Text fwd: [No Bases: On Status Of the Forces Agreement, Korea] Query re immunity of troops on bases

* Image Source: Anti US Base(Korean)

For more photo sources regarding the USFK Crimes in Korea in the same site above

Below is the quotation from the E mail from Youkyoung Ko to the No bases on July 31, 2009


'Dear John

This is youkyoung from Korea.

I attached some materials.[Linked]
Could you tell me about service members' status in Colombia now without their bases and installation. I think there was the agreement about US service members and civilians' status regarding criminal. And that agreement should affect the negotiation.

In Korea case, roughly speaking, US have tried to evade their service member's standing in Korea court. They delayed intentionally the negotiation of SOFA after 1953 when the mutual defense agreement between ROK and US was signed and US forces stationed in peninsula by that until 1966. After the negotiation for revising SOFA began in Nov. 1995, US broke off over the transom in Sep 1996. In Aug 2000 the negotiation resumed and in Dec 2000 ROK and US reached the revision.

Before the US and ROK sat the table, there were always incidents, criminals, victims, people's struggles.

Last year my organization published a book in celebration of the 15th anniversary.
I wrote the history of US forces crimes and people' struggles in the book.
I think it would be helpful but we have only Korean version.
If someone want to translate the article to English, please refer to this site. http://antiusbase.tistory.com/

I could not translate correctly the name of charges and legal words in the file "Statistics-1967-2007".
It is not clear so it would be just reference.
The attached file "The history of Criminal Jurisdiction on US service members in ROK" is the information of the agreements.

This articles may be helpful.

1. Understanding the United States through the Crimes Committed by its Troops in Korea
http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/8504

2. The Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) in Korea Reasons for Revision
http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/8503

3. Forbidden Rights to Pollute the Korean Peninsula
http://blog.peoplepower21.org/English/8505

Hope this help,
You Kyoung, Ko'

* You Kyoung Ko is the director of the "The National Campaign for Eradication of Crimes by U.S.Troops in Korea"[ Check Emglish on the top right"]

* Status Of Forces Agreement


2009/ 7/23 John Lindsay-Poland

Friends, activists, researchers,

As you may know, the governments of Colombia and the United States are currently negotiating the presence of five military bases in Colombia. On of the issues being debated is that of immunity for U.S. uniformed soldiers as well as civilian contractors. The question that has come up is [whether] there are other countries in the world where U.S. soldiers or civilian personnel contracted by the US military who do NOT have legal immunity for crimes committed in the ‘host nation’s territory.

If you have information about this, could you please contact me?

For further information on the current negotiations for bases in Colombia, see
Revamping Plan Colombia
http://fpif.org/fpiftxt/6283

Many thanks.

John Lindsay-Poland


--
Fellowship of Reconciliation
Task Force on Latin America and the Caribbean
Please note new address
PO Box 72492
436 14th St. #409, Oakland, CA 94612
Tel: 510-763-1403 Fax: 510-763-1409
Web: http://www.forcolombia.org
http://www.forusa.org

Video Fwd: Talisman Sabre protests

* Informed by Hannah Midleton on July 31, 2009

'A video report from the Peace Convergence at Operation Talisman Sabre, the joint military exercise involving thousands of US and Australian troops, in central Queensland. Action depicted all took place on July 11 and 12, around the towns of Yeppoon and Rockhampton. Editing and additional camerawork by Annabel McGoldrick:

http://www.transcend.org/tms/video_details.php

Or
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sMsniEwA3o'

Text fwd: Pushing South Asia Toward the Brink

Text Informed by Bruce Gagnon on July 30, 2009

Foreign Policy In Focus
http://www.fpif.org/fpiftxt/6295
Pushing South Asia Toward the Brink
By Zia Mian | July 27, 2009


The contradictions and confusions in U.S. policy in South Asia were
on full display during Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's recent
visit to India. U.S. support for India, which centers on making
money, selling weapons, and turning a blind eye to the country's
nuclear weapons, is fatally at odds with U.S. policy and concerns
about Pakistan.

By enabling an India-Pakistan arms race, rather than focusing on
resolving the conflict and helping them make peace, the United States
is driving Pakistan toward the very collapse it fears.

America's New India

In an op-ed in The Times of India just before the start of her visit,
Clinton laid out U.S. interests in India. The first item on Clinton's
list was "the 300 million members of India's burgeoning middle
class," that she identified as "a vast new market and opportunity."

The emerging Indian middle class is large - for comparison, the
current total U.S. population is also about 300 million - and greedy
for a more American lifestyle. But the focus on India as
fundamentally a market for U.S. goods and services, and a source of
cheap labor for U.S. corporations, marks a remarkable shift. The
United States and other western countries have traditionally seen
India as the home of the desperately poor, deserving charity and
needing development. But no more. Clinton's article made no mention
of India's poor, which the World Bank recently estimated as including
over 450 million people living on less than $1.25 a day.

India is also seen as a new emerging power of the 21st century, one
that can be an ally of the United States and help it balance and
contain the rise of China. Under the Bush Administration, in 2004,
the U.S. and India signed an agreement called the "Next Steps in
Strategic Partnership." To make India a fitting strategic partner, a
senior State Department official later explained the U.S."goal is to
help India become a major world power in the 21st century," and left
no doubt what this meant, saying "we understand fully the
implications, including military implications, of that statement."

India is seeking both to modernize and expand its military forces. It
has dramatically increased its military budget, up over 34% alone
this year. India now has the 10th-highest military spending in the
world. It's becoming a major market for U.S. arms sales. U.S. weapons
makers Lockheed Martin and Boeing have already racked up deals worth
billions of dollars. But the real bonanza is still to come. India is
said to be planning to spend as much $55 billion on weapons over the
next five years.

But the big news of the Clinton visit was the announcement of an
India-U.S. Strategic Dialogue. This will include an annual formal
meeting of key officials, co-chaired by the secretary of State and
India's external affairs minister, and including on the U.S. side the
secretaries of Agriculture, Trade, Energy, Education, Finance, Health
and Human Services, Homeland Security, and others. But given the
difference in the power and range of interests of the two states,
this will be no dialogue of equals. The process is intended to align
Indian interests and policies in a wide range of areas with those of
the United States.

Nuclear India

In her press conference with India's minister of external affairs,
Clinton said, "We discussed our common vision of a world without
nuclear weapons and the practical steps that our countries can take
to strengthen the goal of nonproliferation." But there was no mention
here of India's nuclear buildup, or of the United States asking India
to slow down or to end its program. In fact, one would never guess
from Clinton's remarks that India even had a nuclear weapons program.
She seemed interested only in the prospect of U.S. sales of nuclear
reactors to India worth $10 billion or more.

India is one of perhaps only three countries still making material
for new nuclear weapons. The others are Pakistan and Israel (with
North Korea threatening to resume production). India is building a
fast-breeder reactor that is expected to begin operation in 2010 and
is outside International Atomic Energy Agency safeguards. It could
increase three- to five-fold India's current capacity to make
plutonium for nuclear weapons.

India seeks to become a major nuclear power. On July 26, it launched
its first nuclear-powered submarine. India plans to deploy several of
these submarines. Last year, it carried out its first successful
underwater launch of a 700 kilometer-range ballistic missile,
Sagarika, intended for the submarine. India joins the United States,
Russia, the United Kingdom, France, and China in the club of those
owning such nuclear-armed, nuclear-powered submarines. Israel is
believed to have nuclear-armed cruise missiles on diesel powered
submarines.

India is also developing an array of land-based missiles. In May
2008, it tested the 3,500 kilometer-range Agni-III missile, which was
subsequently reported to have been approved for deployment with the
army, and is working on a missile with a range of over 5,000
kilometer. In November 2008, India also tested a 600 kilometer-range
silo-based missile, Shourya. In 2009, India carried out several tests
of its cruise missile, Brahmos, which the army and navy are inducting
into service.

The U.S. silence on India's nuclear weapons and missile programs is
all the more telling, given that it was the Clinton administration
that proposed United Nations Security Council resolution 1172. In
1998, this unanimous Security Council resolution called on India and
Pakistan to "immediately stop their nuclear weapon development
programs, to refrain from the deployment of nuclear weapons, to cease
development of ballistic missiles capable of delivering nuclear
weapons, and any further production of fissile material for nuclear
weapons." The Bush administration ignored it. It seems the Obama
administration will too.

Pakistan v. India

Pakistan was noticeable for its near absence from Clinton's agenda in
India. It came up only in the context of the need to fight terrorism.
Forgotten was the brute fact that India and Pakistan are straining
harder than ever in their nuclear and conventional arms race. A
Pakistani diplomat responded to the Clinton visit to India by telling
The Washington Post that "What Hillary is doing there is probably
again going to start an arms race." This race drives Pakistan toward
collapse, the very thing the United States fears.

Pakistan is buying U.S. weapons as fast as it can, some paid for with
U.S. military aid, with arms sales agreements worth over $6 billion
since 2001, including for new F-16 jet-fighters. China, an old ally,
is also supplying the country with jet fighters and other weapons.
Pakistan is also boosting its nuclear program. It's building two new
reactors to make plutonium for nuclear weapons. It continues to test
both ballistic missiles and cruise missiles to carry nuclear weapons.

The principal U.S. concern about Pakistan, aside from the country
falling apart and its nuclear weapons falling into the hands of
Islamists, is the war against al-Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan
and in the border areas of Pakistan. It has been telling Pakistan to
focus its military forces and strategic concerns on this battle,
which requires moving more soldiers away from the border with India.
The generals who command Pakistan's army were bound to resist such a
redeployment. They worry about the new U.S.-India strategic
relationship, and what it may mean for them when the war on the
Taliban is over and the United States no longer needs Pakistan.

The Pakistani army, which rules the country even when civilians are
in office, will not easily shift its view of India. The army and
those who lead it see the threat from India as their very reason for
being. The army has grown in size, influence, and power, to the point
where it dwarfs all other institutions in society and would lose much
if there was peace with India. But there is a personal dimension as
well. The partition of the subcontinent 62 years ago that created
Pakistan is in the living memory of many who make decisions in
Pakistan. General Pervez Musharraf, who was chief of army staff
before he seized power in 1999 and ruled for nine years, was born in
India before partition. General Musharraf, along with the current
chief of army staff, General Kayani, and others in Pakistan's high
command, fought as young officers in the 1971 war against India. The
war ended with Pakistan itself partitioned, as East Pakistan became
the independent state of Bangladesh, with India's help, and 90,000
Pakistani soldiers captured by India as prisoners of war.

As Graham Usher notes in the new issue of the Middle East Report,
before becoming president, Barack Obama seemed to understand that
resolving the conflict between India and Pakistan was critical to
dealing with the problems in Afghanistan and with the Taliban. In
2007, Obama claimed "I will encourage dialogue between Pakistan and
India to work toward resolving their dispute over Kashmir and between
Afghanistan and Pakistan to resolve their historic differences and
develop the Pashtun border region. If Pakistan can look toward the
east with greater confidence, it will be less likely to believe that
its interests are best advanced through cooperation with the
Taliban." There is little evidence that this view has yet informed
U.S. policy.

The Reality of Pakistan

In their rush to make money and to preserve American power in the
world by crafting an alliance with India, U.S. policymakers seem to
have averted their eyes from the reality that stares them in the face
in Pakistan. In March 2009, the Director of National Intelligence
summed up the situation in Pakistan:

The government is losing authority in parts of the North-West
Frontier Province and has less control of its semi-autonomous tribal
areas: even in the more developed parts of the country, mounting
economic hardships and frustration over poor governance have given
rise to greater radicalization.Economic hardships are intense, and
the country is now facing a major balance of payments challenge.
Islamabad needs to make painful reforms to improve overall
macroeconomic stability. Pakistan's law-and-order situation is
dismal, affecting even Pakistani elites, and violence between various
sectarian, ethnic, and political groups threatens to escalate.
Pakistan's population is growing rapidly at a rate of about 2 percent
a year, and roughly half of the country's 172 million residents are
illiterate, under the age of 20, and live near or below the poverty
line.

Things have worsened since then. The Taliban is now seeking to escape
U.S. drone attacks and major assaults by the Pakistan army in the
Tribal Areas by taking refuge in the cities. There are already no-go
areas in Karachi, Pakistan's largest city, where the Taliban controls
the streets. Meanwhile electricity riots have exploded in cities
across the country, with mobs attacking public buildings, blocking
highways, and damaging trains and buses. Each day seems to bring news
of some new failure of the state to provide basic social services.

The Obama administration believes that an increase in U.S. aid to
Pakistan can help solve the problem. The Kerry-Lugar bill (the
Enhanced Partnership with Pakistan Act) approved by the Senate in
June would triple economic aid to Pakistan to $1.5 billion a year for
five years. But as the Congressional Research Service noted in its
recent report on Pakistan, the United States has given Pakistan about
$16.5 billion in "direct, overt U.S. aid" up to 2007. More of the
same offers little hope for change.

A basic reordering of U.S. priorities in South Asia is long overdue.
The first principle of U.S. policy in the region should be to do no
more harm. This means it has to stop feeding the fire between India
and Pakistan. Only an end to the South Asian arms race can begin to
undo the structures of fear, hostility, and violence that have
sustained the conflict in the subcontinent for so long. The search
for peace may then have at least a chance of success.


Zia Mian is a physicist with the Program on Science and Global
Security at the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International
Affairs at Princeton University and a columnist for Foreign Policy In
Focus.

Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)

Video fwd: GOOD OVERVIEW OF OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

Bruce Gagnon blog
Wednesday, July 29, 2009
GOOD OVERVIEW OF OBAMA FOREIGN POLICY

Text Fwd: Will drones push fighter pilots out of the cockpit?

* Informed by Bruce Gagnon on July 29, 2009

* Image Source
1. Airman 1st Class Caleb Force, a Predator sensor operator, helps 1st Lt. Jorden Smith, a Predator pilot, locate simulated targets during an MQ-1 Predator training mission at Creech Air Force Base in Nevada. (Nadine Y. Barclay / Air Force)

2. Air Force Maj. Bryan Dresser does a pre-flight check on an A-10 Thunderbolt II before takeoff at Davis-Monthan Air Force Base. (Jill Torrance / Arizona Daily Star)

3. The MQ-1 Predator is among the unmanned aircraft, or drones, that some see as the future of the Air Force. (Leslie Pratt / Air Force)

The Arizona Daily Star
07.26.2009
Will drones push fighter pilots out of the cockpit? Fliers face future where planes work by remote control By Carol Ann Alaimo ARIZONA DAILY STAR

For as long as Col. Paul Johnson has been in the cockpit, the fighter pilot has been an icon of American military might.

Now, after nearly a quarter century in uniform, he's witnessing the beginning of the end of that era.

Increasingly, the U.S Air Force is turning to unmanned aircraft to perform work once done exclusively by aviators like Johnson, the wing commander of Davis-Monthan Air Force Base.

At the highest levels of the Pentagon, plans are under way to reduce the role of warplanes, and rely more heavily on remotely piloted craft.

"This is massive," said Johnson, an A-10 pilot with more than 2,000 hours in the skies, describing the potential changes ahead.

"It's a head-exploding topic," he said. But "for us to sit on the sidelines and ignore this new technology would be irresponsible."

In the space of a generation or two, officials say, Air Force bases like D-M could be doing much of their business by remote control, reducing jet noise over urban areas while saving money, improving effectiveness and preventing risk to the lives of military personnel.

How much of the service's work can be done by drones is the subject of intense research and debate in Washington, and there are many unknowns about how quickly such technology will advance.
Already, though, some are envisioning the end of the Air Force as we know it.

Peter Singer, director of the 21st Century Defense Initiative at the Brookings Institution, one of Washington's oldest and most respected think tanks, predicts a vast array of missions for unmanned craft, from stealth bombing to electronic warfare — even dogfights.

"It's not just intelligence and bomber pilots who will be replaced with machines," said a recent article by Singer, a campaign adviser on defense policy to President Obama.

"Planning is proceeding on UCAVs, unmanned combat aerial vehicles, which will replace fighter jocks, too."

Last manned fighter?

Defense Secretary Robert Gates is among those gazing into the future.

In a May appearance before the Senate Armed Service Committee, Gates suggested that the Joint Strike Fighter or JSF — the warplane due to replace the A-10 attack jets flown at D-M — could be America's last manned fighter.

"We're at a real time of transition here in terms of the future of aviation," Gates told senators, according to a transcript.

"The whole issue of what's going to be manned, what's going to be unmanned, what's going to be stealthy, what isn't, how do we address these threats … it's changing," he said.

"There are those that see JSF as the last manned fighter, or fighter-bomber, or jet. And I'm one of — you know, I'm one that's inclined to believe that. I don't know if that's exactly right. But this all speaks to the change."

This year, for the first time in history, the Air Force expects to train more unmanned aerial vehicle pilots — 240 — than conventional fighter-bomber pilots — 214.
Col. Eric Mathewson, head of the Air Force's unmanned aircraft task force at the Pentagon, said the service plans to examine all its missions to see which can be adapted for unmanned flight.

He doesn't picture pilots going away completely — at least, not anytime soon. But he can't predict what's ahead, he said, because UAV technology is still in its infancy.
"You can't judge UAVs by what you see today. That would be like judging all aircraft by looking at the Wright Flyer," Mathewson said, referring to the first powered plane, built by the Wright brothers in 1903.

"Phenomenal" performers

UAVs have been used in various forms since the Civil War but were limited by low technology. They didn't come into heavy use until recently in Iraq and Afghanistan, and their stellar showing there is a big part of what's driving the current push to find other uses.

The most common Air Force UAVs — the Predator, and its supercharged sibling, the Reaper — are armed with Hellfire missiles. They're used for reconnaissance and surveillance and can carry out strikes against smaller targets.

Col. Trey Turner, a former Navy F-14 pilot who now oversees Air Force UAV training at the Pentagon, said the Predator and the Reaper are "phenomenal" performers in counterinsurgency work.
Even in their infancy, they outshine piloted aircraft for some tasks, Turner said.

A manned jet, for example, typically needs refueling after an hour or so, and human pilots need rest breaks.

A UAV never tires. It can stay aloft for 18 hours or more, staring at hot spots and attacking insurgents caught on camera planting roadside bombs or hauling weapons. And at the end of a shift the mission can be handed off to another UAV, allowing for 24/7 coverage.

Live video feed from UAV cameras is beamed to commanders on the ground and around the world because they typically are flown via satellite link by operators stationed in the United States.

D-M has been home to a Predator unit since 2007. The Air National Guard's 214th Reconnaissance Group now flies missions around the clock in Iraq and Afghanistan from its quarters at the Tucson base.
In perhaps a sign of how high demand is, 214th personnel were too busy flying Predators to be interviewed for this story.

To meet soaring requests for the Predator's services overseas, the Air Force is funneling hundreds of young pilots straight out of flight school into UAV units. The service also is training officers who aren't pilots to fly UAVs and is looking at allowing non-officers to fly some of them.

Finding enough UAV operators may be challenging since the job doesn't have the allure of manned flight, said analyst Lawrence Korb, a former assistant defense secretary who oversaw military manpower and reserve affairs during the Reagan era.

"To fly a plane twice the speed of sound and come in for attack with missiles flying, there's a certain amount of glamour to that," said Korb, now a senior fellow with the Center for American Progress, another Washington think tank.

"There's not much glamour to sitting in Arizona or Nevada pushing buttons, even though it's just as important."

Less noise, pollution

Mathewson, a former F-15 pilot, said one factor that's come up in Pentagon discussions is the possibility of reduced environmental impact — less aircraft noise, less need for jet fuel and other military pollutants — at U.S. bases where pilots train to fly by remote control.

Some snags must be ironed out, though, before UAVs could take to American skies in areas where civilian airliners fly.

The Federal Aviation Administration, for example, has resisted the idea, concerned that public safety might be compromised without human pilots on board.

It's too early to say what impact more UAVs could have on the future need for Air Force bases and personnel, or how much money might be saved, Mathewson said.

Today's UAVs cost far less than manned fighters — $5 million for a Predator compared to $85 million for a Joint Strike Fighter — but they don't have anywhere near the same capabilities. Future UAVs may have much higher price tags as they become more advanced, he said.

As unmanned aircraft mature, certain jobs now handled by humans — bomb loading, ground refueling, some basic flight-line maintenance — could be automated. And, eventually, UAV operators may be able to fly many unmanned craft at once for certain types of missions.

"That's where you would see some savings," he said.

Mathewson couldn't say whether D-M might be a future candidate for more UAVs. But a military consultant who has advised Tucson City Hall thinks it would make sense.

"If you look 20 years into the future, they could be based out of D-M," said Eugene Santarelli, a retired Air Force lieutenant general and former D-M wing commander. "With the geographic location of D-M and the (Barry M.) Goldwater range nearby, it could be a good fit."

As the future unfolds, pilots like D-M's commander will be watching and pondering the implications — both practical and ethical.

"This is not just a discussion about air systems. It's a discussion about the nature of war," said D-M wing commander Johnson, noting that other branches of the military also are pursuing unmanned technology.

"Are we moving toward a battle space devoid of human beings? And, if so, how will that impact a nation's willingness or reluctance to wage war?

"While we are having these technological developments, we can't be afraid to couch them in some larger philosophical discussions about what war is, and what war will be."


Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space
PO Box 652
Brunswick, ME 04011
(207) 443-9502
http://www.space4peace.org
globalnet@mindspring.com
http://space4peace.blogspot.com (Blog)

Text Fwd: TRIP WIRE FOR WAR

Bruce Gagnon blog
Wednesday, July 29, 2009 TRIP WIRE FOR WAR

It's hot, it's muggy, it's been raining, and folks are treating me wonderfully. I've been in Kyoto for two days with little Internet connection. The first two nights I stayed in a traditional wooden Japanese home where I slept on a futon on the floor - Japanese style. But sadly their wireless connection didn't work so I've had to move to a hotel where I will spend the next two nights. I get hundreds of emails each day and find it impossible to be without Internet for long. A friend in California calls my laptop my "altar."

I've been taken to a couple local wonderful spots including the Kiyomizu Dera Temple that overlooks the city from the base of a surrounding mountain. Just a spectacular place. Kyoto is famous for many temples and the city is crawling with tourists from all over the world.

Last night I spoke to 70 people and after I talked a 3rd generation Japanese-born man of Korean ancestry spoke. I was surprised to learn that even when Koreans are born in Japan they do not automatically get citizenship. There is still discrimination here against Koreans, many of whom were brought to Japan during imperial times as virtual slave labor. Lee Tong Il spoke out in favor of North Korea's right to defend themselves from an aggressive US and Japan. He said, "For 60 years the US has brought nuclear weapons to the Korean Peninsula so North Korea has to have nuclear weapons to defend themselves."

While I am opposed to all countries having nukes I must agree with his basic point that the US position is hypocritical because our nation has more nuclear weapons than any other country and we continually test them. (August 23 is the next planned US Minuteman nuclear missile test fired from Vandenberg AFB in California that will land at Kwajalein Atoll in the Pacific.) North Korea sees Iraq and Afghanistan get invaded, Iran threatened, and they figure their only chance for survival as a nation is to arm themselves as well.

The big issue in Japan right now is whether or not the government should get rid of Article 9 of their Constitution that says they will not have an offensive military. Prior to WW II Japan invaded Manchuria and occupied Korea. Their colonial empire spread throughout the Pacific Region. The right-wing in Japan wants to get rid of Article 9 and is even calling for preemptive attack on North Korea. This stirs fears in the region about a resuscitated imperial Japan, coupled with a massively armed imperial US, a clear prescription for disaster.

A key part of all this current trouble is the US "missile defense" program which is now being deployed in Japan, South Korea, Australia, and on Navy Aegis destroyers surrounding China. After my talk last night several people thanked me for my clear explanation how the US "missile defense" program is really part of a broader offensive first-strike attack program - the sword and the shield together.

Bottom line is that the region is a trip wire for war. Thank goodness that there is an active and strong peace movement here.

* Related blogs

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/07/walking-kyoto.html
Thursday, July 30, 2009
WALKING KYOTO

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/07/satomi-still-lives.html
Sunday, July 26, 2009
SATOMI STILL LIVES

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/07/tough-talk-about-korea.html
Saturday, July 25, 2009
TOUGH TALK ABOUT KOREA

http://space4peace.blogspot.com/2009/07/talking-space.html
Thursday, July 23, 2009
TALKING SPACE IN TOKYO

Text Fwd: Environmentalists show no confidence in nuclear waste site’s safety

Image Source/ Description: same as below

‘Cho Seung-soo, a　lawmaker with the New Progressive Party, and members of the Environmental Movement in Gyeongju City announce the results of a study on the nuclear waste disposal facility currently under construction in the Gyeongju area at the National Assembly, July 28.’

Hankyoreh
Environmentalists show no confidence in nuclear waste site’s safety: Lawmaker Cho and environmental researchers disclose prior site assessment reports on Gyeongju waste facility site that reveal base rock instability
Posted on : Jul.29,2009 12:27 KST Modified on : Jul.29,2009 12:29 KST

YangLee Won-young, the head of KFEM’s Future Planning Department said, “The government selected the site only four months after the site’s assessment had been conducted, and despite indications of several safety problems, including the instability of the base rock.”

They shared the findings of three-related site reports including, “An assessment report on the nuclear waste disposal facility site” by Korea Hydro & Nuclear Power Co., LTD in April 2005.

Cho criticized the government by saying, “The government endorsed the construction while evidence of the site’s instability was obvious.” He added, “Additional research is needed to inform the construction process.”

The Ministry of Knowledge Economy responded with a press release that says, “We conducted a fact finding investigation into the 30-month delay of the facility’s construction, however, we believe there are no problems related to the site’s safety and find the site’s assessment study to be appropriate.”

They government had conducted a four month long investigation into the proposed facility site in Gyeongju city located in South Gyeongsang Province, and the city was selected to host the construction of a facility that would be capable of storing low and intermediate level radioactive waste materials through a local referendum that took place in November 2005. The Geological Society of Korea conducted the study into causes of the construction delay at the ministry’s request in June.

Please direct questions or comments to [englishhani@hani.co.kr]

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Text Fwd: S. Korea to Sell Multiple Rocket Launchers to Jordan

Korea times
07-29-2009 21:56
S. Korea to Sell Multiple Rocket Launchers to Jordan
By Jung Sung-ki
Staff Reporter

South Korea's Hanhwa Corporation will export about 20 lightweight 70mm multiple launch rocket systems (MLRS) to Jordan, according to officials at the company and the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA), Wednesday.

A contract will be signed in August, they said.

Under the proposed contract, Hanwha will help Jordan develop two prototypes of the mid-sized rocket launcher with technology transfer and begin production after two years of trials.

``Hanwha will transfer key MLRS technologies regarding a launch pad, fire-and-control system and navigation equipment to Jordan under the deal," said a DAPA official, who declined to comment on the exact scale of the deal.

Hanwha is also negotiating with Libya on the export of the 70mm MLRS, he added.

Designed for firepower support for infantry regiments, it has a range of 8 kilometers and can fire up to 40 rockets within 10 minutes.

The company developed the system in 2000. It has already undergone trials with the South Korean Army, but has yet to be deployed in the field.

Hanwha has already produced and deployed 130mm (36-round) MLRS with the Army since the early 1980s.

In April, DAPA approved a plan to develop an indigenous 65-kilometer-range 230mm MLRS by 2013 to replace the 130mm MLRS fleet with a range of 36 kilometers and improve the Army's counter-artillery capability against North Korea.

Hanwha will take charge of system integration and build guided and non-guided rockets, while Doosan DST will build the launch pad and vehicle, the agency said.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

Text Fwd: August 22 protest ICBM launch Vandenberg AFB

* Image source: What is the Space and Missile System Center El Segundo?
* Informed by MacGregor Eddy on July 28, 2009

August 22 TWO protests ICBM launch
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 by Macgregor Eddy

"Vandenberg Space Command will fire a test ICBM Minuteman to Kwajalein on August 23 in the early hours of the morning midnight or 3 am (see the AFB website) and there will be protests in many locations.
Space and Missile Systems center 483 N Aviation El Segundo CA 1 pm August 22, a Saturday.
call 831 206 5043 for details tell your Los Angeles friends.

then at 11:55 pm August 22 at the front gate of Vandenberg AFB six miles north of Lompoc on Hwy One Santa Barbara county CA. see www.vandenbergwitness.org
For directions to the front gate of Vandenberg (there is no street address) using computer mapquest or its ilk, use the address of Vandenberg Middle School in Lompoc which is right across Highway One from the front gate.

MacGregor Eddy"

* Related blog:

MacGregor Eddy, Tuesday, July 28, 2009
What is the Space and Missile System Center El Segundo?
http://docs.google.com/present/view?id=0ASmCKR2MI5MuZGZweGM1ZmZfOTNnbjc2cnJmOQ&hl=en

Text Fwd: U.S. Strategic Command, "First Annual Strategic Deterrence Symposium:

* Informed by Frank Cordaro on July 28, 2009

U.S. Strategic Command, "First Annual Strategic Deterrence Symposium:
Waging Deterrence in the 21st Century," with 27 speakers.
Qwest Center, 455 N. 10th St., Omaha, NE (closed).
http://stratcom.cvent.com/EVENTS/Info/Custom.aspx?cid=19&i=eb044469-46c5-4b7b-ae16-882f569b3998


Frank Cordaro
Phil Berrigan CW House
713 Indiana Avenue, Des Moines, IA 50314
(515) 282-4781 www.DesMoinesCatholicWorker.org

Koreans Declare the “7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River” Movement into the New Conversion Movement

* Image source*
1. Nonviolence Peaceforce Corea
2. No Base Stories of Korea
3. Original Photo by Yoo, Young-Ho, 2001, Tongil News
‘A map attached to the Korean War Armistice Agreement, July 27, 1953’ (Name of the places in English added; The author notices the DMZ line-the thick line in the middle- along with the Northern Limited Line(NLL) and Southern Limited Line(SLL) -the both lines along the DMZ- were not drawn in the sea areas during the armistice negotiation period. The arbitrary NLL in the sea areas since then has specially become the controversy and source of conflict.


Koreans Declare the “ 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River” Movement into the New Conversion Movement
July 27, 2009 (on the 56th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement)

There was a “Public Forum on the Ways of the Peaceful Solution on the Issue of Mouth of Han River and Re-Recognition of the UN Command” at the 2nd auditorium, Christian Hall, Jongno-Gu, Seoul, on July 27, 2009.

The event was hosted by the Nonviolence Peaceforce Korea and Peace Life Christian Association. It was sponsored by the ‘Committee for the 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River’, Incheon, Ganghwa committee, and Seoul preparatory committee. It was also sponsored by the Korea Committee for the World March for Peace and Nonviolence. There was the photo exhibition about the 7.27 Peace Ship Launch event in the last four years by the committees and Lee, Si-Woo. It also included the video of the event last year. The statement translated below was announced before the two hour forum. The opening remark for the forum was done by Rev, Park, Hyung-Kyu & Fr. Lee, Jae-Jung and the forum was moderated by Dr. Park, Sung-Yong, Executive Chairperson of the Committee for the 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River, Secretary of the Korea Committee for the World March for Peace and Nonviolence, and the representative for the Nonviolence Peaceforce Corea.

The 1 hour section was of the presentations by Seo, Bo Hyuk, Korea National Strategy Institute, on “The Korean War and the Birth, Role & Position of the UN Command”; Lee, Si-Woo, the theorist of the Mouth of Han River & peace photographer on the “ The Mouth of Han River and the Issue of the UN Command’s Jurisdiction Right”; and by Kim, Da-Sub, Attorney of Law on“the Victorious Indictment Examples in the U. S. courts around the Cases of the Crash of the Fighter Plane and Death of the Korean Pilot” .

The 2nd 30 minute section was the discussion by Cheong, Wooksik, representative of the Peace Network, Lee, Jong-Chul, Korea Peace Institute and the suggestion by Park, Jong-Ryol, representative of the Committee for the 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River.

The final section was discussed with the audience. There were many village people & organizers from the Ganghwa Island and Kyodong Island, who actively participated for the questions and suggestions.




[Below is the temporary unofficial translation of the statement and needs check & proofreading. The original Korean site is Nonviolence Peaceforce Corea.]

http://peacewave.net/bbs/zboard.php?id=N01&no=176

Statement Urging for Peace
Toward the Governments of the South and North Korea

We Declare the “ 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River” Movement into the New Conversion Movement:

- Han River as the River for Reconciliation and Co-Living,
Cease Fire Agreement into the Peace Agreement-

As today is the 56th anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement (Cease Fire Agreement), we meditate the event of launching the ‘Peace Ship’ four times at the mouth of Han River during the last [4 years], and urge the positive will for the new conversion of the mass peace movement by the civil society and for the peaceful co-existence by the both South & North Korean authorities so that we can take a first step toward the peaceful formation of the Korean peninsula at the mouth of Han River.

The Han River has once taken the role as the breakthrough for the ups & downs and wax & wane of the national history and for the big vein of the politics/economy/culture. However, it has become the powder magazine for the showdown by the DMZ [Demilitarized Zone] after the division and by the military confrontation between the South and North Korea. Even though the atmosphere for the reconciliation exchange and the discussion for the peaceful use of the mouth of the Han River that have waxed for a wile during the last participatory government, have progressed toward the 2.13 agreement and 10.4 conference [in 2007], they have confronted with the higher tension and crisis situation because of the counter-wind of the North Korea’s nuclear weapon development and the South Korea’s joint MD system [with the United States] & PSI participation.

The ‘Committee for the 7.27 Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River’( Committee for the Peace Ship Launch), basing on the positive clause of the safe navigation upon the Korean War Armistice Agreement, has brought the imagination of the reconciliation & exchange among all the people, media, and political system for the last 4 years since it has tried the first event for the Peace Ship Launch on July 27, 2005. However, the Peace Ship could not reach into its desired seaway because of the present frozen current, reason of safety, and the UN Command’s claim of ‘Jurisdiction’ that is not listed on the armistice agreement.

The present military showdown and the confrontational phase the authorities of the South & North Korea have reached to be immediately replaced with the co-trust & negotiation toward the peaceful reunification. We confirm for the Han river that has existed as of the blocked and the killing, to be conversed into reconciliation & co-existence, there have to be co-efforts of: Building the peaceful atmosphere in the political areas of the South & North; Revealing of the truth on the Jurisdiction [claimed by the] UN Command and the readjustment of its role through the international co-operation; and the strengthening of the power of the civil society.

We, especially begin not only with the mass movement for the peaceful reconciliation & co-existence but also with the self-examination that we solve our current issue by ourselves and with the alternative-suggestion movement . For that, we intend to open the mouth of Han River, the river of the killing & war as the practical zone for peace & life, through today’s “Public Symposium for the Ways of the Peaceful Solution for the Mouth of Han River and Re-Recognition of the UN Command”. For that, we declare to do as below.

First, we will re-illuminate the responsibility area by the international law on the UN Command and strengthen the international co-operation for defining the proper position of the UN Command, through the research on the proper role of the UN Command which has blocked the free navigation of the civilian ship in the mouth of Han river.

Second, we urge the both authorities of the North & South Korea to bring into the positive solution for the safe navigation for the civilian ships in the mouth of Han river and for the multiple infra-peace buildings on the ecological heath & peaceful resource development in the area of the mouth of Han river.

Third, we suggest: To restore the seaways between the North & South to heal the suffering & pain of the home-losing migrants [during the war] , to co-exchange the civilians and materials at the areas of the mouth of Han river so that it can contribute the development of the home in the North Korea; and to drive the Kyodong island at the north tip of the Gwanghwa island into a ‘ Peace Island’. [* If you see the Gangwha map in the wikipedia, you can see how most sites do mot corectly reflect the Korea DMZ line. In fact, the DMZ line did nor exist in the original maps during the Koraen War Armistice Agreement, the researchers here have said. ]

Forth, we suggest to immediately compose the ‘Association for the Peace Policy of the Mouth of Han River’, of regional authorities, specialists and civil groups, to consistently drive toward the peace & ecological health of the mouth of Han river.

Five, we will have solidarity with all the people who love life& peace, the general value of all the human being so that the cease fire agreement can be conversed into the peace agreement, through the setting of the life & peace area. We will also try to make our efforts to dissolve the social division, confrontation & conflict through the peace campaign so that the future generations inherit the peaceful Korean peninsula.

Participating individuals and groups for the Peace Ship Launch in the Mouth of Han River


July 27, 2009


* Related blogs

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/07/text-fwd-significance-of-kaesung-as.html
Friday, July 31, 2009
Text Fwd: The Significance of Kaesung as the City of Peace


http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/07/text-fwd-s-korea-fishing-boat-taken-to.html
Friday, July 31, 2009
Text Fwd: S. Korea fishing boat taken to N. Korea port after traveling over the NLL


http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/07/text-fwd-united-nations-command.html
Saturday, July 25, 2009
Text Fwd: The United Nations Command Informed the North Korea of the Ulchi Freedom Guardian

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/05/text-fwd-peace-network-north-koreas.html
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
Text Fwd:[Peace Network] North Korea’s Stronger Repulsion against the PSI…The West Sea is Dangerous


* Related English articles

http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html
Text of the Korean War Armistice War Agreement

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_Republic_of_Korea
Constitution of the Republic of Korea



* Related Korean articles/ photos/ Videos

http://www.worldmarch.kr/?document_srl=712#0

http://www.worldmarch.kr/?document_srl=599#0

http://peacewave.net/bbs/zboard.php?id=N01&no=175

http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=73348
[긴급 ]한강하구에 쏟아지는 섣부른 공약
이시우 사진가가 옥중에서 보내온 서신
2007년 06월 26일 (화) 18:41:56 이시우
[Express] The Awkward Promises [By the Roh Moon Hyun Governmnet] upon the Mouth of Han River : Lee, Si-Woo's Letter from the Jail, June 26, 2007

http://blog.daum.net/_blog/ArticleCateList.do?blogid=0LWxq&CATEGORYID=741877&dispkind=B2203#ajax_history_home
Series on the Mouth of Han River by Lee, Si-Woo

http://cafe.naver.com/umania.cafe?iframe_url=/ArticleRead.nhn%3Farticleid=637

http://www.tagstory.com/video/video_post.aspx?media_id=V000076971

http://blog.naver.com/PostView.nhn?blogId=615bum&logNo=60079616240

Text fwd: S. Korea Reconsidering Stealth Fighter Plans

*Image Source/ Description: Same as below
'Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle prototype'

Korea Times
S. Korea Reconsidering Stealth Fighter Plans
Boeing’s F-15 Silent Eagle prototype
By Jung Sung-ki, Staff Reporter, 07-27-2009

The South Korean military is having second thoughts about introducing so-called fifth-generation stealth fighters due to technical and budgetary problems.

Last week, the Weapon Systems Concept Development and Application Research Center at Konkuk University in Seoul submitted its interim report on the feasibility of the KF-X indigenous fighter development project to the Defense Acquisition Program Administration (DAPA).

The agency commissioned a six-month final feasibility study on the KF-X program in April.

The report suggests major changes in required operational capabilities (ROCs) for the KF-X aircraft. In particular, the report says the KF-X jet should be an F-16-class fighter to be developed by foreign aircraft manufacturers.

Initiated in 2001, the KF-X program had originally been aimed at developing and producing by 2020 about 120 fifth-generation fighters stealthier than Dassault's Rafale or the Eurofighter Typhoon, though not as much as Lockheed Martin's F-35 Lightening II.

``The KF-X ROCs have been readjusted to a realistic level after consultations among parties concerned, as developing a full stealth fighter has already been assessed as technically and economically nonviable,'' a procurement official said on condition of anonymity.

The official was referring to an earlier feasibility report in 2007 that concluded that the KF-X project would cost at least $10 billion but could be expected to reap only $3 billion in economic benefits.

``The (Konkuk University) center is discussing ways to develop the KF-X with potential foreign partners, and it will report the outcome of its study to the DAPA and the Ministry of National Defense by the year's end for final approval,'' the official said.

According to the interim report, the KF-X will be an F-16 Block 50 level multi-role fighter jet with an engine thrust of 50,000 pounds. The aircraft would have either one or two engines, but a twin-engine system is preferred, it says.

The indigenous aircraft will be equipped with an active electronically scanned array (AESA) radar, an electronic warfare suite and infrared search-and-track system, and data link systems fit for a network-centric environment, the report states.

The report says the KF-X program now aims to develop and produce 120 aircraft after 2010 in the first phase to replace older F-4s and F-5s and manufacture 130 more after the first phase models reach initial operational capabilities.

In a related move, a chief researcher at the state-funded Korea Institute for Defense Analyses (KIDA) said the nation could delay the purchase of foreign stealth fighters under the F-X multi-phase fighter procurement program.

The F-X aims to buy 120 high-end fighter jets by 2020 in an effort to modernize the Air Force's fighter fleet. Boeing won the previous two deals in 2002 and 2008 to provide a total of 41 F-15Ks.

Seoul officials had said the third phase program, expected to begin by 2012, would focus on obtaining fifth-generation stealth fighters. The Lockheed Martin-built F-35 was referred to as a front-runner for the deal.

``At the request of the MND, a KIDA team began a comprehensive review of the Air Force's operational requirements and the effectiveness of the Air Force's current operational structure of high-, medium- and low-class aircraft,'' the researcher, who leads the feasibility study said, requesting to remain anonymous.

The researcher noted the procurement of the F-35 would be a key topic.

``South Korea, for sure, should purchase and operate stealth fighters as the radar-evading aircraft are expected to dominate the skies in the coming years. But as far as the timing is concerned, we need to think more and make a wise decision,'' he said.

Adopting early versions of the F-35 could cause operational risks, he said, so that Seoul should delay buying the aircraft by 2020 when its performances will be proved and upgraded.

He suggested introducing more ``4.5-generation'' fighters, such as Boeing's F-15 Silent Eagle, before the procurement of stealth-fighters could be an option to fill the Air Force's possible operational gap.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr

Text Fwd: Korea to Spend W10 Billion on Robot Project

Korea Times
07-27-2009 18:03
Korea to Spend W10 Billion on Robot Project
By Kim Tong-hyung
Staff Reporter

South Korea plans to spend 10 billion won (about $8 million) next year to develop technologies for advanced medical and surveillance robots, the Ministry of Knowledge Economy said Monday.

Curexo and Samsung Techwin will be on the receiving end of the government research and development (R&D) fund that is intended to help the companies gain stronger positions in the growing global market for robots and also reap the benefits of homegrown intellectual property.

Curexo will get 4 billion won and work with Samsung Medical Center to develop a medical robot that specializes in artificial joint surgery, while Samsung Techwin plans to team up with the state-run Korea National Oil Corp (KNOC) to build a robot that can guard important facilities against intruders and protect property from damage. The surveillance robot project will get 6 billion won from state funds.

The local market for robots able to conduct human joint surgery stood at 92 billion won as of last year, up more than 50 percent from the previous year, according to the ministry. Because the country does not make such machines, all local demand is met by imports.

``Surgical and observation robotics have good market potential and the government is willing to provide additional support to facilitate follow-up investment by local companies and to help fuel exports," said Vice Knowledge Economy Minister Rim Che-min.

The global market for medical robots, which came to $2.88 billion in 2008, is expected to top $7.34 billion in 2013, the ministry said. It has grown by an average of 20 percent every year.

The worldwide market for upper-end observation robots also has considerable growth potential, with industry sources predicting that the global market will grow 38.6 percent from 2008 to $13.3 billion in 2012.

Such robots can be used to protect facilities such as oil bunkers and production systems. They cost less to maintain than hiring security guards and can be programmed to conduct security operations without rest.

As part of its efforts to meet growing demand for such robots in oil-rich countries, Samsung plans to set up an observation system at an oil bunker operated by KNOC, which can be used as a testbed to check the capabilities of surveillance robots.

thkim@koreatimes.co.kr

Koreans Memorize the 56th Anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement

* Image Source
1. Koh, Sung-Jin, Tongil News
2.~ 10. No Base Stories of Korea

Koreans memorize the 56th Anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement:
Rally Is Done Despite Police Interruption

On July 26, 2009, despite the heavy police blockade, the rally for the 56th Anniversary of the Korean War Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953 was done by the staunch activists in the center of Seoul. The activists included the Solidarity for Peaceful Reunification of Korea, Korean Alliance for Progressive Movement, Pan-Korean Alliance for Reunification, South Korea bracnch, and the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions. Long time ex-prisoners under the National Security Law and the Families of the conscience prisoners were also present there empowering the protest as they have always been too.

At the beginning, the police tried to prohibit the use of the broadcasting car and the rally near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul. The activists blocked the police interruption with their own bodies and demanded the police to keep the law. The activists protested the police that if the police blocked the legally permitted rally, they would indict the police under the charge of violating law. The police finally withdrew.

As the rally was done as intended, the activists claimed, Revive June 15; Withdraw PSI; Stop the UFG War Drill; Stop the Sanction against the NK; Restore the US-NK Relationship; and the Peace Agreement. The June 15 Joint declaration between the two Koreas has been blocked under the current Lee Myung Bak (2MB) regime. There were many university students as well and a group of them celebrated the rally with their dance.

There was a heavy rain after the rally. But people still enjoyed the meal outside while their cloth totally wet.

* Related Korean articles

Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea

http://www.spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news&action=viewForm&uid=2265&page=1

http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_conews&action=viewForm&uid=6572

Tongil News
정전협정 56돌, 곳곳서 '평화' 목소리 잇달아
시민사회, 한.미 양국에 대북 적대정책 폐기 촉구
2009년 07월 26일 (일) 20:17:27 고성진 기자
56th Korean War Armistice Agreement, Voices of “Peace” Everywhere:
Civil Society Urges the Both Authorities of the U.S. A. and the South Korea to Abandon the Hostile Policy Against the North Korea
July 26, 2009, Sunday, by Koh, Sung-Jin, kolong81@tongilnews.com

A Jailed Unification Activist on the PSI

Below is the excerpt and unofficial translation from the six page writing by one of the jailed activists, the PKAR,. The writing was done before one's arrest on May 7 and there could be changes.


1. What is the PSI (Proliferation Security Initiative)?

PSI was first suggested by the President Bush on May, 2003, officialized at the first meeting in June, 2003.

: Lying on the series of so called “war on terror”, in ‘deterring the weapons of mass destruction”, the PSI brings forward the ‘interception’ as an important method, containing the aggressive military activities, when ‘the suspicion of moving is lodged’. It has the character of ‘preemptive’ to ‘intercept the dangers in advance’.


#The purpose and Role of the PSI:

“ … interdicts the trade of the illegal weapons and related missile technologies”, and for it, search the airplanes and ships suspected to load the those materials”(May 31, 2003, President Bush)

_Role of the PSI: The information exchange and training is the basic. And it does not stop at executing the interdiction of the ships, airplanes, & vehicles (June 2003, Spain, 1st meeting) . Further it prohibits the serving for the trades of the related materials by the “ facilitators of the weapons of mass destruction’, including individuals, companies and groups ( March 2004, Portugal, 5th meeting)


#Position

* PSI is neither the international treaty nor the permantive institute but the ‘Association based on the participating will’.
* The nations with the participating will’ can only sign to the activity rules agreed with at the 3rd meeting or cooperation.


#Current situation

* Currently, the participating nations are total 94. However, China, Pakistan, India, Indonesia are not participating.

In the beginning, the nations who signed at the ‘activity rules’ (U.S.A., UK, France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Japan, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Spain, Canada, Philippines, Russia) and the nations of the cooperation were separated. But since August, 2005, the separation was abolished and all the nations were called as the participating nations.

* There have been 36 times of the multinational joint military training of the PSI, in which the military interception was the basic content.

[..]



6. How the PSI affect the Korean peninsula?

# The PSI is only the opinionated agreement body violating the international law and is problematic in the sense that it brings forward the serious military interception that the international law prohibits.

# Last December 29, 2005, the South Korea decided the limited participation in the PSI. At the time, it decided to participate in the five cooperation clauses among the total eight clauses the USA requested. They are: 1. Including the interception training of the WMD in the US-SK joint military training, 2. Auditing the briefings on the whole activities of the PSI, 3. Visiting and observing the regional interception trainings, 4. Visiting and observing the interception trainings beyond the regional. The three clauses of, 1. Official participation in the PSI, 2. Material support in the regional interception trainings 3. . Material support in the interception trainings beyond the regional, were decided not to participate.

# The SK’s whole participation [after the satellite launch by the NK on April 25] means it makes possible the realization of the military interception in the water area of the Korean peninsula. The Bush administration was not only considering the ways of intercepting ships in the open sea but in the very outside of the seas of the North Korea ( It is on the premise that the South Korea and Japan participate in the PSI) . This measure is, in fact, the declaration of war by the international law, and the trial of the sea blockade strictly prohibited by the Korean war armistice agreement.

# It is nothing but the provocation of the entire war that the SK does the military interception and sea blockade [of the NK ships] as the inter-Korean relationship between the NK and SK has been aggravated.

# The North Korea has already said in 2003 that ‘ in case’ of ‘ blockade of sea and air’, it “ would consider it as the armistice agreement was violated and would immediately retaliate powerfully and mercilessly upon the intrusion of its sovereignty ( NK representative speech at the Panmunjeom representative committee, July 1, 2003). The NK has also recently said of the SK’s participation in the PSI meant “ It is the very declaration of war against us, and we announce that we would immediately have the resolute counter measure against it”.


* When the United States has frozen the bank account of the North Korea , in the Banco Delta Asia(BDA), Macao, 2005, the official cause was the counterfeit money issue but it has become known that its real cause was to follow the PSI initiative in which it blocks the fund resource of the rogue states.


* The ‘Kangnam NO. 1’ , the first NK ship that was pointed out as the first ship against the PSI has proven to be an empty cargo ship.

* The US has voluntarily returned back the frozen NK fund to the NK via the Federal central bank, according to the result of the US-NK dialogue that was in full-swing after the NK nuclear test in last 2006. To speak, the US settled the issue by the government guaranteeing the fund that had been claimed as the illegal fund by herself. This shows the application and dissolution of the PSI is according to the political judgement of the USA.


* Related Korean article
http://tongil-i.net/2006/bbs/bbs/tb.php/data3/361
made by the PKAR, Kyungin Branch, April 15, 2009

Text fwd: The big lie of Afghanistan

* Informed by Agneta Noberg

Gurdian
The big lie of Afghanistan

Inquiries into the 954 deaths in police custody since 1990 have all proved fruitless-- and then this historic case comes along

Malalai Joya
The Guardian
25 July 2009

In 2005, I was the youngest person elected to the new Afghan parliament. Women like me, running for office, were held up as an example of how the war in Afghanistan had liberated women. But this democracy was a facade, and the so-called liberation a big lie.

On behalf of the long-suffering people of my country, I offer my heartfelt condolences to all in the UK who have lost their loved ones on the soil of Afghanistan. We share the grief of the mothers, fathers, wives, sons and daughters of the fallen. It is my view that these British casualties, like the many thousands of Afghan civilian dead, are victims of the unjust policies that the Nato countries have pursued under the leadership of the US government.

Almost eight years after the Taliban regime was toppled, our hopes for a truly democratic and independent Afghanistan have been betrayed by the continued domination of fundamentalists and by a brutal occupation that ultimately serves only American strategic interests in the region.

You must understand that the government headed by Hamid Karzai is full of warlords and extremists who are brothers in creed of the Taliban. Many of these men committed terrible crimes against the Afghan people during the civil war of the 1990s.

For expressing my views I have been expelled from my seat in parliament, and I have survived numerous assassination attempts. The fact that I was kicked out of office while brutal warlords enjoyed immunity from prosecution for their crimes should tell you all you need to know about the "democracy" backed by Nato troops.

In the constitution it forbids those guilty of war crimes from running for high office. Yet Karzai has named two notorious warlords, Fahim and Khalili, as his running mates for the upcoming presidential election. Under the shadow of warlordism, corruption and occupation, this vote will have no legitimacy, and once again it seems the real choice will be made behind closed doors in the White House. As we say in Afghanistan, "the same donkey with a new saddle".

So far, Obama has pursued the same policy as Bush in Afghanistan. Sending more troops and expanding the war into Pakistan will only add fuel to the fire. Like many other Afghans, I risked my life during the dark years of Taliban rule to teach at underground schools for girls. Today the situation of women is as bad as ever.

Victims of abuse and rape find no justice because the judiciary is dominated by fundamentalists. A growing number of women, seeing no way out of the suffering in their lives, have taken to suicide by self-immolation.

This week, US vice-president Joe Biden asserted that "more loss of life [is] inevitable" in Afghanistan, and that the ongoing occupation is in the "national interests" of both the US and the UK.

I have a different message to the people of Britain. I don't believe it is in your interests to see more young people sent off to war, and to have more of your taxpayers' money going to fund an occupation that keeps a gang of corrupt warlords and drug lords in power in Kabul.

What's more, I don't believe it is inevitable that this bloodshed continues forever. Some say that if foreign troops leave Afghanistan will descend into civil war. But what about the civil war and catastrophe of today? The longer this occupation continues, the worse the civil war will be.

The Afghan people want peace, and history teaches that we always reject occupation and foreign domination. We want a helping hand through international solidarity, but we know that values like human rights must be fought for and won by Afghans themselves.

I know there are millions of British people who want to see an end to this conflict as soon as possible. Together we can raise our voice for peace and justice.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jul/25/afghanistan-occupation-taliban-warlords

- - - - -


_________________________