Text Fwd: WBAI sunday @ 6: NORTH KOREA'S BOMB & THE ROAD TO PEACE

* Fwd by Hyun Lee, siddharta5, siddharta2 on May 16, 2010

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: FAN
Date: Sun, May 16
Subject: WBAISN@6: NORTH KOREA'S BOMB & THE ROAD TO PEACE
To: siddharta2


WBAI SUNDAY SUNDAY NEWS SEGMENT: 5/15/2010 6 PM, WBAI 99.5 FM, WBAI.ORG
EVENT: NORTH KOREA'S BOMB & THE ROAD TO PEACE, BRECHT FORUM, MAY 12, 2010
DISCUSSION SPONSORED BY NODUTDOL FOR KOREAN COMMUNITY
BY: FRED NGUYEN
DURATION: 2 MIN 46 SEC

AUDIO: http://www.radio4all.net/index.php/program/42763

PROPOSED LEDE:
SIXTY YEARS AGO, ON JUNE 25, 1950, WAR BROKE OUT IN KOREA.
THE UNITED STATES, CHINA, THE SOVIET UNION AND THE UNITED
NATIONS SOON THREW THEIR MILITARY WEIGHT INTO THE CONFLICT
BETWEEN THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH, AND, BEFORE AN
ARMISTICE WAS SIGNED THREE YEARS LATER, MILLIONS HAD DIED
AND A NUCLEAR HOLOCAUST HAD NARROWLY BEEN AVERTED.
THIS PAST WEDNESDAY, AS 189 NATIONS ARE ATTENDING A UNITED
NATIONS REVIEW CONFERENCE ON THE NUCLEAR NON PROLIFERATION
TREATY, NODUTDOL FOR KOREAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ORGANIZED
A DISCUSSION AT THE BRECHT FORUM IN MANHATTAN ON "NORTH
KOREA'S BOMB AND THE ROAD TO PEACE".
WBAI FRED NGUYEN WAS THERE AND FILED THIS REPORT:

Photos Fwd: “Non-Nuclear & Peace, Our Voice to New York!”

* Image source: Cho Jung-Hoon, Tongil News, May 11, Tuesday, 2010

'The United States holds 9,713 nuclear weapons
Deployment amount in the operational area + storage retention amount =5,113
Dismantlement planned nuclear weapon=4,600
[United States Scientists League]

‘Nuclear-Free World’
United States first, Step forward to abolish the nuclear weapons!

* Image source: Cho Jung-Hoon, Tongil News, May 11, Tuesday, 2010

'Conclusion of the peace agreement is the shortcut to nuclear-free Korean peninsula !!'

'Simultaneously hold the non-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the peace agreement!'

'The guide for the ROK-US Defense Guideline is to aim at the permanent ROK-US Alliance!'


* Image source: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea, May 11, 2010

Obama says~, “For Nuclear-Free World!”

BUT inside his brain:

‘Increment on the MD & traditional war power!’
‘Four times increment on the nuclear weapon production ability!’
‘Preemptive strike against the North Korea and Iran!’
‘Israel and India nuclear weapons are O.K.!’

* Image source: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea, May 11, 2010

Obama says~, “For Nuclear-Free World!”

IF he changes himself:

“Yes. I decided!
“Me First, Dismantle of Nuclear Weapon!!”
“U.S. First!”


Civil organizations including the Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea, encouraging the NGO delegates who participated in the NPT evaluation meeting, shouted for the nuclear-free peace world in front of the United States embassy, at 12pm, during the day of May 11th. The event was upon the 128th Self-Reliance Unification Peace Action.

Text Fwd: Obama’s inconsistency? There’s nothing but negotiation

Peace Network
Obama’s inconsistency? There’s nothing but negotiation

2010. 04. 23

Written by Wook-sik Cheong
Translated by intern En-hye Lee and volunteer Michael Glendinning

Obama administration is taking three contradictory approaches to relations with North Korea over the issue of nuclear weapons. First of all, Obama is not admitting nuclear weapons even though North Korea possesses them. Secondly, Obama administration’s determination to oversee the “complete implementation” of the 9.19 Joint Statement from the six-party talks changed direction during the 2010 Nuclear Posture Review (NPR). Thirdly, Obama administration is consistent with negative and indirect diplomacy despite it having declared undertaking ‘tough and direct dialogues’ with North Korea.

The Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton, stated that North Korea has somewhere between one and six nuclear weapons. This statement brought about a strong presumption that the US acknowledged North Korea as a state possessing nuclear weapons. Especially, there has been a huge doubt whether the US has come up with a new revised goal which attempts to block the transfer of the North Korea’s nuclear materials and technology to other nations or terrorist groups, concluding that North Korea’s denuclearization is impossible.

Gary Samore, White House Coordinator for Arms control and Weapons of Mass Destruction, played down the presumptions claiming that the US cannot acknowledge North Korea as a nuclear weapons state and that the US policy is absolute in its support of complete denuclearization in the Korean peninsula.

It is understandable that the US has inconsistent views about the issues. North Korea has a multitude of plutonium which can lead to the production of nuclear weapons. Moreover, the North has undertaken two nuclear tests. So North Korea, at least ‘technically’, can be classified as a nuclear state. However, the US is taking a clear stance that North Korea cannot be described as a nuclear state because ‘political and diplomatic’ acknowledgment directly violates the US’s nonproliferation policy.

The problem is that if the inconsistency between technological and political acknowledgement of North Korea’s possessing nuclear warheads cannot be resolved at once, the contradictory nature of Obama’s North Korean policy will only intensify the situation and the suspicions will expand whether the US, which thinks it is impossible to settle North Korea’s nuclear issue, is only focusing on the blocking of nuclear transfer.

Preemptive attacks on North Korea or Strategic Obscurity?

The Obama administration declared that the United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons sates that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty (NPT) and which are in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations. According to this standard, North Korea which conducted two nuclear tests and Iran, which is well known as a state that violated NPT, remained as possible targets of the US nuclear preemptive attack. The US government has confirmed this declaration several times.

The problem is that this kind of US position could be seen as a violation of the 9.19 Joint Statement decided upon during six-party talks. This agreement states that “The United States affirmed that it has no nuclear weapons on the Korean Peninsula and has no intention to attack or invade the DPRK with nuclear or conventional weapons.” However, 9.19 Joint Statement was agreed during the period when North Korea withdrew from NPT and declared that they were in possession of nuclear weapons.

Regarding this, there could be a counterargument which supports the fact that North Korea has to be excluded from the provision of negative security assurance since the North has undertaken two nuclear tests. But if the US maintains the key option of nuclear preemptive attack, this does not accord with the current US policy towards the North as the US does not currently acknowledge North Korea as a nuclear state.

When it comes to North Korea’s previous nuclear tests, it is understandable that Obama administration’s position towards North Korea is trying to create an exception from negative security assurance. However, it would have been better to take strategic ambiguity instead of mentioning the possibility of a nuclear preemptive attack on the North. In other words, Obama should have stayed at the level of pushing North Korea towards discarding nuclear weapons at the earliest possible moment and return to NPT while simultaneously clarifying the basic position of negative security assurance.

Obama administration believes that making it clear about the possibility of a nuclear preemptive attack will be an incentive for North Korea to abandon the nuclear program. However, with North Korea’s denouncement of Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), this brings about an adverse effect for North Korea to come up with modernization of nuclear weapons and the declaration of nuclear state.

Retracing Bush’s failed diplomacy?

These two contradictions stem from the renouncement of Obama’s “tough and direct dialogue”. In regards to North Korea’s request to have bilateral talks with the US, Obama administration keeps repeating “it is possible only within the framework of six-party talks”. It is obvious that this is just the same as the Bush administration’s tiresome and repetitive statement used up until 2006.

Bush administration stoutly refused to participate in the bilateral talks with the North up until 2006. The two countries finally met for talks in 2007. The six-party talks made great progress towards the denuclearization of North Korea. This means that direct talks with the North are not the partial parts of the six-party talks but the crucial part that has to go together with the six-party talks. Obama administration once firmly criticized Bush administration’s foreign policy and pursued to have dialogues with hostile nations without any preconditions, however, it turned back to Bush administration’s ‘failed diplomacy’.

Moreover, the US has recently delayed the resumption of six-party talks because of the ongoing investigation which is still putting a lot of effort into finding out the truth. The US related this incident to the six-party talks even though it is uncertain whether the Korean attack was caused by North Korea. In light of this, it is somewhat disappointing that Obama administration’s foremost goal in foreign policy in the area which is to achieve denuclearization on the Korean peninsula through six-party talks turned out to be nothing.

Due largely to tragic incident, Obama believes that the two countries cannot participate in the bilateral talks and six-party talks right away. This issue should be discussed once this incident is resolved. So far in this situation, there is a lot of thought that this Cheonan ship sinking incident remains to be a permanent mystery. Relating this incident to six-party talks will debilitate the dialogue. The key lesson we can learn from the North Korean nuclear issue, which lasted for about 20 years, is that if we get far away from any dialogue, North Korea’s nuclear potential is more likely to become a reality. Furthermore, the US’s contradictory position will become even further entrenched.

The way to resolve the multiple contradictions is entirely up to Obama. He has to start over and go back to his original plans for US foreign policy. We need to keep in mind that bilateral talks and six-party talks have to get together and also work together instead of confining bilateral talks to six-party talks. This was also the Obama’s promise during his presidential campaign. Furthermore, we need to get rid of self-satisfactory and unilateral ways of thinking in order to demolish North Korea with sanctions and pressures and we should be open-minded to understand North Korea’s demands. It is my understanding that it is a must to prevent the ‘Korean Armageddon’ when we are faced with the North’s modernization of nuclear weapons and a possible US nuclear preemptive attack.

Text Fwd: REPORT ON [Global Network] NEW YORK MEETINGS

Bruce Gagnon blog
Monday, May 10, 2010
REPORT ON NEW YORK MEETINGS

I am at Penn Station in New York City waiting for my train back north. I will get off in Southern Maine and stay the night with Herb Hoffman who will then drive us both to Boston on Tuesday morning for an exciting meeting of key leaders from many progressive movements in the greater Boston area. The idea of the meeting will be to explore how we might build more unified movements during this time of corporate domination of U.S. and global politics.

Right now though I want to post a few notes from the two meetings I attended during this past weekend here in NYC.

On Saturday I went to the Abolition 2000 annual general meeting. Nearly 100 people were there from around the world. These folks are attending the UN''s Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) meetings that will last nearly the entire month of May.

There are serious questions about what the NPT meetings will come up with. The nuclear powers (led by the U.S.) want to hang onto their nuclear weapons but don't want countries like North Korea or Iran to have them. This brand of double-standard does not create the climate for serious negotiations. At the same time the U.S. is pushing the use of nuclear power for energy production to countries like India who are also building more nuclear weapons - with U.S. help.

During this meeting I was given five minutes to update folks on the work of the Global Network and I made the case that as long as the U.S. is pushing so-called "missile defense," and new Prompt Global Strike weapons, then countries like Russia and China (and others) are not likely to be willing to dramatically reduce their nuclear forces.

The Abolition 2000 (A2000) network is very diverse with many different agendas and strategies represented. But fundamentally everyone wants to get rid of nuclear weapons. My observation though is that despite their great work to bring about nuclear disarmament, many A2000 groups are so fixed on their deep concern about nukes that they are not able to recognize the wider forces that are having direct impact on their hopes for abolition. Without these key linkages - to "missile offense" and new space technologies - then their work will be severely hampered.

One issue that came up (and one that I need to write more about here) is the competition between Russia and the U.S. (and its NATO allies) over control of the Arctic region as global warming makes it possible to explore that region for oil. A call was made at the A2000 meeting for a nuclear-free Arctic campaign.

On Sunday we had the annual membership meeting of the Global Network at the Church Center which is just across the street from the U.N. About 50 people attended throughout the day.

We spent considerable time talking about the theme for our 2010 Keep Space for Peace Week (October 2-9). Last year's theme (and poster) was on the use of drones and people felt it was a great success in communicating the links between Unmanned Aerial Vehicles (UAV's) and the larger space technology issue. We came up with a good list of possible ideas for the 2010 theme that included:

• Obama's new "missile offense" deployment plan of Patriot (PAC-3) and Aegis destroyer based (SM-3) interceptors in Poland, Bulgaria, Romania, Taiwan, Japan, Australia, and South Korea that are being used to surround Russia and China.

• NATO expansion into a global military offensive alliance under U.S. control

• Prompt Global Strike systems (to give the U.S. the ability to hit targets on the other side of the world in first-strike attack in less than one hour.)

• No U.S. bases worldwide

• Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space (PAROS) Treaty at the U.N.

• Alternatives to endless war (conversion of the military industrial complex) and creation of green jobs by cutting military spending.

• Global warming

This was a great brainstorming session and the list above is all important and timely. It was ultimately decided that we would center our space week theme around the first item of U.S. "missile offense" deployments to surround Russia and China. The other items will be extensively featured in our next newsletter and in on-going work of the Global Network.

We had a partial showing of the new documentary film Pax Americana and the Weaponization of Space. You can see the film's web site here. The filmmaker, Denis Delestrac, came from Barcelona, Spain to be with us for the meeting and answered the many questions about the film and the distribution plan.

Pax Americana is now showing throughout Europe (already seen by 3 million people) and Canada. But sadly Delestrac has yet to be able to get the film into any film festivals in the U.S. (even though it won Best Documentary award at a festival in Vancouver) nor has he been able to find a U.S. theatre distribution deal.

We talked extensively about using the film during our October 2-9 Keep Space for Peace Week and Delestrac promised to find a way to have it available for us in DVD form by then. His problem is that it cost him one million dollars to make this fine film and he must first try to recoup some of those funds through theatrical showings. People loved the film (they wanted to see the whole thing but time did not allow it) and they loved Delestrac as well.

Other important items for discussion at the meeting included:


• U.S. efforts to draw India into the space warfare program as a way to further encircle China.

• Pentagon efforts to expand the use of 'cyber warfare" to gain space domination and control.

• Beginning to talk about a "moratorium" on science as they are now out of control and the people of the world cannot keep up with new technological developments in areas like nano-technology and robotics.

• U.S. militarization of the Asian-Pacific region, particularly the deployments of "missile offense" in South Korea and Japan and expansion of U.S. bases in that region.

• Obama's recent announcement of Mars missions that will use nuclear power. (Journalist Karl Grossman was at the meeting and reminded us that NASA is also calling for nuclear power to be used in "near Earth commercial missions.")

The Global Network will hold its 18th annual space organizing conference in Nagpur, India on October 9-12. Many of our key leaders will be attending as we recognize the urgency to expand organizing on the Indian continent if we hope to stop the U.S. effort to spread a new space arms race to that part of the world. Please let us know if you are interested in joining with us in India.

____________________________________________________________

* You may want to see the below as well.

Bruce Gagnon's Annual Global Network Report


Posing with striking tugboat workers in Busan, South Korea last year

Text Fwd: U.S. Military Strategy on the Korean Peninsula and Missile Defense in Northeast Asia (2010.5.9)

* Image source: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea

________________________________________________________________
* Thanks, Bruce Gagnon. See the blog.

TRANSCRIPT OF SPEECH AT GN MEETING IN NEW YORK
________________________________________________________________

* Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea

U.S. Military Strategy on the Korean Peninsula and Missile Defense in Northeast Asia

Ko Young Dae/SPARK (KOREA)


1. U.S. Military Strategy on the Korean Peninsula

In the 2010 U.S. Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), the Obama administration named North Korea along with Iran as a potential target for nuclear preemptive attack, making the Korean peninsula, as it was during the Bush administration, one of the most dangerous regions in the world. This is a violation of the “Agreed Framework between the DPRK and the United States” (October 1994) in which the United States pledged negative security assurance for North Korea, as well as the “Joint Statement” of the fourth Six Party Talks (September 2005). In response to the Obama administration’s new NPR, North Korea declared, “As long as the nuclear threat against us persists, we will continue to develop various nuclear weapons as deterrence and seek to modernize our nuclear weapons.”

Based on the NPR, the US Strategic Command (STRATCOM) takes command of U.S. nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula. Following “CONPLAN 8022” and “OPLAN 8044,” the US STRATCOM designed a new “OPLAN 8010” based on the “New Triad” concept. “OPLAN 8010” uses both high-tech conventional and nuclear war capabilities, including various strategic attacks against North Korea, such as pinpoint attack, bombing of underground military facilities, and cyber wars to paralyze missile and anti-aircraft defense networks. The US STRATCOM’s nuclear war plan on the Korean Peninsula also includes “CONPLAN 8099” in which the Center for Combating WMD takes command. The primary aim of “CONPLAN 8099” is to occupy North Korean nuclear facilities and seize its nuclear weapons. The Center for Combating WMD is the command that leads the Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI) against North Korea.

The United States also has plans to carry out a war on the Korean Peninsula by executing “OPLAN 5027,” 5026, 5028, 5029, 5030, which are all under the command of the US Pacific Command, the ROK-US Combined Forces Command (CFC), and United Nations Command (UNC). “OPLAN 5027” was developed in 1974 to prepare for nuclear war and “OPLAN 5027-98” adopted the strategy of preemptive strike for the first time. “OPLAN 5027-04” includes the construction of Missile Defense and “OPLAN 5027-06” outlines the strategy of preemptive strike against North Korea’s nuclear and missile facilities.

In anticipation of the transfer of wartime operational control from the United States to South Korea, the two states are currently developing “OPLAN 5012” in place of “OPLAN 5027.” “OPLAN 5012” is a much more offensive plan for nuclear war. “CONPLAN 5029,” which faced opposition from the former Korean government, has now been elevated to an OPLAN. “OPLAN 5029” envisions a military intervention in North Korea in times of internal turmoil, including a natural disaster; such an outrageous plan is in violation of international law. The main goal of “OPLAN 5029” lies in the U.S. desire to seize North Korea’s nuclear facilities and materials for itself, as opposed to by South Korea. “OPLAN 5026” was initiated in December 2002 and completed in July 2003. Its main goal is to execute pinpoint attacks on approximately 700 North Korean targets including nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons facilities, and command and control facilities. In this way, “OPLAN 5026” and “OPLAN 5029” under the command of the US Pacific Command and the Combined Forces Command, are designed to complement “OPLAN 8010” of the US STRATCOM.

2. The US MD in Northeast Asia

1) The US MD system in the Pacific Ocean

The MD system that the United States deploys in the Pacific Ocean is aimed at China’s MD and North Korea’s missile system. The Early Warning Radar system which includes the DSP satellite, SBIRS satellite, Cobra Dane Early Warning Radar, SBX (Sea-based X-band) Radar, Aegis BMD Radar, FBX, etc, centers on detecting and tracking long-range missiles or ICBMs aimed at the main land of the United States. In June 2009, to prepare for the event of a long range missile launch from North Korea, the United States ordered the forward deployment of the SBX Radar and the THAAD (Theater High Altitude Air Defense) system in the vicinity of Hawaii. The US Pacific Command also ordered the forward deployment of the Aegis ship, equipped with Standard Missile 3 (SM-3).

2) Japan’s MD system

The United States regards Japan as its most significant international BMD partner. Japan’s MD system is part of the US MD system. Japan’s MD system is being constructed through technical and operative cooperation with the United States. Japan has deployed the US FBX(Forward-based X band) Radar, and has interfaced its 28 ground radar networks with U.S. spy satellites. The principal weapons systems of Japan’s MD are the Aegis BMD system and the PAC-3 system. In January 2008, Japan operationally deployed SM-3 block IA, capable of intercepting long-range missiles. Currently Japan is developing SM-3 block IIA, capable of intercepting ICBMs, and scheduled to debut in 2015. Reversing its previous policy of non-deployment of THAAD, Japan intends to introduce THAAD as a higher tier defense system than a PAC-3. Japan has also deployed its self-developed FPS-XX (L Band) Radar. The FPS-XX Radar is known to have succeeded in detecting and tracking Russian long-range missiles launched from the Sea of Okhotsk

3) South Korea’s MD system

In its 2010 Ballistic Missile Defense Review (BMDR), the United States named South Korea an “important partner.” The BMDR also stated that the United States has been working together with South Korea to “define possible future BMD requirements.” In other words, the United States takes for granted South Korea’s participation in the US MD system. Although the Lee Myung Bak government initially refused to participate in the US MD system, now it has changed its position. This reverses the position maintained by the former Kim Dae Jung and Roh Moo Hyun administrations, which opposed South Korea’s participation in the US MD system for reasons related to South Korea’s technical, financial, and diplomatic relations with Russia and China. The current South Korean government is in the midst of constructing the so-called “South Korean-style MD System” based on PAC-2 Lower Tier Defense and the SM-2 Aegis system.

Further, the South Korean government plans to upgrade PAC-2 to the level of PAC-3 and SM-2 to SM-6, construct K-THAAD by improving Cheolmae-2, construct Early Warning System by importing Green Pine Block-B (whose detection range is 500 km) and AWACS, construct AMD Cell, and thus complete the construction of the so-called South Korean-style MD system. But it is evident that the South Korean-style MD system will be incorporated into and subordinate under the US MD system.

With the planned transfer of wartime operational control from the United States to South Korea, South Korea and the United States plan to interface both of their Armed Force’s C4I through the “Allied Korea Joint Command Control System (AKJCCS)” and integrate and operate both ROK and US Armed Force’s Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Cell. This means that the US MD system and its operations will be at the center of the MD system on the Korean Peninsula.

Through the interface of both ROK and U.S. Armed Forces’ C4I, USAFK’s Theater Missile Defense Warning System (TMDWS) will provide the ROK MD system with a range of information, such as TMD’s launching position, launched missile, track, estimated drop area, drop time, etc., which is essential to the operation of the ROK MD. The Joint Tactical Ground Station (JTAGS) of the USFK provides accurate data about DPRK’s ICBMs.
That both South Korea and the United States incorporate and operate Air and Missile Defense (AMD) Cell means that the ROK MD will interface with the US 14th Air Force’s Joint Space Operation Center (JSPOC). In lieu of US STRACOM, the US 14th Air Force will plan and execute the US Air Force’s space operations. In such a scenario, the South Korean MD’s interface with the US 14th Air Force’s JSPOC means that it will be fully subordinate to the US MD system (DSP, SBIRS, Early Warning Radar, etc). In other words, the South Korean MD will become nothing but one part of the US MD.

For instance, if the South Korean MD intends to defend against an intermediate-range missile from China or Russia, it will need to depend on the US MD system, especially for its early warning system.

3. US MD in Northeast Asia Increases the Possibility of Nuclear War in Northeast Asia

Part of the New Triad axis, MD is a means of preemptive nuclear strike. The United States sees MD as part of its extended deterrence. China is the only nation among the nuclear weapons states that has officially declared adoption of NSA and No First Use (NFU) policies. Due to its concern regarding the US construction of MD, China opposes the start of the Fissile Material Cut-Off Treaty (FMCT). If the United States strengthens its MD in the Northeast Asian region in order to debilitate China’s nuclear capability, it may encourage China to abandon its NSA and NFU policies and engage in a nuclear arms race.

North Korea has declared that it is willing to give up its nuclear programs and facilities, and even its nuclear weapons. North Korea takes a fundamentally different position from that of other nuclear weapons states. If the preconditions that North Korea outlined are met– namely a Peace Treaty, and the abolishment of the ROK-US alliance and the US nuclear umbrella in South Korea - North Korea’s nuclear weapons can be abolished. But if the US’ MD, with its doctrine of preemptive strike, is aimed at incapacitating North Korea’s missile capability, North Korea will turn to increase its reliance on nuclear weapons, resulting in North Korea’s continued strengthening of its nuclear power and eventually leading to a domino phenomenon of more states going nuclear in Northeast Asia.

The U.S. construction of MD increases the possibility of nuclear first strike and all-out nuclear war and radically shatters international security and prosperity. Let us not forget that the Northeast Asian region includes Japan, which the United States attacked with nuclear weapons not too long ago, North Korea, the Taiwan Strait, and Vietnam, which in the past the United States threatened with nuclear attack. It is only when the US MD system is abolished that we can prevent this world from nuclear preemptive strikes and nuclear war, and the Pacific Ocean can become true to its name.

Text Fw: Truth about the N. Korean nuclear issue and the key to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula (2010.5.5 NPT side event)

____________________________________________________________

For more on the useful documents regarding the NPT of the SPARK, go to HERE

___________________________________________________________________________
Email sent from Hyun Lee, Nodutdol on May 6, 2010

"you can download the radio interview at-

http://archive.wbai.org/

scroll down to look for "asia pacific forum" - tuesday may 4

the interview starts at around the 23rd minute of the program"

___________________________________________________________________________

* Image source: same as the below link


* Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea


Truth about the N. Korean nuclear issue and the key to the denuclearization

of the Korean Peninsula


1. The reality of the US nuclear war threat against the DPRK

(1) The establishment of ROK-US alliance: the beginning of the US attack threat towards the DPRK

The Korean War that began in 1950 came to a conclusion with the Korean War Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953. However, according to international law, the Agreement only meant a temporary cease fire and as such it did not end the war. Thus, Article IV 60 in the Agreement stated that a political conference should be held to discuss “the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea, the peaceful settlement of the Korean question, etc.” But, on August 8, 1953, the US and the ROK signed a Mutual Defense Treaty and established alliance relationship. The Mutual Defense Treaty is an act of violating Article II 13, 3 and 4 that prohibits the increase of military personnel and equipment in Korea from outside and Article II 12 that prescribes the complete cessation of all hostilities in Korea. Thus, the Mutual Defense Treaty is a breach of the purpose of the Korean War Armistice Agreement for the peaceful settlement of the Korean question.

(2) The US nuclear weapons deployment in the Korean Peninsula and its nuclear war threat against the DPRK

a. The US nuclear war threat against the DPRK

During the Korean War the US twice warned of its use of nuclear weapons. On June 21, 1957, the US declared one-sidedly the abolition of Article II 13, 4 and launched its tactic nuclear weapons in the ROK. The US, from 1976 to 1994, practices the Teamspirit exercise that was the largest scale nuclear attack exercise against the DPRK. Such exercise has continued with different names. While the US withdrew tactic nuclear weapons from the ROK in 1991, it has maintained the so-called “extended nuclear deterrence” (nuclear umbrella). From January to June in 1998, the US operated nuclear weapons drop exercises. The Bush government designated the DPRK as a target for first nuclear strike in the US Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) of 2002 and strived to develop nuclear bombs to destroy the DPRK underground nuclear facilities. The US military station in Pyongtaik which will have the US “KORCOM” is being built for protection from the DPRK nuclear attacks in the case of nuclear war on the Korean Peninsula.

b. The US operation plans to attack the DPRK

The US designed Operation Plan 5027 with a view to occupy Pyongyang. The OPLAN 5027-98 includes a preemptive strike plan against the DPRK. In 2002 the ROK Defense Minister and the US Secretary of Defense agreed to the strategic planning guidance manifesting that OPLAN 5027 purports to destroy the DPRK military army, overthrow the DPRK regime, and promote conditions for the reunification of Korea. In preparation for the US’s returning wartime operation control authority to the ROK, the US has been working on “New Combined Operation Plan 5012” which will integrate the existing OPLAN 5027 and 5026. Along with 5027, the US has designed several Operation Plans. OPLAN 5026 is designed for the US preemptive precise strike against the DPRK and 5029 is designed for the US military intervention at the time of an emergency situation in the DPRK, including the seizure of weapons of massive destruction. Particularly, OPLAN 5029 is a very provocative plan in that the US intends to deploy military troops into the DPRK even in peace-time. As such, it is an act of intervening in domestic affairs and a breach of international law.


2. The US Repeated breach of Agreements and The DPRK nuclear weapons

(1) 1994 DPRK-USA Agreed Framework and Joint DPRK-USA Communique

As the US suspicion about the DPRK nuclear weapons plan in 1994 generated the so-call first N. Korean Nuclear Crisis, the Agreed Framework between the USA and the DPRK was adopted to resolve the nuclear issue on the Korean Peninsula. Its main content states that the DPRK will “freeze its graphite-moderated reactors and related facilities and that the US would provide “formal assurances to the DPRK, against the use or threat of use of nuclear weapons by the US and “undertake to make arrangements for the provision to the DPRK of a LWR (Light Water Reactor) project by a target date of 2003.

But, anticipating the imminent demise of the DPRK, the US did not fulfill the requirements of the Agreed Framework. In 1998, the US raised suspicions about the possibility of the DPRK’s Geumchang-ri nuclear weapons plan and practiced a simulated nuclear attack targeted at the DPRK, but failed to find any evidence. The 2000 DPRK-US Joint Communique included replacing the 1953 Armistice Agreement with permanent peace arrangements.

But in 2001 the Bush administration ignored the agreed point. In the January 2002 State of the Union address, President Bush referred to the DPRK, Iran, and Iraq as states that constitute an “axis of evil” and thus as a target for use of nuclear weapons. In September 2002 the Bush administration announced a shift in U. S. policy toward possible “preemptive military action” as its National Security Strategy, and then invaded Iraq in 2003. This is the background which led the DPRK to announce on February 10, 2005 that it had acquired nuclear weapons. This indicates that the US threat of use of nuclear weapons against the DPRK has eventually driven the DPRK to develop nuclear weapons.

(2) September 19 Joint Statement and the Disarray of Six-Party Talks

Confronted by the DPRK’s announcement of its acquisition of nuclear weapons, the Bush administration agreed to negotiate with the DPRK, of which outcome was the September 19 2005 Joint Statement. The Joint Statement includes the provisions of the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, the normalization between the DPRK and the US, and between the DPRK and Japan, financial and energy support for North Korea, and the promotion of a peaceful Korean Peninsula, and Peace and Security in North-East Asia. But, on the next day after signing the Joint Statement, the US put into effects financial sanction against the DPRK, making it explicit that it had no intention to comply with the Joint Statement.

In response to such an act of violation, the DPRK proceeded with a nuclear test on October 9, 2006 and it was a fatal blow to the US. Then, the US agreed to “Initial Actions for the Implementation of the Joint Statement” at the Six-Party Talks on February 13, 2007 and restored the Joint Statement. On October 3, 2007, the US agreed to the second steps to implement the Joint Statement. But, the US made additional requirements allowing “extracting sample ores, unnoticed visit, and examining unreported facilities,” which are beyond the agreed stipulations at Six-Party Talks, such as the DPRK’s disablement of nuclear weapons and its responsibility of report. As David Albright, the Director of the US Science and International Security Institute, expressed, this was tantamount to “demanding the right to inspect the DPRK’s military facilities,” a “demand which no sovereign nation can accept.”


3. The Obama Administration and the Continuing US Threats against the DPRK

After his inauguration, President Obama sent Sallig Harrison to deliver his message to the DPRK that if the DPRK hands in its reported 30.8 kg plutonium to the IAEA, the US will consider a peaceful treaty and the normalization of relations between the US and the DPRK. When Stephen Bosworth as Obama’s envoy visited Pyongyang in February 2009, the DPRK proposed the US withdrawal of hostile policies toward the DPRK, the elimination of the US extended nuclear deterrence toward the ROK, and the abolishment of the US-ROK alliance as the precondition for its abolishment of nuclear weapons. As the DPRK did not receive a proper response from the Obama administration, the DPRK launched a satellite on April 5, 2009. The UN Security Council reproached the DPRK’s satellite launch, which is their exercise under international law, through Chair’s unprecedented statement. In response, the DPRK enacted its second nuclear test on May 25, 2009, and the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1874 (2009).

In 2010 QDR report, the Obama administration referred to the DPRK as one of the main nations threatening its national security. The 2010 BMDR states that “North Korea, which has demonstrated its nuclear ambitions and continues to develop long-rang missiles, is of a particular concern.” The 2010 Nuclear Posture Review has not excluded the DPRK and Iran from nations targeted for the US preemptive nuclear strikes. In March 2010, the US executed the preemptive attack exercises against N. Korea called Key Resolve/Foal Eagle. The Key Resolve is an exercise to train to deploy the US military army in foreign countries, following OPLAN 5027, to the Korean Peninsula in the event of war. Walter L. Sharf, the Chief Commander of US Armed Forces in Korea, openly revealed the fact that the US Army special forces to destroy the N. Korean WMD has been participating in the military exercise.



4. Eliminating the hostile US-DPRK relation is essential to the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula

(1) The DPRK’s nuclear program is a means to its survival.

A report from the US Atlantic Council Working Group has stated that the reason why the DPRK has acquired nuclear weapons lies in its fear of the US military operations against the DPRK (A Framework for Peace and Security in Korea and Northeast Asia, 2007, p. 1). Dennis Blair, the former director of the USDNI, said that “Pyongyang probably view sits nuclear weapons as being more for deterrence, international prestige, and coercive diplomacy than for warfighting” and that “we also assess Pyongyang probably would not attempt to use nuclear weapons against U.S. forces or territory unless it perceived the regime to be on the verge of military defeat”(Testimony at Senate Select committee on Intelligence, 2009, 2, 12). Henceforth, it is fair to say that the DPRK’ s development of nuclear weapons is for self-defense rather than for attack.

(2) The DPRK has declared that it will commit to denuclearization if a peace treaty is established.

The North Korean nuclear issue is the product of a deep-rooted hostile state between the US and the DPRK. The long-standing hostility between the US and the DPRK stemmed from the fact that the US and the DPRK failed to legally settle the unfinished Korean War. Consequently, if the US and the DPRK wish to end their hostile relation for a peaceful relation, it is imperative that both states legally end the Korean War and conclude a peace treaty which provides mutual respect for sovereignty and mutual no-invasion. In this context, in January 2010, the foreign ministry of N. Korea declared that the denuclearization has been its consistent policy goal and that “a peace treaty will impel the elimination of the US-DPRK hostile relations and the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula with rapid speed.”



5. The reason why US-ROK alliance should be abolished along with the elimination of the US-DPRK hostile relations

(1) US-ROK alliance cannot coexist.

US-ROK alliance regards the DPRK as its military enemy and aims at the overthrow of the DPRK’s socialist system by military and non-military means under the flag of value-based alliance. In this regard, the US-ROK alliance is a fundamental contradiction to a peace treaty which promotes the legal purge of the US-DPRK hostility. Therefore, as soon as the US and the DPRK eliminate their hostile relation, US-ROK alliance should be abolished.

(2) The DPRK is no longer a military threat.

The Korean Bank has shown that the GNI of South Korea ($934,700 million), as of 2008, amounts 37.7 times over the GNI of North Korea ($24,700 million). In 2008, according to S. Korean Unification Ministry’s estimation, the military defense expense of N. Korea was $550 million, but S. Korea spent $24.7 billion, which is 45 times more than N. Korea’s expense. The S. Korean government also admits that S. Korea’s military forces (even excluding the US army forces in S. Korea) is superior to N. Korea’s. N. Korea’s acquisition of nuclear weapons does not reverse S. Korean military forces superior to N. Korea. Viewed from limitations in military effect of N. Korean nuclear weapons and the nature of deterrence of N. Korean nuclear weapons with respect to the US and S. Korea, N. Korea’s nuclear weapons cannot be perceived as a military threat against S. Korea.

(3) The invasive nature of US-ROK alliance

The US-ROK alliance is claimed as a defense alliance, but in reality it is an offensive alliance targeting military occupation of the DPRK. As the US and S. Korea promote “ROK-US Strategic Alliance,” the invasive nature of US-ROK alliance has been manifest. In June 2009, the ROK-US summit adopted “Joint Vision for the Alliance of ROK and USA” to build up “a comprehensive alliance.” A comprehensive alliance provides a model for a dependence alliance that subjects S. Korean national interests and strategies to those of the United States. A comprehensive alliance, standing for value-based alliance, considers nations of different social value and system as potential enemies. As a consequence, N. Korea is perceived as the object for absorptive unification. As such, it stands for a global alliance which allows the ROK-US alliance forces to intervene in local and global security matters beyond the geographical sphere of the Korean Peninsula.

(4) S. Koreans’ suffering from the ROK-US alliance

As of September 30, 2008, there are 87 USAFK bases in S. Korea, equivalent to the land of 32,436 acre. In addition, US army forces in S. Korea have been using 37 ROK-US common training fields (in total, at least 49.000 acre). 5 main airports for S. Korean army are designated as Collateral Operation Bases to be used for the US military reinforcements. The financial burden of S. Korean people due to ROK-US alliance is huge. Under the pretense of “defense expense sharing,” S. Korea has paid for the annual expense of US Armed forces in Korea for 22 years since 1980 and is paying about $700 million this year. Further, S. Korea should spend about $6.3 million to cover the expense for the USAFK base transfer only this year. The total expense for the USAFK base transfer is estimated more than $13 billion and S. Korea is expected to pay almost all of it.

Further, residents of areas surrounding US military bases have suffered enormously. Due to US military base expansion and transfer, many village people in Pyongtaik and Mugeun-ri have been forced to abandon their cherished life base inherited from their ancestors. Furthermore, with respect to the issue involved in restoration of returned and polluted military stations, the US Army resists accepting its accountability and pushes the estimated $ 1 billion estimated for restoration to S. Korean government’s responsibility.

6. Danger of Extended Deterrence and Illusion of a “Nuclear-free World” Construction

(1) Danger of Nuclear Extended Deterrence

The United States has promised to provide “nuclear umbrella(extended deterrence)” for S. Korea. However, it should be noted that the US incurred war crisis in the Korean Peninsula 4 times during the Cold War period and 5 times since the beginning of the post-Cold War period. The extended deterrence policy has turned out not to increase alliance security, but for constant war crisis.

Further, the nuclear extended deterrence (first strike threat against N. Korea) policy has created a reverse effect that enabled N. Korea to obtain nuclear weapons. As the Obama government reaffirmed the extended deterrence policy in the recent NPR, the DPRK responded to it by announcing that it would increase nuclear weapons acquisition and pursue modernization.

The reaffirmation of the first use policy is meant to abandon 'Geneva Agreed Framework (1994)와 9․19 Joint Statement(2005) on security assurance for non nuclear states and undermine the international reliability upon the US nuclear reduction imperative to implement the vision of a “nuclear-free world.” Thus, the US persistence on its nuclear umbrella policy demonstrates that the US will not give up its hegemony over against N. Korea and at the same time that it will deal with its alliance party S. Korea under the US dominant hegemony.

(2) Problem involved in strengthening conventional military forces in the name of the reduction of nuclear weapons role

The US moves toward the direction that strengthens conventional arms capacities in exchange for a reduction in the nuclear weapons role. But, it becomes evident that those countries, including N. Korea, that have been threatened by possible nuclear attacks from the US will feel more exposed to US conventional military attacks. Then, it would make these countries more difficult to give up nuclear weapons programs and the military arsenal increase.

(3) Nuclear Umbrella Policy as a US hegemony policy over against N. Korea puts the entire Korean people into danger.

The US’s nuclear war scenario against N. Korea allows the US to strike 700 targeted areas, including nuclear weapons, missiles, and operation (center) bases, in N. Korea even before N. Korea attacks S. Korea or immediately after a war. In 1994 the Clinton administration proposed a “surgery-model precision attack” targeting the Youngbyon nuclear facilities and exercised a simulation test. The result derived from the test was that the attack will become a full-scale war, incurring the heavy casualties of 52, 000 American soldiers and 490,000 S. Korean soldiers. Thus, the Clinton administration had to cancel its attempt to attack N. Korea. In 2004, an American anti-nuclear group, Natural Resources Defense Council also conducted a similar simulation and reported the estimated casualty number from 840,000 to 1,250,000.

7. Towards the genuine achievement of a “nuclear-free world”

It is urgent that NGOs not allow the vision of a “nuclear-free world” to be rendered into another logic of the US nuclear hegemony. In order to undertake this task, NGOs should demand that nuclear weapons states, including the US, should embrace a no-first use policy, legally binding NSAs toward non-nuclear states, the abolishment of an extended deterrence policy, and the responsibilities of nuclear weapons reduction.

We believe that the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula through concluding a peace treaty can contribute to and enhance the vision of a “nuclear-free world.” N. Korea has declared that if the US abolish its hostile policy toward N. Korea, its nuclear umbrella, and the US-ROK alliance, N. Korea will give up its nuclear weapons. For sixty years since the Korean War Armistice Agreement on July 27, 1953, the Korean Peninsula has been in a war state. A peace treaty in the Korean Peninsula can mark a turning point leading N. Korea to give up nuclear weapons.

Concluding a peace treaty in the Korean Peninsula, one of the main world conflict regions, we believe, will bring the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, and further promote the denuclearization of North-East Asia. This will be an important step towards a nuclear-free world.

Text Fw: IT'S ABOUT WHO MAKES IT AND WHO TAKES IT

* Image source: Same as the below text link.


* Image source: Bruce Gagnon blog on May 3, 2010

* Bruce Gagnon blog on May 1, 2010

IT'S ABOUT WHO MAKES IT AND WHO TAKES IT

The international peace conference is taking place inside this enormous Riverside Church, probably most famous for MLK's anti-Vietnam speech one year to the day before he was killed by the CIA.

Well over 800 people are here from all over the world. Things began last night with a series of good speeches and have continued today with workshops (including the one I led on missile defense along with Sarah Cartin from CND in the UK and J. Narayana Rao who is on our Global Network board from India).

My favorite talk so far was done by Zia Mian who last night blasted Obama's foreign policy. Zia directs the Project on Peace & Security at Princeton University in New Jersey.

Zia's opening words were, "We are at a moment of profound crisis." The old world order has unraveled and "existing structures can't sustain the status quo," he said. "The last thing they are willing to contemplate is easily letting go of their power."

The notion of Obama offering real change "has been shown to be without foundation."

"People wanted change and what they got was Obama," he joked.

Zia reminded the packed audience that "Obama is not the first American president who has promised this [nuclear disarmament]."

The recent Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) presented by Obama, and Bush's previous NPR, reveal an "amazing continuity," Zia reported. Obama is continuing the Bush program of "prompt global strike systems, missile defense, and modernization of the U.S. nuclear weapons complex."

"The old order continues in fundamental ways," he suggested.

Fundamentally, Zia reminded us to work to "break this perception that getting rid of nuclear weapons will bring peace....they are only the tip of the spear.....if we only get rid of the nuclear weapons nothing will change....we have to change the structures that manage the global economy....64 million more people around the world will be pushed into poverty due to the global economic crisis....the system of a small global [corporate] political elite must be ended."

Zia concluded by saying that the new SALT Treaty between the U.S. and Russia is not what matters.

"The use of force and power and violence in the world, and who decides is what matters....it's about profit making - who makes it and who takes it - it's about the nation state, armies, and war."

The highlight of today for me was when the walkers from four different peace walks (each from a different part of the U.S.) came into the hall during a plenary session and were warmly greeted. It was a great joy to see many old friends from past walks in Florida, Washington state, and recently in Maine.

In many respects these tireless walkers are doing the basic grassroots outreach to the public that we must all do more of if we have any hope of building the real movement that is so urgently needed.

Just one historical footnote - this church was essentially built with the oil money from the Rockefeller family riches.

Photos Fw: Stop KOR-US Alliance! NPT is Not Fair!

*All the Image sources: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea, May 3, 2010

'Do Not Make the NPT Evaluation Meeting as a Mean to Put Pressure the North Korea! '

Text Fw: The Struggle against US bases in Korea - for Denuclearization and Peace (2010.5.1)

* Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK)

The Struggle against US bases in Korea - for Denuclearization and Peace

Oh Hye-ran

Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea (SPARK)

Korea-U.S. Alliance – Obstacle to Peace

In July 1953, only 2 months after they signed the “Korean War Armistice Agreement,” South Korea and the United States entered into an alliance through the “Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty”. A military alliance is an arrangement in which parties come together for the purpose of a potential war. The South Korea-U.S. alliance is premised on a temporary truce after the Korean War, and its continued existence means the state of war has not yet ended.

Article IV: 60 of the Korean War Armistice Agreement recommended that “a political conference” be held “within three (3) months after the Armistice Agreement is signed”, “to settle through negotiation the questions of the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Korea and the peaceful settlement of the Korean question”. The Korea-U.S. alliance contradicts Article IV: 60, which recommends the replacement of the Armistice Agreement with a permanent peace treaty.

US Bases in Korea and the “Strategic Flexibility” Doctrine

South Korea is covered with U.S. military bases. U.S. Forces in Korea (USFK) has 87 bases, which take up a total of 32,000 acres of land. In addition, there are 37 joint training facilities for the South Korea-U.S. Combined Forces, which occupy more than 49,000 acres of land, and 5 Korean Air Force bases designated “Collateral Operation Bases” for U.S. reinforcement.

Today, U.S. bases in Korea are being transformed into advanced operation bases for preemptive strike against North Korea. According to the strategic flexibility doctrine of the USFK, its troops can be flexibly and rapidly deployed at any time to any place in the world. For example, 3600 troops of the Second Division were sent to Iraq in 2004. Strategic flexibility has nothing to do with the main stated role of U.S. Forces in Korea, which is to serve as a deterrent force against a possible attack from the north. Rather, it is intended to turn U.S. bases in Korea into launch pads for U.S. military domination of the world. It violates the Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty, which stipulates the stationing of U.S. Forces in Korea with the mission of defending South Korea from a potential attack from the north.

Furthermore, U.S. bases cause numerous critical problems to local communities, such as forced evacuation of residents and farmers from their land and disastrous ecological damage. The strategic flexibility doctrine of the USFK must be discarded and unilateral U.S. base expansions must be stopped. All U.S. bases should be removed from Korea immediately for the sake of peace on the Korean peninsula, justice for the people, and preservation of our livelihoods off the land.

The Struggle against U.S. military bases in Korea

After their struggle against the expansion of Camp Humphrey in 2006, residents of Pyeongtaek continue to fight against the construction of a second landing strip at Osan Air Base. This additional runway currently under construction is for large scale transport planes to quickly dispatch troops and supplies from Korea to conflict regions all over the world.

Residents of Mugeon-ri are also taking to the streets to stop the expansion of a military training facility. The Mugeon-ri training facility is used not only by troops stationed in Korea but also by other U.S. forces abroad, such as the Stryker Brigade Combat Team in the United States, U.S. Forces Japan, and the U.S. Air force in Australia. The site for the planned expansion is home to white herons and ash trees, considered natural heritages in Korea.

Residents of Jejudo also continue to struggle against the planned construction of a naval base. The Jejudo naval base will be the base port of the Korean Navy Task Fleet, mainly equipped with Aegis destroyers. The United States plans to use Jeju Island as a port to deploy nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and Aegis destroyers, because Jeju Island is strategically located with direct access to the East China Sea. Gangjeong village, the site of the planned base construction, boasts the only coral reefs in Korea and is the habitat of red soft coral. It was designated by UNESCO as a natural heritage site in 2002.

It is important to stand in solidarity with the residents of local communities fighting against U.S. bases in Korea. The “Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty” which provides the legal basis for the Korea-U.S. alliance must be abolished. SPARK is part of the struggle in solidarity with the residents of the local communities of Pyongtaek, Mugeon-ri, and Jeju Island to resist U.S. bases and carry out our mission to abolish the “Korea-U.S. Mutual Defense Treaty” and the Korea-U.S. alliance. We ask you for your support and solidarity with the people in Pyeongtaek, Mugeon-ri, and Jeju Island.

A Peace Treaty to End the Korean War – Key to Denuclearization and Peace on the Korean Peninsula

The so-called nuclear crisis in Korea began in 1957, when the United States first deployed nuclear weapons in South Korea. The United States still extends its Nuclear Umbrella to South Korea, and preemptive strike against North Korea is central to the U.S. strategic doctrine, despite U.S. assertions that its nuclear weapons were withdrawn from South Korea in the 1990’s.

In 2002, the former Bush administration declared North Korea part of an “axis of evil”, then carried out a preemptive attack against Iraq, also part of Bush’s “evil axis”. This was the decisive moment when North Korea began to develop its nuclear weapons. The U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, released on April 6, 2010 by the Obama administration, still leaves the door open for the possibility of a preemptive attack against North Korea.

A 2007 report on North Korea by the Atlantic Council states the root cause that led North Korea to develop its Nuclear Weapons is military provocations by U.S. Forces in Korea. According to a 2005 survey, 85% of South Korean civilians regard North Korea’s Nuclear Weapons as a deterrent force against the United States and a means for self-defense. (Korean Institute for National Unification)

Nuclear disarmament by North Korea is possible if U.S. troops withdraw from the Korean Peninsula and the Korea-U.S. alliance is abolished. As a condition for abandoning its Nuclear Weapon Program, North Korea demanded the United States abandon its hostile policies, abolish its Nuclear Umbrella in South Korea, as well as the Korea-U.S. alliance.

The Korean Peninsula still remains at war 60 years after the “Korean War Armistice Agreement” was signed on July 27, 1953. A peace treaty to end the Korean War can be a definite turning point that leads to denuclearization of the Korean peninsula. Replacing the Armistice Agreement with a peace treaty and terminating the Korea-U.S. alliance are necessary for peace not only on the Korean Peninsula but also the broader Northeast Asian region and the world. Denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, facilitated by a peace treaty, along with the Mongolian Nuclear-Weapons-Free Zone, can become the foundation for a broader North East Asia Nuclear-Free Zone.

SPARK continues to organize a “one million signature campaign” for denuclearization and peace on the Korean Peninsula. We urge your active support and appreciate your participation in the struggle.

[Text Fw] Two Activist Organizations’ Texts on the NPT and Nuclear Posture Review

Peace Network

Nuclear Posture Review and North Korea
April 13, 2010

The significant part that draws attention from Nuclear Posture Review(NPR), which the Obama administration released on April 6th was that it will maintain the option of nuclear preemptive attacks on North Korea and Iran. NPR declares that ”The United States will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against non-nuclear weapons states that are party to the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty(NPT) and in compliance with their nuclear nonproliferation obligations.”
* For MORE READING, click the link above.

_____________________________________________________________

People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy

Has the Nuclear Security Summit Contributed to Nuclear Nonproliferation and Prevention of Nuclear Terrorism?

PSPD’s Statement on
the Nuclear Security Summit

2010 April 15

President Obama, advocating for “the nuclear weapon free world, hosted the Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, DC on April 12-13. Obama is attempting to make “nuclear security” as a main agenda for the nuclear free world while arguing for the necessity to manage fissile materials to prevent it from the nuclear terrorism. However, it looks that the ambitious summit loses its balance even in the beginning.

* For MORE READING, click the link above.

[Translation] U. S. Authority, Refused the ROK Government’s Request of Prohibition of the SPARK’s Entry into the US

* Image source: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea

'마침내 JFK공항 로비로 나오는 변연식대표와 오혜란 팀장'
Pyon Yeon-Sik, co-representative of the SPARK (right in the photo) and Oh Hye-Ran, Director of the Peace & Disarmament team, SPARK who could eventually come into the lobby of the JFK airport on April 29, 2010.
_________________________________________________
* See also Bruce Gagnon's blog, HERE. Thanks, Bruce Gagnon.
브루스 개그논 블로그를 보세요. 감사합니다. 브루스 개그논.
_________________________________________________

* Below is the arbitrary translation of the linked article.

Tongil News

“미 당국, 한국의 평통사 입국금지 요청 거부”
“U. S. Authority, Refused the ROK Government’s Request of Prohibition of the SPARK’s Entry into the US”

2010년 4월 30일, 금
Friday, April 30, 2010

오혜란 (평통사 평화군축팀장)
Oh Hye-Ran, Director of the Peace & Disarmament team, SPARK


: 평통사 변연식 대표, 오혜란 팀장, JFK 공항에서 미국 입국 못하고 3시간 동안 억류
: 한국 경찰의 미국 입국 금지요청.. 까다롭기로 유명한 미국 보안요안들도 납득 못해

: Pyon Yeon-Sik, Co-representative of the SPARK and Oh Hye-Ran, Director of the Peace & Disarmament team, SPARK, Restrained for three hours in the JFK airport, without being able to enter into the US, [for Three Hours]
: The South Korean police’s request of the prohibition of our entry into the US.. that could not persuade even the US security officers who are well known to be fastidious

변연식, 고영대, 오혜란, 박석진 등으로 구성된 평통사(평화와통일을여는사람들) NPT(핵무기비확산조약) 1)평가회의 대표단이 현지시간 4월 29일 오전 10시경 뉴욕 JFK 공항에 도착했다. 그러나 변연식 공동대표와 오혜란 팀장은 한국 경찰의 미국 입국 금지 요청이 있었다는 이유로 3시간 동안 억류상태에 있었다.

The delegates of the SPARK(Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea), composed of Pyon Yeon-Sik, Ko Young-Dae, Oh Hye-Ran and Park Suk-Jin, for the NPT evaluation meeting arrived in the JFK airport, New York, around 10am on April 29(New York time). However, Pyon Yeon-Sik, co-representative of the SPARK and Oh Hye-Ran, Director of the Peace Disarmament Team, SPARK have been restrained for three hours for the reason that there was the South Korean police’s request not to permit entry [of the two] into the U.S..

JFK 공항에서 입국 심사 중에 "잠깐 이쪽으로 오세요"라고 해서 따라 갔더니 미 국토보호부 마크가 선명하게 새겨진 방문객 및 국경보호국이 운영하는 입국 심사장이었다. 핸드폰이 울려 받으려고 했더니 보안요원들이 손을 들어 목을 치는 시늉을 하면서 "핸드폰은 사용금지"란다. 행동에 제약을 받기 시작했으니 억류나 다름없다.

As the two of us heard the words of “Please come here for a moment” during the entry review in the JFK airport and followed the callers, the place where we arrived was the entry review office operated by the US Customs and Border Protection, where the US Department of Homeland Security mark was clearly inscribed. As I tried to receive my cell phone ringing, the security members imitating of cutting the neck with their hands, said that “Use of mobile phone is not allowed.” It was nothing but the restraint as we became to get the restriction on our actions.

보안 요원들은 한국 경찰에 체포된 적이 있는지, 무슨 문제가 있었는지 물어보더니 한국 경찰이 두 사람을 찾고 있다는 것이다. 여권 발행하고 출국 허가 내줄 때는 언제고 이제 와서 찾고 있다니 무슨 일인지 납득 할 수 없는 상황이었다. 그래서 "평택미군기지, 용산, 키 리졸브 연습 등에 반대하는 기자회견을 개최한 바 있고 이 때문에 조사받거나 연행된 적은 있다. 그러나 여권발급과정에서 문제가 없었고 검사도 출국 허가서를 내줬다. 비자도 있고 미국 입국 목적도 명확하다. 유엔에서 발행한 등록서류를 가지고 있다. 뭐가 문제인가"라고 대답했더니 NPT 회의 참가 등록서류를 보여달라고 했다.

The Security members after asking whether we have been arrested or we have had any problems or not, told that the South Korean police were looking for two of us. What an inconvincible situation to hear that they were looking for us now as [the ROK authority] has already issued our passports and permitted our departure! So we answered that, “We have held the press interview in the Pyeongteak US base, Yongsan, against the Key Resolve military exercise and have been investigated and even taken away. However, there was no problem during the passport issue process and the prosecutor has given us the documents of permission for departure. We have the visas and our entry purpose is clear. We have the registration documents issued by the UN. What is the problem?” and they asked us to show the registration documents on the participation of the NPT meeting.

서류를 찾아 건네주고 나서도 무려 3시간 가까이 보안요원들은 여기저기 통화하고 자기들끼리 의견을 주고받더니 입국허가를 내주겠다며 불렀다. 이대로 묵과할 수 없다는 생각에 "한국경찰이 왜 우리를 찾는가, 뭐가 문제인가"라고 물었더니 예상과 달리 자세하게 설명하기 시작했다.

Even after they returned us back the documents, the security members called here and there for near three hours then sharing opinion themselves, called us saying that they would give us the entry permission. With the thought that we should not be silent on it, we asked them, “Why the ROK police are finding us? What is the problem?” and they began to explain in detail, different from our expectation.

한국 관련 당국(경찰과 국정원)이 말하기를 변연식, 오혜란 두 사람이 여러 차례 군사연습(Military Exercises)에 대해 정치적 항의(Political Protest)를 했고 연행된 적도 있으니 입국을 금지시키고 한국으로 되돌려 보내(Send Back) 해달라고 요청했다는 것이다.

They said that the South Korean authority (police and the National Intelligence Service) have told them since [we], Pyon Yeon-Sik and Oh Hye-Ran had done the political protests against the military exercises many times and had even been taken away, therefore asked them to prohibit our entry into here and send us back [to South Korea].

"문제가 왜 문제가 되는지 이유를 모르겠다. 미국에서도 시위를 많이 한다. 우리들도 임금이 적으면 올려달라고 데모할 수 있다"며 "한국 경찰은 두 사람이 국내법을 위반했다고 말하지만 한국 정부가 여권을 발행했고 미국 방문 목적도 명확한데, 입국을 금지해달라는 요청은 '상식 밖'(out of sense)'다. 그래서 두 사람에 대한 한국 정부의 입국 금지 요청을 거부했다"고 말했다. 평화적 집회나 기자회견마저 불법시하고 이를 이유로 입국 금지를 요청하는 이명박 정권의 행태를 납득하기 어렵다는 것이다.

Saying that, “We don’t know what the problem is. There are lots of protests in the United States as well. We can protest to raise our wage if it is low as well,” they told that, “Even though the South Korean police said the two [of you] violated the domestic law, since the ROK government has issued your passports and your purpose to visit the United States is clear so its request to prohibit your entry is ‘out of sense.’ Therefore we refused the South Korean government’s request of prohibition of your entry to here.” It was their talk that they could not understand the Lee Myung-Bak government’s behavior to even illegalize the peaceful rally and press interview and to request the prohibition of our entry into here for the reason of it.

출국허가를 해놓고 뒤에서 장난질 치는 이명박 정권의 행태가 미국 보안 요원의 입을 통해 확인된 것이다. 까다롭기로 소문난 미국 보안요원이 들어도 납득할 수 없는 이유를 들어 NPT평가회의에 대응한 시민사회단체의 활동에 제약을 가해보려는 치졸한 작태를 이명박 정권은 즉각 중단해야한다.

We could confirm the behavior of Lee Myung Bak government who, while permitting our departure, but kidded behind us, through the mouth of the US security officer. The Lee Myung-Bak government should immediately stop its crude behavior to control the activities of the civil social organizations by taking the inconvincible reasons even to the US security officers who are well known to be fastidious.

[Site Fw]Opposing President Barack Obama's Nuclear Posture Review

Site informed: Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea
Opposing President Barack Obama's Nuclear Posture Review (photo by AP)

A South Korean activist shouts slogans during a rally opposing President Barack Obama's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, April 13, 2010. The activists said Obama's plan is unfair because it allows Israel and India to possess nuclear weapons while taking issue with North Korea and Iran's atomic programs. Obama opened the global security summit Monday night after two days of meetings with selected presidents and prime ministers of the 47 countries assembled to recharge efforts to keep nuclear material out of terrorist hands. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)


A South Korean activist tears a banner writing "Increase weapons" during a rally opposing President Barack Obama's Nuclear Posture Review near the U.S. Embassy in Seoul, South Korea, Tuesday, April 13, 2010. The activists said Obama's plan is unfair because it allows Israel and India to posses nuclear weapons while taking issue with North Korea and Iran's atomic programs. Obama opened the global security summit Monday night after two days of meetings with selected presidents and prime ministers of the 47 countries assembled to recharge efforts to keep nuclear material out of terrorist hands. (AP Photo/Ahn Young-joon)

* Related article

American Forces Press Service

April 12, 2010

Defense secretary discusses new nuclear posture, U.S. relations with Afghan president

by John J. Kruzel

Text Fw: U.S. Reserves Use Of Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield To Defend Global Empire

http://rickrozoff.wordpress.com/2010/04/13/u-s-reserves-use-of-nuclear-arms-missile-shield-to-defend-its-empire

Stop NATO
April 13, 2010
U.S. Reserves Use Of Nuclear Arms, Missile Shield To Defend Global Empire
Rick Rozoff

This month has seen the signing of an agreement on the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II by U.S. and Russian heads of state Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev in Prague on the 8th and the release of the new U.S. Nuclear Posture Review, both of which are being widely interpreted as heralding the downgrading of the role of nuclear weapons in American foreign policy.

In fact the new treaty on the reduction of the nuclear arsenals of the two nations that account for 90-95 percent of the world's supply of such weapons, with a commensurate cutback in the delivery systems for them, is a quantitative advance in the direction of eliminating the deadliest and most destructive weapons ever devised by man, but still leaves 3,100 deployed nuclear weapons in both nations' quivers and thousands more in storage.

Similarly, the Pentagon's Nuclear Posture Review (NPR), in stating for the first time that the U.S. will not employ nuclear weapons against non-nuclear states - with two notable (and critically important) exceptions, which will be examined below - also has been construed by some observers as another milestone on the road to a world free from the threat of nuclear war and in the worst case thermonuclear annihilation.

With the two-day, 47-nation Nuclear Security Summit in Washington, D.C. following so closely on the START II agreement and the release of the Nuclear Posture Review, the world press is abuzz with almost millenarian optimism regarding the prospects for a planet free of nuclear weapons. American establishment news agencies and political commentators - half government ventriloquist dummies and half mock devil's advocates - are rightly celebrating the START II and the Nuclear Security Summit as victories for their nation. The first allows the U.S. to forge ahead with programs like international interceptor missile deployments and Prompt Global Strike [1]; the latter positions Washington as sole arbiter and main enforcer in regards to nuclear proliferation worldwide.


MORE READING

Text Fw: Prompt Global Strike: World Military Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons

* Rick Rozoff on April 11, 2010

Prompt Global Strike: World Military Superiority Without Nuclear Weapons
Rick Rozoff
April 10, 2010

A war can be won without being waged. Victory can be attained when an adversary knows it is vulnerable to an instantaneous and undetectable, overwhelming and devastating attack without the ability to defend itself or retaliate.

What applies to an individual country does also to all potential adversaries and indeed to every other nation in the world.

There is only one country that has the military and scientific capacity and has openly proclaimed its intention to achieve that ability. That nation is what its current head of state defined last December as the world's sole military superpower. [1] One which aspires to remain the only state in history to wield full spectrum military dominance on land, in the air, on the seas and in space.

To maintain and extend military bases and troops, aircraft carrier battle groups and strategic bombers on and to most every latitude and longitude. To do so with a post-World War II record war budget of $708 billion for next year.

Having gained that status in large part through being the first country to develop and use nuclear weapons, it is now in a position to strengthen its global supremacy by superseding the nuclear option.

The U.S. led three major wars in less than four years against Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq from 1999-2003 and in all three cases deployed from tens to hundreds of thousands of "boots on the ground" after air strikes and missile attacks. The Pentagon established military bases in all three war zones and, although depleted uranium contamination and cluster bombs are still spread across all three lands, American troops have not had to contend with an irradiated landscape. Launching a nuclear attack when a conventional one serves the same purpose would be superfluous and too costly in a variety of ways.

On April 8 American and Russian presidents Barack Obama and Dmitry Medvedev signed a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty (START) agreement in the Czech capital of Prague to reduce their respective nation's nuclear arsenals and delivery systems (subject to ratification by the U.S. Senate and the Russian Duma). Earlier in the same week the U.S. released its new Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) which for the first time appeared to abandon the first use of nuclear arms.

The dark nuclear cloud that has hung over humanity's head for the past 65 years appears to be dissipating.

However, the U.S. retains 1,550 deployed nuclear warheads and 2,200 (by some counts 3,500) more in storage and a triad of land, air and submarine delivery vehicles.

More ominously, though, Washington is forging ahead with a replacement for the nuclear sword and shield - for blackmail and for deterrence - with a non-nuclear model that could upset the previous "balance of terror" arrangement that has been a criminal nightmare for six decades, but for sixty years without a massive missile war.

The new sword, or spear, entails plans for conventional first strike weapon systems employing the same triad of land, air and sea components - with space added - and the shield is a worldwide network of interceptor missile deployments, also in all four areas. The Pentagon intends to be able to strike first and with impunity.

The non-nuclear arsenal used for disabling and destroying the air defenses and strategic, potentially all major, military forces of other nations will consist of intercontinental ballistic missiles, adapted submarine-launched ballistic missiles, hypersonic cruise missiles and bombers, and super stealthy strategic bombers able to avoid detection by radar and thus evade ground- and air-based defenses.

Any short-range, intermediate-range and long-range missiles remaining in the targeted country will in theory be destroyed after launching by kinetic, "hit-to-kill" interceptor missiles. Should the missiles so neutralized contain nuclear warheads, the fallout will occur over the country that launches them or over an adjoining body of water or other nation of the U.S.'s choosing.

MORE READING