Text Fwd: Korea Invited to NATO Meeting on Afghanistan Next Year

* Informed by StopNATO on Dec. 21, 2009

DongA Ilbo
Korea Invited to NATO Meeting on Afghanistan Next Year
DECEMBER 21, 2009 23:58

NATO has invited for the first time a Korean military delegation to a meeting next year of countries sending troops to Afghanistan.

The dispatch of Korean troops scheduled for July will likely help expedite far-reaching military cooperation between Korea and NATO.

Multiple government sources yesterday said NATO’s military committee invited Seoul to send a Korean representative to the meeting, which aims to coordinate the missions of countries deploying troops to Afghanistan and strengthening cooperation. The representative will likely be a general-level official.

A Korean government source said, “The Korean troops to be deployed to Afghanistan will be put under the operational command of NATO’s International Security Assistance Force, so the Korean representative will attend the meeting of countries sending troops to Afghanistan,”

“This will be the first time for the Korean military to discuss with NATO member states pending global security issues, including the dispatch of troops to Afghanistan and war on terrorism.”

The source said Korea’s attendance at the meeting will likely accelerate military ties with NATO, including Korean participation in the NATO partnership. The move is also expected to expand Korea’s military diplomacy, which has focused on its alliance with the U.S., to cover Europe and raise the Korean military’s international status.

Another source said, “Following the inauguration of the Lee Myung-bak government, the Korea-U.S. alliance was upgraded to ‘comprehensive strategic alliance.’ As Korea actively participates in international security cooperation, including its decision to send troops to Afghanistan and fully join the Proliferation Security Initiative, NATO’s assessment of Korea is changing.”

“If Korea expands the scope of its international activities, including the establishment of a permanent military unit for overseas deployment next year, it will help expand opportunities and the boundaries for Korea to take part in NATO-led global security activities in the coming years.”

Copyright 2008 donga.com. All rights reserved.
Contact newsroom@donga.com for more information.

Text Fwd: South Korea To Attend NATO Conference On Afghan War

* Informed by StopNATO on Dec. 21, 2009

South Korea To Attend NATO Conference On Afghan War
Xinhua News Agency
December 22, 2009

-The first-ever participation in a NATO conference follows the country's
decision earlier this month to send 350 troops to the war-torn Central Asian
country....

SEOUL: South Korea is likely to attend a North Atlantic Treaty Organization
(NATO) conference to seek ways to strengthen cooperation with other nations in
dispatching troops to Afghanistan and coordinate military operations there,
local media reported Tuesday.

"We are considering sending a general-grade officer from the Joint Chief of
Staffs," an unnamed military source was quoted as saying by Yonhap News Agency,
adding attending the conference would enhance the country's "military
diplomacy."

The first-ever participation in a NATO conference follows the country's decision
earlier this month to send 350 troops to the war-torn Central Asian country in
order to protect the South Korean Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).

The troop redeployment plan, currently awaiting parliamentary approval, meets
sharply split receptions from the governing party and opposition parties,
prompting four opposition parties to issue a joint statement Monday to criticize
the move.

South Korea pulled out of Afghanistan in 2007 when 23 South Korean Christian
missionaries were held captive by the Taliban, with two of them killed and the
rest released.

Since then, Seoul has only taken the role of providing medical and vocational
training by assisting the United States and only two dozen South Korean
volunteers work inside the U.S. Air Force Base in Bagram, north of Kabul.

Afghanistan's rebel militant group Taliban has recently issued a threat against
the planned troop dispatch, which South Korea's defense ministry last week
played down by calling it "conventional."
===========================
Stop NATO

[KAPM Statement]we oppose the redeployment of troops and participation in the war of aggression in Afghanistan.

* Informed and appeared at the International Action Center site. The upload date on the same site is Dec. 16, 2009

The Korea Alliance for Progressive Movements:
For the security of our people’s lives we completely oppose the redeployment of
troops and participation in the war of aggression in Afghanistan.

'The Korea Alliance for Progressive Movements (KAPM) is an anti-war, anti-U.S. Imperialism, and pro-peaceful reunification alliance of Korean organizations from various sectors and regions of Korea, among them the Democratic Labor Party, the 6.15 Committees for Reunification, the Korean Confederation of Trade Unions, and the Korean Peasant's League. The alliance was created to bring together the various movements and campaigns in Korea under a broader strategy and context and in the process create connections between them and lend each campaign more strength and effectiveness. The alliance was created with the merger of an anti-FTA, anti-WTO alliance and an alliance of organizations created to implement the 6.15 declaration (in 2000) between North Korean leader Jong Il Kim and then president Dae Jung Kim. http://jinbocorea.org/main_eng.php'

The following is an article about KAPM’s stance against the deployment of PRT & security forces to Afghanistan by the South Korean government.

For the security of our people’s lives we completely oppose the redeployment of troops and participation in the war of aggression in Afghanistan.

If asked by the U.S., would we also just give up the lives of our countrymen?

Lately the Lee Administration is moving swiftly to block knowledge about the South Korean public’s opposition to the redeployment of its troops to Afghanistan. As we raised several times before, the purpose of this redeployment is not to fight the war on terror, but it is instead a humiliating submission to U.S. pressure that risks the security of Korean people, and involves it in a bloody, amoral, war of aggression and occupation for the ultimate purpose of installing a pro-U.S. regime.

Let us examine the Lee Administration’s process leading up to its decision to redeploy troops. At the end of October at the U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates’ last visit to Korea, he stated that “from the level of global security the military contribution will be of benefit to Korea’s security and core national interests” and actually directly asked that the Korean government redeploy its troops. Then, just before the Obama Administration’s visit to South Korea in November the Lee Administration announced that it would re-deploy troops to Afghanistan. On the day of President Obama’s visit there was even a report that the scale of the redeployment might be increased to 2000.

With the previous deployment of Korean troops to Afghanistan in 2007, the Korean people experienced the death of Sergeant Chang Ho Joon as well as the kidnapping of 23 Korean missionaries and the killing of two of them. After these incidents the Korean government made an agreement that it would pull out the troops stationed in Afghanistan and then unequivocally promised that it would not deploy forces to Afghanistan again. Now barely two years after this promise, under U.S. pressure, the Lee Administration will cast aside the promises that had been made to the people and redeploy troops, putting the lives of our countrymen at risk once again.

The expansion of the war in Afghanistan is a great disaster for people that cannot be expressed in words.

According to reports from global humanitarian NGO organizations, in just 2008 alone, there were 2,100 civilian deaths and among them 55% occurred during combat. There were 500 civilian deaths attributed to IMF air strikes, an increase of 72% compared to 2007. In addition surprise raids and search operations performed by the IMF have resulted in civilian deaths, severe use of force, theft, and inappropriate behavior and violence towards women. Many in Afghanistan are also detained by U.S. and IMF forces for prolonged periods of time without being charged or given a trial with reports that the rates of torture and abuse towards them is increasing. This behavior only increases the anger and suspicion towards the IMF and future military operations planned for 2009 will only become greater obstacles towards the construction of a social safety net for people in Afghanistan and impede organizations trying to get aid to those in most need of it.

Members of the PRT are also soldiers

The PRT is not a civilian body. In 2004 the then Secretary of State Colin Powell stated that the PRT, “as an important part of our combat forces,” plays an important function in the war in Afghanistan. The military’s PRT forces in Afghanistan are under the banner of the Combined Joint Task Force and so in reality are also a part of the occupying army. Afghanistan’s cultural and societal customs and its suspicious attitude towards foreign troops, makes the military lead PRT inherently unsuitable for constructing Afghanistan’s social infrastructure. Instead because the PRTs military nature blur the line between civilian support and military it makes it even more difficult for humanitarian aid agencies to deliver relief to those people most devastated by the war.

This is a problem that cannot be resolved by merely shutting the mouth and ears of our people

On November 18th, to mark the occasion of President Obama’s visit, civil society groups held a joint press conference. The press conference was interrupted by police troops and ultimately resulted in the arrest of two members of civil society groups. In addition later that night the police arrested 18 people that were holding a candlelight vigil and cultural performance against the redeployment of troops. The police insisted that it was an illegal rally and as soon as people began to sing a song with no political content the participants were forcefully arrested. In contrast, when the conservative groups’ held a press conference and cultural event welcoming President Obama there wasn’t event a hint of opposition or obstruction by the police. It is unclear exactly what standards the Administration, which it claims that it has, is using to enforce the law. This issue ultimately can’t be resolved merely by suppressing the people voice that opposes the redeployment.

Although the Lee Administration insists that the purpose for the redeployment is to provide security for the PRTs, the Lee Administration is also independently considering plans to operate in a new region that has seen a sharp rise in the number of U.S. and NATO casualties due to engagement with militants. Immediately after the Lee Administration’s announcement the terror alert level for Korean enterprises already in Afghanistan increased.

If the Lee Administration, with its constant arrogant and lone actions, decides to enforce the redeployment of troops then it is creating a situation where soon casualties will be inevitable. In the worst possible case scenario some even say that those redeployed troops may even incur very heavy losses. Because this is a situation where more problems will keep arising, public opinion for the withdrawal of Korean troops and the condemnation of the administration responsible for the deployment can only keep strengthening. However, this time it will only be only after many of our people have lost their lives.

In order for the safety of our people, blameless in this U.S. war of aggression to install a pro-U.S. regime in Afghanistan, we demand that the redeployment be immediately stopped and strongly renounce the Lee Administration that is pushing such measures forward.

Kim, Seong Ook

Director of Anti-War, Pro-Peace Department
Korea Alliance for Progressive Movements

Text Fwd: Korea Expected to Send Up To 500 Troops to Afghanistan

Korea Times
12-06-2009 18:00
Korea Expected to Send Up To 500 Troops to Afghanistan
By Jung Sung-ki, Staff Reporter

The top U.S. diplomat said South Korea would send 500 troops to Afghanistan as part of 7,000 reinforcements from 25 non-U.S. countries.

The number mentioned by U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton Dec. 4 is larger than that pledged by the government.

The Seoul government has said it would dispatch between 300 and 350 security forces to accompany less than 100 civilian reconstruction workers to the war-torn Central Asian nation to help U.S. and NATO forces there.

Clinton told NATO that Afghanistan was "a crucial test for the most successful military alliance in history," according to the online edition of the U.K.-based Times, Saturday.

The grand total of reinforcements of the 30,000 U.S. soldiers was made more respectable by 1,000 troops from Georgia and 500 from South Korea, it said.

Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary general, also said at a meeting of NATO foreign ministers in Brussels Friday that South Korea will deliver 400 troops, still more than the figure pledged by the administration.

Rasmussen said troop contributors will include Britain, Poland, Italy and the Czech Republic. Georgia, a country that wants to join NATO, has promised nearly 1,000 soldiers, and another non-NATO ally, South Korea, will deliver around 400 troops, he said.

Won Tae-jae, spokesman for the Ministry of National Defense, said he believes the figures would be rough assessments of their own, not based on Korea's official notification.

"Including military police, we're considering deploying a force of 300-350 to Afghanistan," Won said in a telephone interview. He said the U.S. and NATO might have come up with the combined number of Korean troops and civil reconstruction workers to be sent to Afghanistan.

The Seoul government is considering sending up to 100 civilian aid workers to Afghanistan to increase its contribution to the NATO-led Provincial Reconstruction Team (PRT).

Last week, a senior foreign ministry official said, "The number of civilian workers joining the PRT will be set at 75, while the troops who will be dispatched to protect these workers will be set at just above 300."

The foreign ministry had said earlier that it would send up to 130 PRT members.

"The final size will be decided after an on-site inspection by a team from the Ministry of National Defense in the coming weeks," Won said.

War-weary lawmakers and progressive civic activists oppose the troop redeployment to Afghanistan, arguing it will make South Korea a major target for international terrorism. Proponents say South Korea should contribute more to peace and security around the world in line with its upgraded global profile.

According to reports, Britain will provide 1,200 soldiers, with 500 new troops, and 700 who were sent to help with the Afghan election remaining in the country. Italy and Poland made the next most substantial offers, with 1,000 and 600, respectively, but France said that it was unlikely to send frontline soldiers.

The number of foreign forces from the 44-country International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) will not be more than 140,000, although more training staff are needed for the Afghan Army and police.

gallantjung@koreatimes.co.kr


* Reference article

Rick Rozoff
U.S., NATO War In Afghanistan: Antecedents And Precedents
Stop NATO
December 5, 2009

[Site Fwd] Busan: No! Pa(dispatch)-Byung(troops)!

No! Pa (dispatch)- Byung (troops)!
: A laughter-shaking, but brilliant anti-war action in Busan


* The below is the summary translation, much owed to the article by the reporter, Kim Bo- Sung (vopnews@vop.co.kr) in the site of Voice of People on Nov. 20. The Photos below are also his credit.


While the current right wing South Korean government has announced its policy of redeployment to Afghanistan, about 20 young people appeared on Nov. 18 (the day when Obama arrived in the Songtan AFB in the night), with ‘pa(stone leek)’ and ‘byung (bottle)’ in their hands in a basement square of the Lotte Department store, in the city of Busan, the first harbor city in the South Korea, located in the southern western tip of the Korean peninsula.


The stone leeks are from small to big. The bottles are of the various kinds from water, juice, even to beer bottle etc. ‘X’ was marked in the masks they were wearing. Their hands projected outward, symbolizing, ‘No’.


Suddenly a Rambo ran into the department store, shouting, ‘Doo-doo-doo-doo, all will be killed if Pa-Byung is realized!’, fired a toy M16 to them. And the young people soon fell down with ‘ pa’ and ‘byung’ in their hands.


Then, the citizens who were wondering about what's happening became to realize the meaning of 5 minute flash mob action, “ Ah, Pa (dispatch)- Byung (troops) !”

The Korean word, pronounced ‘pa’ has the various meanings. One meaning indicates the pa(stone leek) you love for your meal and another meaning indicates pa(dispatch). The Korean word, pronounced ‘byung’ has also different meanings. One meaning indicates ‘bottle’ while another indicates ‘troops’.

The young people did not tell who they were but did the action one more time 10 minutes later in the street of Busan, announced that they would do more such a flash mob performance afterward.

About 51% of the citizens of Busan are heard to oppose the re-dispatch to Afghanistan, whose size is heard 300 (including the Provincial Reconstruction Team) according to the government while there is a news of even 2000(The government denied though)!

One of the leaders of the action said, “ The Afghanistan war is the war with no moral cause”, and “The Lee Myung Bak government who decided to dispatch the combat troops to Afghanistan as the present to the President Obama who visits the South Korea today (Nov. 18) must withdraw its decision.”

On Nov. 18, 19, 20 young people were arrested by the violent police during their nonviolent protest in the capital city of Seoul.

Koreans may need more flexible guerrilla actions such as these brilliant young people's in Busan while even the candles for the nonviolent culture event became illegal by the 2MB(two Mega Bite brain) -indicates the President, Lee(similar pronunciation ee means number 2) Myung Bak- government who was quite hurt by the June, 2008 when 1 million people came out on the street of Seoul against the import of the U.S. Beef, with the candles in each of their hands. Then another choice for people: pa?


NO, PA- BYUNG!!!

Text Fwd:[SPARK] Statement on the result of the South Korea-United States Summit Meeting

* Below is the unofficial translation of the statement by the SPARK (Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea) on Nov. 20, 2009, after the President Obama’s visit of South Korea (Nov. 18~19). The SPARK is one of the representative organizations regarding the issues of peaceful reunification in South Korea. It was one of the first organizations that made a statement on the result of Obama visit to South Korea. While it can not be seen as representing the view of the whole South Korean movement, one may glimpse some points that the South Korean activists have to say, including the issue of re-dispatch to Afghanistan. For the issue of Afghanistan, please see No. 1. The translation is by Agatha Haun (dillardhaun@gmail.com) who did a proofreading and suggested the helpful revisions as well on the 1st draft by the No base stories of Korea. Thanks very much, Agatha!

한미정상회담 결과 논평
Statement on the result of
the South Korea-United States Summit meeting

이명박 대통령과 오바마 미국 대통령의 정상회담이 19일 열렸다. 이 회담에서는 한미동맹, 북핵, 한미FTA 문제 등이 논의되었다. 이에 대한 우리의 입장을 다음과 같이 밝힌다.

The South Korea-United States summit meeting was held on [Nov.] 19. In the meeting, the issues of the South Korea-United States alliance, the North Korean nuclear program, and the South Korean-US FTA (Free Trade Agreement) were discussed. Our views on these questions are explained below.


1. 대미 종속 심화시키고 한반도 평화협정 정세 거스르는 한미 전략동맹과 ‘2+2’ 회담 폐기하라!

1. Abolish the South Korea-United States Strategic Alliance and ‘2+2’ meeting that increase South Korea's subjugation to the United States and violate the spirit of the movement to reach a peace agreement on the Korean peninsula!

한 미 양국 두 정상은 “지난 6월 정상회담에서 채택한 한미동맹 공동비전을 내실있게 이행하여 한미동맹을 모범적인 21세기 전략동맹으로 발전시켜 나가기로” 했다. 이를 위해 “내년에 한미 양국의 외교`국방 장관이 함께 만나서 미래지향적인 동맹 발전의 구체적인 방안에 대해 논의”하기로 했다.

The two South Korea-United States summits decided: “By substantially following up the South Korea-United States joint vision adopted in the summit meeting last June, to develop the South Korea-United States alliance toward an exemplary strategic alliance in the 21st century.” And for that purpose, “the ministers of the foreign policy and defense departments in both countries, the South Korea and the United States, will meet next year and discuss the concrete ways to develop the alliance in a future-oriented way”.

한 미 전략동맹은 한미동맹을 한미상호방위조약에 근거한 기존의 방어동맹에서 침략동맹으로 바꾸자는 것이다. 이는 본질적으로 미국의 국익에 한국의 국익을 일치시키자는 것으로서 불법적인 것일 뿐만 아니라 한반도와 세계 평화를 위협하고 우리에게 온갖 부담과 희생을 강요하는 일이다.

The South Korea-United States strategic alliance is to transform the South Korea-United States alliance from the existing defense alliance based on the Mutual Security Treaty [in 1954] into an aggressive, offensive alliance. It is in essence illegal, not only in the sense that it aligns South Korea's national interest with that of the United States, but also threatens the peace of the Korean peninsula and the world and forces us to bear all kinds of burden and sacrifice.

양국 외교`국방 장관이 참여하는 이른바 ‘2+2’ 회담을 열기로 한 것은 한미 전략동맹을 본격적인 실행단계로 발전시키겠다는 뜻으로 보인다. 이렇게 되면 한국군 아프간 재파병과 같은 일이 더욱 일상적으로 벌어지게 될 것이다.

The fact that [the two summits agreed] to have the ‘2+2’ meeting, in which the ministers of foreign and defense departments of the both countries reached agreements, seems to indicate that [the two summits] have decided to actively implement the South Korea-United States strategic alliance. If it happens, South Korean troops would be obligated to deploy to Afghanistan and other areas of conflict more frequently, at the demand of the US.

우리나라는 평화적 통일과 세계평화를 국가이익의 중요한 요소로 삼고 있다. 그런데 이를 근본적으로 위협해 온 한미동맹의 범위를 전방위적으로 확장하여 강화하겠다는 것은 우리의 국익에도 반하고 한반도 평화협정 정세에도 역행하는 것이다. 북을 적국으로 삼고 중국과 러시아를 겨냥하는 양자동맹을 강화하는 것과 한반도 및 동북아 평화`안보체제를 구축하는 것은 모순이 되기 때문이다.

Our country holds the position that the peaceful unification of Korea and peace in the world are among the important elements of our national interest. Then, the statement that [the two summits] would expand the scope of the South Korea-United States alliance, which fundamentally threatens unification and peace, into full spectrum and strengthen it, is against our national interest. It complicates the political situation and makes it more difficult to reach a peace agreement on the Korean peninsula because the two sets of goals are completely opposed to each other: to strengthen the bilateral alliance that sees North Korea as the enemy nation and is aimed against China and Russia; and to establish a peace and security system on the Korean peninsula and in the North East Asian region.

한 편, 미국이 한국과 ‘2+2’ 회담을 하기로 한 것은 일본과의 ‘2+2’ 회담에 이어 올 해부터 중국과의 ‘2+2(전략`경제대화)’ 회담이 시작되고, 소외를 우려하여 한국이 반대해왔던 ‘미중일 3자 전략대화’를 열기로 한 것에 대한 보상과 무마 차원인 것으로 보인다. 이는 미국이 동북아에서 자신의 패권을 지키기 위해 한중일 각 나라를 분할 관리 또는 지배하는 방식이라고 할 수 있다.

Otherwise, it seems that a policy of compensation and appeasement toward United States has begun. There was a ‘2+2’ meeting with South Korea following her ‘2+2’ meeting with Japan, her ‘2+2’ meeting with China (dialogue on strategic economy) will begin this year and then there will be the three-party strategic dialogue among the United States, China, and Japan, which South Korea had opposed for fear of isolation. It can be said that it is the way of the United States to divisively manage or rule each country -- South Korea, China, and Japan -- in order to maintain her domination in North East Asia.

이에 우리는 미국의 국익과 패권을 지키기 위해 우리의 국익을 훼손하고 대미 종속의 심화시키며 한반도 평화협정 정세에 역행하는 한미 전략동맹과 이를 위한 ‘2+2’ 회담을 반대한다. 이에 우리는 미국 패권을 위한 대결적이고 퇴행적인 구조를 강화하는 이 같은 흐름을 중단하고 한반도 평화헙정과 동북아 협력안보체제를 구축함으로써 관련국들의 이해관계를 협력적 방식으로 조율해 나아갈 것을 촉구한다.

Seeing that, we oppose the South Korea-United States strategic alliance and ‘2+2’ meeting that are supposed to support the national interest and domination of the United States, to damage our national interest, to deepen the South Korean subjugation into the United States, and to oppose the development of a favorable political climate for a Korean peninsula peace agreement. In view of that, we urge [the two summits] to stop the tendency to strengthen the confrontational and degenerating structure that perpetuates US dominance, and to negotiate in a cooperative way the issues that are of interest to the countries concerned, by establishing the system that will result in reaching a Korean peninsula peace agreement and provide for the [peaceful] mutual security in North East Asia.


2. 이명박 대통령은 비현실적인 ‘그랜드 바겐’ 입장을 철회하고, 오바마 대통령은 북미 정상회담에 조속히 나서 한반도 문제의 근본적 해결을 결단하라!

2. President Lee Myung Bak, withdraw from your position of making an unrealistic ‘Grand Bargain’ and President Obama, immediately begin the North Korea-United States summit meeting and make a determined effort to reach a fundamental settlement of the issue of the Korean peninsula!

북 핵 문제와 관련하여 이명박 대통령은 “두 정상은 그랜드 바겐으로 제시한 일괄 타결이 필요하다는데 전적으로 공감하고 그 구체 내용과 추진 방안에 대해 긴밀히 협의해 나가기로 했다”고 밝혔다. 그러나 오바마 대통령은 기자회견에서 "공동접근 방식(common approach)" "포괄적 해결책(comprehensive resolution)"을 말했을 뿐 ‘그랜드 바겐’이라는 용어는 단 한 차례도 사용하지 않았다. “완전히 의견을 같이한다”거나 “우리도 같은 방식으로 접근한다”고 한 발언은 한미 정상 간에 이견을 드러내지는 않겠다는 뜻으로 이해된다.

Regarding the North Korean nuclear issue, President Lee Myung Bak announced that “The two summits totally agreed with each other that the bundled settlement suggested by the Grand Bargain was needed and that the two would closely negotiate the concrete contents and ways to drive it forward.” However, President Obama only spoke of the “common approach” and “comprehensive resolution”, and did not use even once a term such as ‘Grand Bargain’ in the press interview. His words that [He is] “completely of the same opinion with” [President Lee] or that “We [the United States] approach [this question] in the same way” are understood to mean that he would not yet indicate that there is a difference of opinion between the summits in the South Korea and United States.

‘그 랜드 바겐’의 핵심 내용은 타결과 실행을 일괄적으로 이루는 이른바 ‘원샷 딜(단박 해결)’을 하자는 것이다. 그러나 이런 방식은 6자회담 9`19 공동성명에 명시된 단계적 방식과 행동 대 행동 원칙에 어긋나는 것일 뿐만 아니라 사안의 복잡성에 비추어 현실성도 없는 것이다. 이런 점에서 이명박 대통령이 북한에 대해 6자회담 복귀를 요구하면서도 한편에서는 그랜드 바겐을 주장하는 것은 모순이다. 관련국과 논의도 제대로 거치지 않고 그랜드 바겐을 ‘선언’한 것도 문제다. 바로 이런 점들 때문에 한국의 협력을 필요로 하는 미국조차 이 안에 동의하기 어려운 것이다.

The core content of the ‘Grand Bargain’ is to bundle together the settlement and the follow-up, in a so-called ‘one shot deal’. However, such a method not only violates the step-by-step approach and action-for-action principle elucidated at the 9.19 joint statement in the six party talks, but also, in view of the complexity of the issues, it has no realistic chance of being realized. In that sense, it is contradictory that President Lee Myung Bak demands that North Korea return to the six party meetings while he promotes the Grand Bargain. The essential problem is that he ‘declared’ the Grand bargain without the proper discussion with the countries that are affected by it. For that very reason, it is difficult even for the United States, which needs South Korea's cooperation, to agree with [the Grand Bargain].

이명박 정부가 이처럼 내용이나 절차, 현실성에서 모두 치명적 문제가 있는 그랜드 바겐에 집착하는 이유는 북미관계 진전을 발목 잡고 반북수구세력의 기득권을 지키려는 저의 때문이라고 볼 수밖에 없다.

The reason that the Lee Myung Bak government so strongly supports the Grand Bargain is that the critical problem in all the matters of content, procedure and reality can be explained only by his hidden intention to hinder the progress of improved North Korean-US relations and to maintain the vested rights of the power-holding class, which is anti-North Korea and adheres to its traditional conservative ways.

이에 우리는 이명박 대통령이 실체도 없고 현실성도 없는 그랜드 바겐에 대한 집착을 버리고 북미관계 정상화에 적극 협조하고 이에 발맞추어 남북관계도 정상화할 것을 강력히 촉구한다.

Seeing that, we strongly urge President Lee Myung Bak to abandon his attachment to the Grand Bargain, which has no real substance and no realistic possibility of being implemented, and to actively cooperate for the normalization of the relationship between North Korea and the United States, and simultaneously, to facilitate the normalization relations between North and South Korea.

한 편, 오바마 대통령은 “보즈워스 대북정책 특별대표를 12월 8일 북한에 보내 양자대화를 시작할 것”이라고 밝혔다. 북미 양자대화를 지속적으로 요구해온 우리는 이 발표를 환영한다. 하지만 오바마 대통령은 북한의 “도발적 행동”을 문제 삼으면서 북핵문제의 원인을 북한으로 돌리고 있다. 이는 한국전쟁 이래 핵위협을 지속하여 북한으로 하여금 핵무기개발을 하도록 내몬 미국의 책임을 외면하는 것이다.

Furthermore, President Obama announced that [he would] “start the bilateral talks [with North Korea] by sending Bosworth, the U.S. Special Envoy for North Korea, to visit North Korea on Dec. 8”. We who have constantly demanded the bilateral talks between North Korea and the United States welcome that announcement. However, President Obama places responsibility for the North Korean nuclear problem on North Korea alone, making the problem a matter of North Korea's “provocative action”. This ignores the US's responsibility for pushing North Korea into developing nuclear weapons, by continuing her nuclear threat since the Korean War.

오 바마 대통령이 한반도 핵문제의 원인을 북한의 책임으로 돌리는 태도로는 문제의 해결을 기대하기 어렵다. 이에 우리는 오바마 대통령이 자신이 대통령 선거 과정에서 밝힌 대로 김정일 국방위원장을 직접 만나 허심탄회한 대화를 통해 한반도 비핵화와 평화협정, 북미수교에 대한 결단을 내릴 것을 촉구한다.

It is difficult to expect that the issue will be settled, in view of President Obama's attitude, attributing the emergence of the nuclear issue on the Korean peninsula to North Korea. To reach a settlement, we urge President Obama, as he himself announced in the process of the presidential election, to make a decision in favor of the non-nuclearization of the Korean peninsula, a peace agreement, and the establishment of friendly relationship between North Korea and United States, by meeting in person and having open talks with Kim Jong-Il, the Chairman of the Defense Council, [in North Korea].


3. 미국의 부당한 자동차 시장 압력 거부하고 한미FTA 전면 재협상에 나서라!

3. Reject the US's unjust pressure on the automobile market and begin a complete renegotiation of the South Korea-United States FTA (Free Trade Agreement)!

이명박 대통령이 “미국에 자동차 문제가 있다면 우리는 다시 이야기할 자세가 돼 있다”고 밝혔다. 이는 한미FTA 재협상 의지를 밝힌 것이다.

President Lee Myung Bak announced that we, [South Korea] are “prepared to have talks again with the United States if there is any problem on the part of the United States concerning the issue of the automobile industry.” He thus showed that he is open to renegotiating the FTA between South Korea and United States.

한 미FTA는 농업, 서비스 등 대표적인 불평등 분야뿐만 아니라 자동차 분야에서도 굴욕적 내용이 가득하다. 관세철폐, 자동차세제, 안전 및 환경기준이 미국에 일방적으로 유리하게 되어 있을 뿐만 아니라 한국 정부가 이런 약속을 어길 경우 미국이 한국에 약속한 관세 혜택을 박탈할 수 있도록 한 ‘스냅 백’과 신속 분쟁처리 절차(신속 절차)는 그동안 세계 어떤 통상협정에도 없었던 ‘독소 조항’들이다.

The FTA is quite humiliating to South Korea, not only in unequal treatment of South Korea and the US in fields such as agriculture and services, but also automobile manufacturing. The issues of the abolition of tariffs, taxes on automobiles, and safety and environmental protection measures are not only unilaterally advantageous to the United States. Furthermore, the ‘snap back’ and the 'prompt procedure' for dealing with disputes, which gave the US the right to eliminate South Korea's tariff benefit, when the South Korean government does not demand equal treatment on these issues, are also the sort of ‘poisonous clauses’ that can not be seen in any trade negotiations in the world.

미 국이 내세우는 자동차 수출 규모의 현저한 차이는 무역제도의 문제가 아니라 대형차 위주의 미국 자동차 산업이 경쟁력을 잃어 한국민에게 매력이 없기 때문이다. 그럼에도 불구하고 미국이 재협상을 요구하는 것은 억지로라도 미국 자동차의 한국시장 점유율을 올리겠다는 것이다. 이는 자유무역협정의 기본 전제를 무너뜨리는 것이다.

The US raises the issue of the remarkable gap in the sizes of automobiles for export. This is not because of the problem of the trade system but because of the fact that the US automobile industry prioritized the production of large cars and lost its ability to compete in foreign markets, for example, when its cars did not appeal to South Koreans. Despite that, the United States demands re-negotiation because she intends to even forcibly raise the number of United States automobiles in the South Korean market. It is to destroy the basic premise of the free trade agreement itself.

광 우병 위험 미국산 쇠고기 수입에 반대하는 국민의 목소리를 철저히 외면하고 짓밟던 이명박 대통령이 미국의 재협상 요구를 수용하려는 것은 경악할만한 일이다. 이로써 이명박 대통령은 스스로 국민은 탄압하고 미국과 독점자본 이익은 충실히 대변하는 대통령임을 폭로한 것이다.

It is terrible that President Lee Myung Bak attempted to accept the US's demand for renegotiation, completely ignoring and silencing the people’s voice opposing the import of the United States beef due to the risk of mad cow disease. In so doing, President Lee Myung Bak exposed himself as the president who faithfully represents the interest of the United States and monopoly capital, while oppressing his people.

우리는 자동차 분야에서 추가적인 양보를 강요하는 미국과 이를 수용하려는 이명박 정부를 강력히 규탄한다. 우리는 미국의 부당한 압력을 거부하고 이번 기회에 불평등한 한미FTA에 대한 전면 재협상에 나설 것을 강력히 촉구한다.

We strongly denounce the United States for forcing the additional concession in the automobile field and the Lee Myung Bak government for attempting to accept it. We firmly oppose the unjust oppression by the United States and demand a complete renegotiation of the unequal South Korea-United States Free Trade Agreement.


2009. 11. 20.

Nov. 20, 2009

평화와 통일을 여는 사람들
(상임대표 : 문규현, 배종열, 홍근수)

Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea (SPARK)
(Co-Executive Chairpersons: Fr. Moon Kyu-Hyun, Bae Jong-Ryol and Rev. Hong Keun-Soo)

Text fwd: US Continues Military Encirclement Of Russia

Forwarded from Bruce Gagnon

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/message/37752
Recent Words Aside, US Continues Military Encirclement Of Russia
By Rick Rozoff
Stop NATO, March 7, 2009

American Vice-President Joseph Biden at the Munich Security Conference in early February pledged to "press the reset button" with Russia.

Since then prominent Washington officials have repeated their intention to reset, reboot and so forth relations with Russia but have, starting with Biden at Munich, not relented in any substantive manner on any of the behaviors and projects that have antagonized Moscow.

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently and American President Obama is to meet with his Russian counterpart Dmitri Medvedev n London early next month.

Russia has permitted the US and its NATO allies transit rights for non-military goods to assist the West's expanding war in South Asia, though in the process is abetting the extension of the NATO military nexus from the Baltic to the Black to the Caspian Seas and hence tightening the noose around its own neck.

How are the US and NATO demonstrating their supposed resolve to mend ties with Russia, not in words but in deeds?

Starting at Russia's northwestern most border and proceeding counter-clockwise, in the following manner:

In nine days NATO will commence a ten-day military exercise, Cold Response 2009, consisting of 7,000 troops from thirteen nations in northern Norway, off the coast of the Norwegian Sea, adjoining the Barents Sea and the Russian coast.

It will be a full spectrum exercise with land, naval and air forces simulating an 'emergency' military intervention.

The Barents Observer reports:

"This year, about 700 of the participants are special forces.
The [imaginary] conflict increased in 2008 when Northland attacked and occupied Midland. After a cease-fire Northland withdraws its forces and a power vacuum which NATO has to fill, occurred."

Moving slightly southwest, NATO has just completed the four-day Baltic Host 2009 exercise in Estonia, which Russia's Novosti described as involving "a series of scenarios simulating the arrival and deployment of NATO troops in a member country."

Participating in the war games were forces from the United States, Britain, Poland, Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania in "the first exercise of this type in the Baltic region, which could become a regular event in the future to improve interoperability between NATO troops."

Continuing southward, nine days ago Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski met with US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and insisted that American Patriot missiles would be deployed in his country.

The new US Patriot PAC-3 missile covers seven times the area of the original model and has double the range, enabling such missiles in Poland to hit Russian territory in the Kaliningrad region.

Two weeks ago US Defense Secretary Robert Gates signed a pact with his Polish opposite number Defense Minister Bogdan Klich "to bolster Poland's special forces and enhance how it operates within the NATO military command structure" as the US armed forces newspaper Stars and Stripes reported.

This was two days after Poland's Deputy Defense Minister Stanislaw Komorowski said, as quoted by Interfax-Ukraine, "that there is much more of a discussion right now within the alliance [NATO], to a large extent because many partners realize that the enemy unfortunately can be much closer to our borders" and "We have to take this into account when we plan the future of the alliance."

At the same time NATO announced that it was going to establish a permanent military force in Eastern Europe which would draw troops from the NATO Response Force (NRF).

Further pursuing the path south and east along the Russian border, the Chief Commander of the Ukrainian Navy, Ihor Tenyukh, announced that the annual US-led Sea Breeze NATO military exercises in Crimea would "be of a larger scale regarding the strength and number of military personnel" than any of its predecessors.

His claim was made within weeks of the signing of the US-Ukraine Charter on Strategic Partnership.

At the Krakow, Poland meeting of NATO defense chiefs on February 20 the Alliance's Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer pledged that "NATO remains ready to assist Ukraine in undertaking comprehensive reforms in its defence and security structures. We are determined to continue to develop this strategic partnership."

Down the Black Sea coast, NATO's annual Cooperative Longbow/ Cooperative Lancer month-long Caucasus military exercises are to be held in Georgia starting on May 3 and as the Georgian Times reported "Georgia’s participation in NATO trainings is seen as the first serious step NATO has taken after the August conflict and the subsequent creation of the NATO-Georgian Commission in September."

900 troops from 23 nations will participate in the exercises.

Two weeks ago US defense chief Gates reiterated that the Pentagon has a "continuing security relationship with Georgia both bilaterally and through NATO-Georgia Commission" and according to Civil Georgia "We're involved in training. We are involved in military reform in Georgia."

On the western end of the Black Sea directly across from Georgia - and Russia - the US has begun the two-week Thracian Spring 2009 joint air and infantry exercises with the Bulgarian armed forces, starting at the US's newly acquired Bezmer airbase.

Two weeks ago the US European Command spoke of its expanding military presence in Bulgaria and its Black Sea neighbor Romania: "It is larger in scale than it has been in previous years and we think that is an important consideration. If our current plans hold, we'll cycle a number of U.S. companies through both Romania and Bulgaria under battalion-level leadership to partner with the Bulgarians and the Romanians for the training that will occur roughly from July through October. So a larger presence and for a longer period of time...."

Southeast of Georgia and on Russia's southern flank, US Central Command chief David Petraeus announced that Azerbaijan would be used as a transit route for NATO arms headed to the Afghan war theater. The US has also ordered more Azerbaijani troops deployed there to serve under NATO command and the US Missile Defense Agency is considering expanding its global missile shield program to include what is now a Russian surveillance base in Garbala, Azerbaijan.

Indeed, in late February former US National Security Adviser and arch-Russophobe Zbigniew Brzezinski stated, "We should work so that Georgia, Ukraine and Azerbaijan do not become victims of the US-Russia dialogue....We should do everything to defend these countries."

Proceeding steadily toward the east, the Pentagon and NATO have recently secured transit rights for the Afghan war with Kazakhstan, which borders both Russia and China.

A year ago the US Defense Department signed a military treaty with Kazakhstan, and as US Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defence Mitchell Shivers vowed, "As a member of NATO, the U.S. is committed to helping Kazakhstan in improving its inter-operability with equipment and training to U.S. and NATO standards."

In 2006 the Pentagon held a military exercise in Mongolia, Khaan Quest 2006, which also borders Russia and China.

At the far opposite end of Russia from where this survey began, the Barents Sea, the US has begun ICEX-2009 by deploying nuclear submarines for simulated warfare exercises off the coast of Alaska and into the Bering Sea and the Arctic Ocean. The last such exercise, in 2007, included US and British nuclear submarines maneuvering under the polar ice cap.

Several days earlier the chief of the Russian general staff, General Nikolai Makarov, warned that "Russia will respond to any attempts to militarize the Arctic," as Reuters reported.

A news dispatch of two days ago mentioned a recent poll that demonstrated half of all Russian adults fear military aggression from foreign nations. Small wonder, notwithstanding ingenuous blandishments from the likes of Joseph Biden, Hillary Clinton and Robert Gates.
===========================
Stop NATO
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato

To subscribe, send an e-mail to:
stopnato-subscribe@yahoogroups.com

Daily digest option available.

Archives:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/stopnato/messages
==============================

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)