acid stone in deciding whether or not the US will maintain its anti-DPRK hostile policy, whether it wants peace and stability or the revival of the Cold War in Asia Pacific region.
The DPRK will closely watch over the moves of the US in the future.
The DPRK is fully committed to continue its endeavors to dissolve the “UN Command” and if necessary, we will take action of formally submitting this issue to the UNGA.
I urge all member states of the UN, if they truly want peace and stability on the Korean peninsula, extend their support to our efforts to dismantle the “UN Command”.
The DPRK will continue to strengthen its deterrent against all kinds of war, thereby actively contribute to peace and stability on the Korean peninsula and in the rest of Asia until the US make a right choice.
The army and people of the DPRK have turned out as one in the struggle to win the victory in building of the socialist economic power and improving the people’s living standard by thoroughly implementing the policy of simultaneously building up of economy and nuclear armed forces.
The DPRK needs a peaceful environment, among other things, for the economic construction and improvement of people’s livelihood.
The DPRK will overcome any challenges and obstacles in the way of its ongoing movements and emerge ever victorious under the wise leadership of the respected Marshall Kim Jong Un, supreme leader of the Party, State, army and people of the DPRK.
In conclusion, I wish all of you have a good understand of the illegitimacy and injustice of the “UN Command” in south Korea as well as the necessity of its immediate dissolution. I have no doubt you will fulfill your noble duties as journalists representing the voice of mankind opposing war and aggression and love peace and justice.
—The End—
Please scroll down to find quotes from the following persons:
Donald P. GreggMairead Maguire, Christine Ahn, Douglas McArthur, Maude Easter, James R. Lilley Stephen Gowans, Gwynne Dyer, Boris Gromov, Siegfried Hecker, Donald Gregg, Bruce Cummings, Ted Galen Carpenter, Leon V. Segal, Dennis Florig, Robert Carlin and John W. Lewis , Siegfried Hecker, Leon V. Sigal, John Pilger, John Feffer, Andy Marra, Jim Walsh, Siegfried Hecker, John Gowans, Clyde Prestowitz, Christine Ahn, Hyun Jeong-eun, Jimmy Carter, Noam Chomsky, Ron Jacobs, Boutros Boutros-Ghali, Peter Hayes, Kim Myong-chol, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, Hillary Clinton, Susan Rice, Donald P. Gregg, Bruce Cummings, Selig S. Harrison, Gwynne Dyer, Carlton Meyer, Dwight D. Eisenhower, John Adams.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Donald P. Gregg
“The longest running failure in the history of US intelligence.”
http://andmagazine.com/us/1452762669.html
Mairead Maguire
“You can get to human rights when you have a normal situation and not a country at war. The sooner we get a peace treaty signed … the quicker we will get to human rights.”
Christine Ahn
“The real war is a psychological war. It’s the most advanced propaganda war in modern history because the Cold War never ended in Korea.”
http://vowpeace.org/peace-activists-travels-through-north-and-south-korea-a-small-step-in-long-walk-to-peace-porter/
General Douglas McArthur
“I have seen, I guess, as much blood and disaster as any living man, and it just curdled my stomach, the last time I was [in Korea]. After I looked at that wreckage and those thousands of women and children and everything, I vomited.”
Comment. Perhaps he did have a conscience after all !
Maud Easter
I can report firsthand from meeting in 1980 with Kim Young Nam, then the North Korean Foreign Minister, that negotiating a peace treaty was his first suggestion for improving relations with Washington and subsequently with South Korea. Sadly, the US has continued to prioritize keeping its forces on the Asian mainland over Koreans’ desires for ending the barriers which have separated families and led to constant military tension.
James R. Lilley Former CIA operative and US Ambassador to China.
If North Korea did not exist, we would have to create it to give us the excuse to keep our Seventh Fleet in Japan after the end of the Cold War.
First appeared:http://journal-neo.org/2015/02/18/behind-the-putin-invite-to-kim-jong-un/
Stephen Gowans.
no end of effort has been exerted to build the DPRK, a small country with a tiny military
budget, into a dire military threat. What little threat the DPRK poses to the United States and the
Western world is entirely a reaction to Washington’s own sabre-rattling. The DPRK would almost
certainly never have embarked on the development of nuclear weapons had the United States not first
targeted its own nuclear missiles on it. Washington’s virtual declaration of war on the east Asian country
in designating it part of an axis of evil, along with Iraq and Iran, has only reinforced the DPRK’s resolve to
build a nuclear arsenal for self-defense.
https://gowans.files.wordpress.com/2015/01/promoting-plutocracy1.pdf
Gwynne Dyer On Cuba
The US attempt to bring down the Castro regime by isolating the country economically and diplomatically is 54 years old, and hasn't worked. To go on doing the same thing and expect a different result next time is a clear indication of stupidity, and possibly of insanity.
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/world/news/article.cfm?c_id=2&objectid=11378468
Soviet General Boris Gromov "Afghanistan taught us an invaluable lesson. It has been and always will be impossible to solve political problems using force."
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/03/world/asia/03iht-letter.1.20554104.html?_r=0
Doug Bandow . Senior Fellow at the Cato Institute.
There are international problems only Washington can confront. North Korea is not one of them.
http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/north-korea-someone-elses-problem
Siegfried Hecker, Former Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory
Expert says Seoul and Washington’s emphasis on NK denuclearization has failed
Siegfried Hecker said on Feb. 5 that the policies to combat the nuclear threat need to focus on the economy, education, resources, culture, and exchange in order to be effective.
He advocated a broader approach in response to North Korea’s imminent third nuclear test, rather than the hard line currently coming from the United Nations Security Council, with its emphasis on military actions such as preemptive strikes and a stronger naval blockade. 6 Feb 2013
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/573002.html
Donald Gregg
Donald Gregg says it’s time to enter dialogue with North Korea
“Kim is apparently showing his intent to develop his country’s nuclear capabilities not as a threat, but as a deterrent. The country’s nuclear program has destabilized the region and prompted Japan to consider developing its own nuclear program, which highlights the need for dialogue.”When asked for his assessment of the situation, Gregg said the UN’s decision to place expanded sanctions on North Korea just before Park Geun-hye took office as South Korean president and John Kerry as US secretary of state put a barrier to either of them initiating dialogue with Pyongyang. In short, he said, the sanctions were very poorly timed. 5 Feb 2013
http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/572838.html
Professor Bruce Cummings, University of Chicago.
North Korea is already the most sanctioned regime in world history and since the 1950s, those sanctions have failed to change its behavior. The only progress we‘ve seen in dialogue with North Korea since the Korean War came in 1994. That was when Bill Clinton decided to negotiate with Pyongyang, and the Yongbyon nuclear facilities were frozen for eight years. Between 1998 and 2008, Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun negotiated on a lot of important issues with North Korea. And in 1998 to 2000, the Perry process [named after Clinton-era US secretary of defense William Perry] led to effective negotiations. We need to note that there is a record of success in dialogue with North Korea, which is different from the case of Iran.
http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/565936.html
Ted Galen Carpenter
US leaders have painted themselves into a corner regarding policy toward the Democratic People'sRepublic of Korea.....That approach clearly has not worked....
A new, radically different approach is needed. Instead of continuing the futile strategy of isolatingthe DPRK, Washington should adopt a comprehensive strategy to normalize relations withPyongyang. And China has a crucial role to play as the primary facilitator in that process.
Leon V. Sigal Director, Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council
Pyongyang’s basic stance is that as long as Washington remains its foe, it feels threatened and will acquire nuclear weapons and missiles to counter that threat. But, it says, if Washington, along with Seoul and Tokyo, moves to end enmity and reconcile with it, it will no longer feel threatened and will not need these weapons. Does Pyongyang mean what it says? Most observers doubt it, but the fact is, nobody knows, with the possible exception of Kim Jong-il. We need to find out. And we need to find out exactly what he wants in return. The only way to do that is to probe through sustained diplomatic give-and-take - offering the DPRK meaningful steps toward a new political, economic and strategic relationship in return for steps toward full denuclearization. All the speculation that it will never give up its weapons only encourages Pyongyang to think it won’t have to – and worse, encourages our allies to think we are abandoning our goal of complete denuclearization.
Prof. Dennis Florig. Hankuk University of Foreign Studies, Seoul, ROK.
It would be better if the U.S. gave less advice to the Chinese about how to handle the DPRK and took more advice from the Chinese about how to proceed in their relations with the North.
Robert Carlin and John W. Lewis http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/11/21/AR2010112102276.html
North Korea is on the sad list of countries that, over the years, Americans have convinced themselves they cannot understand and believe, in a self-fulfilling prophecy, that it is impossible to engage. Not so long ago, of course, China and North Vietnam were high on that list.
Siegfried Hecker November 2010 http://iis-db.stanford.edu/pubs/23035/Yongbyonreport.pdf
The only hope appears to be engagement. The United States and its partners should respond to the latest nuclear developments so as to encourage Pyongyang to finally pursue nuclear electricity in lieu of the bomb. That will require addressing North Korea’s underlying insecurity. A high-level North Korean government official told us that the October 2000 Joint Communiqué, which brought Secretary Madeleine Albright to Pyongyang, is a good place to start.
Leon V. Sigal. Director of the Northeast Asia Cooperative Security Project at the Social Science Research Council
http://www.armscontrol.org/act/2010_11/Sigal
The most propitious moments in Korea policy have come when Washington and Seoul moved in tandem to reconcile with Pyongyang. That was the case in October 2007, as well as in January 2000 with the first North-South summit and that October with the exchange of visits by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Vice Marshal Jo Myong Rok, the highest-level U.S.-North Korean contacts to date. The most dangerous crises came when Seoul blocked engagement between Washington and Pyongyang in March 1993, prompting North Korea to announce its intention to renounce the nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty; in May 1994, when it abruptly removed all the spent nuclear fuel from its reactor at Yongbyon; and again now.
John Pilger.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2UJ87MptxaU&feature=player_embedded
We live in an imperial age again………..with great powers vying for strategic place, resources in the world. We live in an age of what they call in Washington perpetual war and I am quoting Petraeus.
The paradigm has not changed since 1945. American foreign policy goes in a straight line….. That Trajectory runs unerringly in one direction. What the Obama administration has done is simply pick up all the policies of Bush and pursue them. For example, for the first time in US presidential history -- it has not happened before -- a president has taken the entire defense department bureaucracy, and the Secretary of State for Defense, from a previous administration – a discredited one. We have basically Robert Gates and the same generals running American foreign policy with a lot of help from people of like mind. Obama has accelerated Bush’s policies.
John Feffer.
Co-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington, USA.o-director of Foreign Policy In Focus at the Institute for Policy Studies, Washington USA.
Surely if the United States is willing to negotiate in good faith with "Mad Dog" Gaddafi - the name Ronald Reagan bestowed on the Libyan leader - then it can find a way to woo Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and North Korea's Kim Jong-Il.
http://www.fpif.org/articles/the_strange_case_of_libya
Andy Marra Co-Director, Nodutdol for Korean Community Development May 4, 2010 07
As a Korean American, I am often asked about the reclusive state with questions ranging from "Were you born in the North or South?" to "Is crazy North Korea going to bomb us?"
For the record, I was born in Seoul. As for the latter, I am left feeling more concerned about potential United States military actions against North Korea instead of North Korea attacking us. This past January, the world witnessed an unprecedented gesture by Pyongyang stating they will permanently dismantle its nuclear program in exchange for a formal treaty with the U.S. to finally end the Korean War. Washington, however, dismissed this historic offer and refused to engage in any meaningful dialogue. Instead, the U.S. responded by conducting Key Resolve Foal Eagle, a full-scale military offensive exercise aimed at invading North Korea. At a Pentagon press conference on April 6, 2010, Defense Secretary Robert Gates threatened North Korea with the possibility of nuclear attack by warning, "All options are on the table in terms of how we deal with you."
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/andy-marra/north-koreas-bomb-and-the_b_563533.html
Dr. Jim Walsh Research Associate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and international security expert.
And that's why when you look at the history of the nuclear age, all the countries that have nuclear weapons - the U.S., France, China, Russia, whoever you can point to - they first built a nuclear weapon and then it was years and years and years before they were able to mount one on a missile," he said. "And some nuclear weapon states - I think of India and Pakistan, for example - it's still unclear whether they have that capability. So - in the nuclear world, it's the hardest thing you can do and I don't expect North Korea to be able to do it for quite some time - if ever.
http://www1.voanews.com/english/news/a-13-2009-05-14-voa45-68802087.html
Siegfried Hecker Director, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1986- 97
I use the term deterrent because that is always what the North Koreans have told me. They have essentially never referred to their nuclear arsenal as such. They have always referred to their deterrent and the need to strengthen their deterrent, typically blamed on hostile actions by the United States.
North Korea is saying, "Look, we need to protect ourselves against you, particularly against the United States." It has not threatened to use its weapons against other states. However, as you might imagine, states like Japan get quite nervous when you have a combination of long-range rocket tests and additional nuclear tests that would allow North Korea to get closer to miniaturizing its nuclear warheads. So even though North Korea doesn't threaten directly, nevertheless, that is clearly interpreted as a threat to countries such as Japan.
Rarely are the stars so aligned for genuine peace in Northeast Asia. President Obama should take advantage of this historic warming by sending special envoy Stephen Bosworth to North Korea to finally resolve the outstanding Korean War.........
The Obama administration believes that North Korea deliberately placed roadblocks to engagement by launching a missile in April and testing a second nuclear device in May. In other words, in exchange for President Obama's unclenched fist, North Korea gave Washington the finger. Also, North Korea has broken the rules of the global game — such as violating the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty — and must be punished.........
But, in fact, North Korea's belligerence was in reaction to Obama's continuation of the Bush policy: denuclearization before talks.
Diplomatic negotiations are a means to settle differences. Engaging North Korea through direct negotiations doesn't mean the Obama administration is legitimizing the North Korean leader. Richard Nixon negotiated with China and Ronald Reagan talked with Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev, and those societies have changed quite a bit since then. President Obama should uphold his commitment to negotiate, and doing so with North Korea means opening up North Korea and the door to peaceful reunification. Given its leadership in the division of the Korean peninsula and in the Korean War, the United States has a moral obligation to engage North Korea. Not doing so is a dangerous repeat of the same mistakes of the past two administrations, which led, eventually, to a nuclear North Korea........
The time is now to engage North Korea diplomatically and finally end the Korean War with a permanent peace treaty. By supporting the winds of peace and reconciliation blowing across the DMZ, President Obama will have one less foreign policy challenge and move one step closer towards his vision of a nuclear free world.
Hyun Jeong-eun. Chairwoman of South Korea's Hyundai group. (After talking to KimJong Il in Augst 2009)
http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/asiapcf/10/19/nkorea.hyun.korea/index.html
He seems to be very honest and straightforward when he speaks. So I believe that if direct talks with the leader Kim Jong Il are possible, a lot of good results will come out of it. I personally think that if President Obama and Kim Jong Il meet, things can be worked out quite easily.
Jimmy Carter. Former President of the United States 1977 - 1981.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/01/26/carter-says-north-korea-nuclear-weapons/ 26th January 2009
It could be worked out, in my opinion, in half a day........
North Koreans, in my opinion, whom I know fairly well, have always been willing to forego their nuclear capability if they have diplomatic relations with the United States. ........
And if they have an assurance with the United States that it would not attack them militarily, of course with the proviso that North Korea not attack South Korea.
The rest of the solution is as easy as replacing their old dangerous reactors with new, safer designs with guaranteed IAEA inspection access, and giving North Korea fuel oil to run electric generators until its power grid is improved.
Noam Chomsky.
Key excerpts from op-ed piece written November 26th 2003. Noam Chomsky. Interventions. Penguin Books 2007. ISBN 978-0141-03237-5.
As the United States struggles to impose order on Iraq, along with a regime that will be subordinated to U.S. interests, another crisis threatens to erupt in North Korea.
North Korea lies within Northeast Asia, a region that presents its own challenge to Washington’s dreams of global dominance.
Northeast Asia is now the world’s most dynamic economic region, with close to 30% of global domestic product, far more than the United states (19%), and half of global foreign exchange reserves.
The United States is ambivalent about this Northeast Asian integration. Washington’s concern is that integrated regions like Europe or Northeast Asia might seek a more independent course and become what used to be called a “third force” during the Cold War years.
The Task Force on U.S. Korea Policy recommends that Washington seek a diplomatic solution to the current crisis over North Korea.
A more temperate policy might encourage Northeast Asia, like Europe, to follow a more independent course, which however, would make it harder for the United States to maintain a global order in which others must respect their proper place.
Boutros Boutros-Ghali Secretary-General of the United Nations from January 1992 to December 1996.
http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boutros_Boutros-Ghali
It would be some time before I fully realized that the United States sees little need for diplomacy. Power is enough. Only the weak rely on diplomacy … The Roman Empire had no need for diplomacy. Nor does the United States.
Ron Jacobs
http://www.counterpunch.org/jacobs03072003.html 7th March 2003.
I have often wondered (like any thinking individual), why isn't there a peace treaty? Although some US government documents state that it is North Korea who does not want such a treaty, history tells us otherwise. It is Washington that does not want a peace agreement. Washington and its client regime sabotaged the political conference in 1954 that was to have been a forerunner to a peace conference and Washington has ignored most every other opportunity for such a conference since then. This is despite Pyongyang's almost constant calls for this conference. The only exception to the US lack of interest in negotiating a permanent settlement that I can find occurred in 1994 when, after another near-war, the Clinton administration began talks that resulted in agreements that were designed to end Pyongyang's nuclear weapons project and help that country overcome a drought-induced famine........
So, why doesn't the United States want a peace treaty with North Korea? Why are they willing to risk another bloody war with that country's military? The reason is simple: because any peace agreement would require that the United States remove all of its forces, weapons, including its weapons of mass destruction (which include nuclear weapons) from the southern half of the country. This action would limit Washington's ability to bully other governments in the region. In addition, it would end one more rationalization Washington likes to use for its marriage to the defense industry and the accompanying transfer of public funds to that industry in the name of what passes for national security in the warfare state. It seems to me that if Washington were truly interested in national security, it would want peace with Pyongyang, not war. In that case, a peace treaty with Pyongyang is a no-brainer.
Peter Hayes
Executive Director of the Nautilus Institute, and Scott Bruce, Director of the Institute's San Francisco office
From an article 2nd June 2009
A priority for the Obama Administration is to develop a game-plan to deal with North Korea's nuclear challenge. Until Obama engages directly with Kim Jong Il, we see little prospect for a shift from the current escalatory cycle. Even then, it's unknowable in advance whether the DPRK would spurn direct talks at the leadership level, as it did with low ranking diplomatic overtures earlier this year.
But nothing is lost from trying a direct overture from President Obama. This would not be a reward Kim Jong Il nor lend kudos to the DPRK. It would simply indicate an open mind and willingness to talk tough about the issues that drive policy in both countries rather than making threats that are not realistic for either side to act upon.
In short, it is time to win the game, not play it forever. This is within President Obama's reach, but only if he rises above emotional and unrealistic talk of punishing North Korea and focuses on the big picture changes to the strategic landscape that would be necessary to strike a deal with Kim Jong Il worth having.
Kim Myong-chol
Kim Myong-chol, Executive Director, Center for Korean-American Peace in Tokyo, is often referred to as an "unofficial" spokesman of Kim Jong-il and North Korea. He actively presents a North Korean viewpoint in international fora.
Excerpts from an article entitled: Kim Jong-il Shifts to Plan B 21st May 2009
“………..all indications are that Kim Jong-il, supreme leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK), has finalized a little-known watershed decision in March to shift to a "plan B" after more than a dozen years of fruitlessly pursuing "plan A".
Plan A called for the DPRK to consider exploring a shortcut to enhanced independence, peace and prosperity through rapprochement with the US. Plan A obliged the Kim Jong-il administration to negotiate away its nuclear weapons program as part of a verified denuclearization of the whole of the Korean Peninsula in return for Washington's strategic decision to co-exist peacefully with Pyongyang.
Plan A assumed the US would decide to leave behind its policy of hostility to the DPRK, conclude a peace treaty with North Korea, and pledge in a verifiable way it would not attack it with nuclear and conventional arms. It also assumed the US would establish full relations with North Korea, show respect for its sovereignty and independence, lift sanctions imposed on it, and provide it with fuel oil and light-water reactors.
Plan B sees no point in talking with the US. The Kim Jong-il administration has learned the hard way that there is no point in negotiating with the US government on a bilateral or multilateral basis while the US remains hostile with no intention of adopting a "live and let live" policy towards Pyongyang.
Plan B envisages the DPRK going it alone as a fully fledged nuclear weapon-armed state, with a military-first policy, and then growing into a mighty and prosperous country. It will put the policy of seeking reconciliation with a tricky US, a helpless superpower with a crippled economy that is losing wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, on the back burner.
Source: Asia Times Online.
Barack Obama
President of the USA.
From a Statement on 26th June 2008.
" We should continue to pursue the kind of direct and aggressive diplomacy with North Korea that can yield results. The objective must be clear: the complete and verifiable elimination of North Korea's nuclear weapons programs, which only expanded while we refused to talk. As we move forward, we must not cede our leverage in these negotiations unless it is clear that North Korea is living up to its obligations.
As President, I will work from the very beginning of my term in office to secure the American people and our interests in this vital region. We must work with diligence and determination with our friends and allies to end this dangerous threat, and to secure a lasting peace on the Korean peninsula."
Joe Biden
Vice President of the United States
Biden is famously on the record as having described North Korea as a “paper tiger, unable to harm America.” Here is what he had to say to the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Hearing “Status of the Six Party Talks for the Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula” on 6th February 2008.
“I look forward to the day that we can close the book on the nuclear issue and turn to other challenges, like how the United States and North Korea might cooperate to expand trade and cultural and educational exchanges between our two nations. But we are not there yet.
Our goal – and the stated objective of the Six Party Talks – is to peacefully dismantle North Korea’s nuclear weapons program in exchange for energy assistance, sanctions relief, and the creation of a permanent peace on the Korean Peninsula.………….
Some say we should never negotiate with North Korea because they can’t be trusted. This view offers no viable solution to a problem – a problem that got much worse when the Bush Administration disengaged from the effort.……………...
There is still no substitute for patient, principled, sustained, high level diplomacy. Moreover, our efforts are more likely to succeed when we enlist our allies South Korea and Japan and other friends to help us.”
Website Comment: As Vice President seems to have conveniently forgotten that he ever said anything like this in the past !
Hillary Clinton
United States of America Secretary of State
From an opinion piece co-authored with Carl Levin entitled “Not Engaging Is Not an Alternative” published in the Washington Post, 5th July 2005.
“This is about more than the stability of the Korean Peninsula and the fate of South Korea and U.S. troops stationed there, important as those things are. What is at stake is the stability of Northeast Asia and, arguably, the global economic and political order. The administration must get serious. It doesn't matter who is at the table as long as we and the North Koreans are there, and as long as both sides negotiate with seriousness and urgency. The administration must inject both into the process.
Seriousness is demonstrated by spelling out a package to the North Koreans that addresses their fundamental need for economic assistance. It is demonstrated by rhetorical restraint. Name-calling aimed at our opponent has only hampered diplomacy. Seriousness means sending a senior U.S. official to meet with Kim Jong Il. And the way to know whether we have been trying hard enough is to determine whether our Asian negotiating partners also think diplomacy has been exhausted.”
Website Comment: Pity Hillary has not held to these sentiments as Secretary of State
Susan Rice
USA Ambassador to the United Nations.
From an opinion piece entitled “We need to Talk” published in the Washington Post 3rd June 2005.
In exchange for the "complete, verifiable and irreversible" dismantling of North Korea's nuclear programs, the United States should offer security guarantees, economic ties, fuel supplies and diplomatic relations.
Donald O. Gregg
Chairman of the Board, The Korea society, New York. Former CIA Operations officer (31 years) and US Ambassador to South Korea 1989 -1993.
“North Korea is the longest-running failure in the history of American espionage.”
Bruce Cummings
Author of “The Origins of the Korean War”, and Professor at University of Chicago. Quoted from the paper – Creating Korean Insecurity: The US Role.
“The United States has committed itself to Korean unification only once, in July and August 1950 in preparation for the march to Yalu; otherwise it has shown little interest in ending the Korean division, before or after the war.”
Selig S. Harrison
Author of five books on Korea and Asia, a senior Scholar of the Woodrow Wilson Center for Scholars, Washington D.C. USA. Quoted from the paper: – The Preconditions for Korean Security: US Policy and the legacy of 1945
“North Korea initiated its nuclear weapons programme as a direct response to the challenge posed by the deployment of US Honest John, Lance and Nike-Hercules missiles in the south in 1958. In Korea, as in Europe, the United States proclaimed a “first use” strategic doctrine that justified the use of nuclear weapons against conventional forces. In Europe, however, NATO doctrine envisaged primary reliance on conventional weapons to block invasion for as long as possible. Nuclear weapons were to be used only as a last resort if it became unavoidable. By contrast, in Korea, where the North did not then have nuclear weapons, the United States assumed that it could use them with impunity “within one hour of the outbreak of war” and made its intention to do so clear through military exercises that included “nuclear fighting” scenarios.
Gwynne Dyer, Military Historian and Syndicated Columnist September 2005.
The North Korean negotiating style certainly leaves a good deal to be desired.
Partly, it is just the normal behaviour of people who have no experience of negotiations between equals -- and indeed, people raised in the authoritarian,
almost Orwellian system that prevails in North Korea are very unlikely to have that experience. But these are also shrewd negotiating tactics for people who
are so weak that they have practically no cards in their hand. If you have no other way to make other parties pay attention to your concerns, then threatening to be unreasonable and cause a lot of damage is a good way to get them to listen. Even teenagers know that.
North Korea has no real cards in its hand. With half as many people as South Korea, it has an economy around one-tenth the size, and much of that goes to maintaining a military establishment that is more or less capable of matching the South Korean and American forces that confront it in the Korean peninsula. Its people live on the brink of starvation(although Kim Jong Il clearly eats very well), and its ability to threaten the United States directly is precisely zero.
http://gwynnedyer.com/articles/Gwynne%20Dyer%20article_%20%20North%20Korean%20_Threat_.txt
Carlton Meyer
Former US Marine Corps Officer and participant in the massive 1990 ‘Team Spirit’ military war games exercise.
“The Korean conflict is over, but Cold War warriors refuse to accept this reality because they need a “threat.” When Pentagon officials talk about the need to maintain a “two-war” capability, they often refer to Korea. This is absurd since South Korea can crush North Korea without American help……
North Korean soldiers suffer from malnutrition and rarely train due to a scarcity of fuel and ammo……
On the other hand, the entire 700,000 man South Korean active duty army can be devoted to the defense of Seoul. The modern South Korean army is backed by over 5,000,000 well-trained reservists who can be called to duty in hours. South Korea has twice the population of the North, thirty times its economic power, and spends three times more on its military each year. South Korean military equipment is first class whereas most of the North Korean military equipment is over 30 years old and much is inoperable due to a lack of maintenance. If war broke out, South Korea has a massive industrial capacity and $94 billion in foreign currency reserves to sustain a war, while North Korea has no industry and no money. As a result, South Korea is roughly five times more powerful than North Korea.”
For more from CarltonMeyer see: http://www.g2mil.com/korea.htm
Dwight D. Eisenhower.
Final Presidential Speech 1961
"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist."
John Adams (2nd President of the United States 1797 - 1801)
Power always thinks it has a great soul and vast views beyond the comprehension of the weak.
Christine Ahn. Foreign Policy in Focus. Oct.5th 2009
With regard to North Korea, we should negotiate a new deal that both guarantees the security of the country from outside attack and assures it sufficient electricity and food; sign a peace treaty to conclude the Korean War and accord the North formal diplomatic recognition; and support South Korea’s efforts at developing trade and investment with the North and its economic development. Internal development is far more likely to change the Kim regime than external threats.
From his book :
Rogue Nation – American Unilateralism and the failure of Good Intentions. Basic Books. 2003. ISBN 0-465-06279-2
John Gowans Canadian activist and analyst
it’s strikingly easy to alienate a country of outside support by hurling false accusations at it. Damning charges made by the White House are guaranteed to be trumpeted instantaneously throughout the world by the mass media. Given an undeserved instant credibility, they will, in short order, become received truths. Washington could make perfectly absurd claims about Iraq possessing caches of undeclared weapons of mass destruction, despite a decades-long inspection regime, and have those claims treated as beyond doubt by commentators on both the right and left in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq. That they were later acknowledged to be untrue was too little, too late. Turning north Korea into an ugly, disreputable house of horrors, which no sane person would ever think of uttering a kind word about, is firmly within the competence of Washington’s masters of propaganda.
Clyde Prestowitz. President Economic Strategy Institute, Washington.