Text Fwd: [Statement] The US soldier suspected for attempted murder must be in custody by Korean Police

*Image Source*
1. Pyeongtaek Peace center
2. Pyeongtaek Peace center

http://usacrime.or.kr/ (Check English in the top right)
National Campaign for Eradication of Crime by U.S.Troops in Korea

No Crimes by U.S.Troops!

Statement 11 March 2009

The US soldier in Korea suspected for attempted murder must be in custody by Korean Police in Pyeongtaek

At dawn on Friday, 6th of March 2009, a US soldier in Korea stabbed a Filipino woman 18 times almost causing her to death.

According to the press, the US soldier from Camp Humphrey, Pyeontaek attacked the woman with a knife at the club street near Osan air base, who was on her way home. He also caused damages to two Korean men who rushed to her aid after hearing her screams. The Korean police arrested the U.S soldier at the scene but after checking his identification they handed him over to the U.S military police.

On Thursday, 12th of March 2009 after 6 days of the incident the Pyeongtaek Police will investigate the U.S soldier answer the summons. This is the first investigation of the incident. On the day of the attack the U.S soldier also hurt his finger through scuffle with the men who were trying to stop him. Hence, the explanation for late investigation was because the U.S soldier had to go under treatment. However setting up the investigation 6 days later is over the boundaries of humanitarian concern. Generally Korean polices investigate in 48 hours when they arrest the criminal in the very act. The reason why initial investigation must be done in 48 hours after arresting the suspect is to prevent destruction of evidence and fabricating testimony. 6 days have passed since the incident meaning that the Korean police have opened possibilities of damaging the evidence and fabricating statement.

Humanitarian concern is only applied to the U.S soldier.

The initial investigation was delayed to give treatment to the U.S soldier. The authority of U.S. forces in Pyeongtaek paid for his treatment fee which was around 1,900,000 won and checked him out of the hospital. Then what kind of humanitarian concern is given to the woman? The woman was repeatedly stabbed and had serious internal wounds. She was in critical condition and luckily after the surgery she has been stabilized. However, now she is faced with medical bills amounting to 5,000,000won and more for her further treatment.

The commander of Army¡¯s 2nd Infantry Division where the U.S soldier belongs issued a news release saying ¡°We regret this incident took place and our sympathies are with the victims involved.¡± ¡°We will work closely with the Korean authorities to investigate this matter and bring the perpetrator to justice.¡± However there was no apology to the woman and any mentioning of taking care of the victims treatment.

Pyeongtaek Police must request arrest warrant for the U.S Soldier.

If this kind of incident happened between Koreans or any other foreigners living in Korea they would be properly arrested without question. Korea has jurisdiction over this case so following right procedures the U.S soldier must be arrested and sentenced in the Korean court. The U.S must comply with Korean authorities and hand over the U.S soldier. They should also pay the entire cost for the woman¡¯s treatment.

Recently, the Korean police and prosecutor's office have been stressing for stricter laws to be applied to illegality and violence. We will be watching closely to see if these tough measures are applied to this case involving a U.S soldier.

- National Campaign for Eradication of Crime by U.S.Troops in Korea -

Osan bar stabbing victim now conscious
By Franklin Fisher and Hwang Hae-rym, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Wednesday, March 11, 2009

U.S. soldier held after knife attack near Osan
By Franklin Fisher and Hwang Hae-rym, Stars and Stripes Pacific edition, Sunday, March 8, 2009

Text fwd: North Korea’s Satellite versus US-ROK Joint Military Exercise

* Image Source*
as in the original article below

http://peacekorea.org/zbxe/essay/8579
North Korea’s Satellite versus US-ROK Joint Military Exercise
2009-03-12 16:59
Wooksik Cheong/2009-03-11

It is said that in order to dissolve hostile relations, mutual trust is vital. Needless to say, to facilitate the building of confidence, it is important to strive to consider the position of the opposing party rather than enforcing one’s position and thoughts upon them. This is finding out what it is like when the shoe is on the other foot. However, in the current situation of the Korean peninsula, there is no sign of an attempt to step into the shoes of the other position. Only one’s own assertion is justified and the other’s contention is merely considered under pressure. This is clearly illustrated by the offensive and defensive battles between the US-ROK alliance and North Korea surrounding the talks of North Korea’s preparation to launch an artificial satellite and the joint US-ROK military training, ‘Key Resolve.’

Disregarding the apprehension and warnings by the 3 states, US-ROK-Japan, North Korea is prepared to enforce the launch of an artificial satellite. They have refuted with ‘Why is there a dispute over the justified right of a sovereign nation?’ However, the US ROK and Japan have ruled the satellite as a ‘mask’ used to cover up the ‘face,’ which in actuality is an effort by North Korea to test launch a long-range ballistic missile. The stigmatism of ‘a wolf in sheep’s clothing’ is laid as the foundation for this assertion. Subsequent to stating the launch of the artificial satellite as a violation of the UN Security Council’s Resolution, additional sanctions are being suggested. An interception using a missile defense system (MD) is also being threatened.

Accordingly, this development of a US-ROK-Japan excessive countermeasure has the makings to complicate and endanger the situation more than the actual North Korean launch of the artificial satellite. This excessive counter plan begins with the stipulation of ‘Kwangmyongsong-2’ as the ‘Taepodong-2’. If one visions this dangerous but predictable scenario, the following is how it may unfold.

North Korea’s launch of artificial satellite; powerful criticism by US-ROK-Japan and a discussion of UN Security Council sanctions led by Japan; the dispersal of the adopted sanctions resolution against North Korea due to the opposition by China and Russia; the independent promotion of sanctions against North Korea by ROK and Japan and acceleration of US led MD construction; North Korea’s resistance and warning of suspending disablement of Yongbyon nuclear facilities; upsurge of tension on the Korean peninsula

Of course, the concerns of the US, ROK and Japan are not groundless. While the technology of North Korea may not be up to par, the technology used for launching the artificial satellite can be converted for ballistic missiles, and it is understood that North Korea’s enforcement of launching this satellite possesses this motivation.

However, this concern cannot be the basis of the conclusion that this satellite launch by North Korea is in fact, a ballistic missile. This is based on the fact that North Korean authority of peacefully utilizing space cannot be denied on the grounds that this technology may be diverted to ‘military use.’

Moreover, the initial reason behind the North Korean launch of the satellite is the significance of possessing of a satellite. If the goal of the North Korean launch of the artificial satellite lies only in the development of a ballistic missile, the agreement that North Korea arrived at with the US in 2000 at the missile talks, stating that ‘the development of a long-range ballistic missile will be suspended if the US launch a satellites on behalf of North Korea,’ cannot be explained. In addition, aligned with their philosophy of building a fortress state based on self-reliance, North Korea is executing this core project to ultimately possess a satellite by 2012.

The importance of accurately naming the satellite will arise at this point. If the international society unilaterally designates the launch of the satellite as ‘Taepodong-2,’ it will consequently bring about, either through the UN or independently, criticisms and sanctions, and coercive and military countermeasures, including a missile defense system and strengthened military preparations. However, this approach will provoke North Korea, only causing the situation on the Korean peninsula and the Northeast Asia region to become insecure.

Conversely, if the artificial satellite is acknowledged as such while the concern remains in the fact that this technology may be diverted towards the development of a ballistic missile, then a diplomatic solution may emerge. Reminiscent of the 2000 missile negotiations, a solution may be sought out that would arrange a US launch of the satellite in place of North Korea in exchange for suspending the development of long-range ballistic missiles.

North Korea, likewise, needs a posture of putting the shoe on the other foot. Even though the launch of the artificial satellite may be a justified right, if there is a risk of heightening the tension on the Korean peninsula, narrowing the breadth of decisions for the newly beginning Obama administration and fueling an arms race in the East Asia region, there will be a demand to wisely exercise self-restraint. Additionally, if what North Korea desires to have is truly the artificial satellite, the advisable process is to first, delay the enforcement of the launch and then propose to reconvene the missile negotiations.

It is also important for both the US and the ROK to take the position of putting themselves in the shoes of the opposing party in regards to the US-ROK combined military exercise called the ‘Key Resolve’ . Both the US and ROK spurn North Korea’s assertion that this exercise is ‘training to invade North Korea’ as an unjustified insistence and refuse their demands to suspend this exercise, viewing that as ‘defensive’ behavior. Still, in a militarily hostile state of affairs, it is unreasonable to expect the other party to not problematize the issue of one side pursuing such a large-scale training which mobilizes nuclear-powered aircraft carriers, cutting edge weaponry and ten thousands of military manpower. If the perspectives are switched, this is not a difficult issue to comprehend.

Supposing that the Chinese and North Korean forces held a massive military exercise maintaining it as ‘defensive and to have peace of mind,’ would the Republic of Korea find it acceptable? Moreover, aren’t both the US and ROK discussing the issue of Chairman Kim Jong-Il’s health problems and openly raising the issue of possible military intervention in the case of a sudden change or an unexpected occurrence in North Korea?

In a condition of military confrontation, ‘appropriate restraint’ may be needed but if the extent of this restraint exceeds the degree, it may bear side effects. The fact that North Korea, a state far behind in terms of a conventional armament race and military preparations, is tampering with nuclear weapons and missiles are proof of this.

There is a need for both President Lee Myung-Bak and President Obama to momentarily close their eyes and put themselves in the position of Kim Jong-Il regarding the US-ROK joint military exercise. The beginning in settling this problem is precisely here.

*Wooksik Cheong is the representative of Peace Network. Irena Kang, the intern of Peace Network contributed to translation.

Text Fwd:New report describes slight improvements of human rights in N. Korea

* Image Source* as in the original article
'North Korean children have a snowball fight in Pyongyang on November 24, 2008.'

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/343737.html

New report describes slight improvements of human rights in N. Korea Despite unintended improvements in the rights of regular N. Koreans, class and regional disparity in human rights increasing: Human Rights Commission

Posted on : Mar.12,2009 13:52 KST

“North Korea’s human rights situation is wholly poor. Economic, social, and cultural rights are growing notably worse, while there have been institutional improvements in civic and political rights. Also, the human rights situation is different by social group and region, with continually deepening disparity.”

So goes the National Human Rights Commission’s description of the state of human rights in North Korea in its report, “Findings on the State of Human Rights of the Residents of North Korea,” released March 11.

The report is based on interviews with 122 North Korean defectors, 93 of which are women receiving orientation at a South Korean education facility for new defectors and 30 of which are defectors who came to the South in 2007 and 2008. The interviews were conducted between July 2008 and February of this year. It was drafted by a team of researchers at the University of North Korean Studies led by Professor Lee Woo-young.

People who leave North Korea and enter China but are then repatriated are more often than not being given relatively brief sentences of six months labor, while North Koreans who leave the North repeatedly, attempt to go to South Korea or have contact with Christians outside the country are being treated as political prisoners, the report says.

The document notes that there have been systemic improvements in civic and political rights, and that the a weakened regime structure and economic difficulties have led to slight but unintended improvements in the rights of regular North Koreans. Public executions have been become less frequent since the start of the decade, and they have become more common for crimes like corruption on the part of party officials, murder, human trafficking, and narcotics production and sale than for political crimes. It also says that while there have not been the same urgent food crises as there were in the 1990s, the social security system [

The report also describes what it says is increasing class and regional disparity in human rights. There are, on the one hand, some who are enjoying various rights for having adjusted to a new climate created by the allowance of some market activities by the “July 1 Economy Management Improvement Measure”; they amassed wealth in the process. Those who have not been able to take advantage of the new rules are, according to the report, having their livelihoods threatened and are “exposed to a violently oppressive regime.”

It also describes an increasingly weak sense of community in North Korean society, saying that people often no longer care when others are starving and suffering.

“The human rights situation in North Korea is influenced by the one-party system, patriarchal culture and a regime weakened by economic difficulties,” said Lee. “It is also being influenced by inter-Korean relations over the past decade and international pressure.”

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

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Text Fwd:U.S. National Intelligence director affirms North’s space launch

*Image Source* as in the original article below

'National Intelligence Director Dennis Blair testifies on Capitol Hill in Washington, DC, on March 10 before the Senate Armed Services Committee hearing on worldwide threats. AP Photo.'

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/343718.html

U.S. National Intelligence director affirms North’s space launch
: But N. Korea’s launch of a ‘space-launch vehicle’ could still incur sanctions because U.S. policy equates satellites with missiles

Posted on : Mar.12,2009 10:24 KST Modified on : Mar.12,2009 11:18 KST

U.S. National Intelligence director affirms North’s space launch
But N. Korea’s launch of a ‘space-launch vehicle’ could still incur sanctions because U.S. policy equates satellites with missiles

United States Director of National Intelligence Dennis Blair became the first high-ranking official in the United States to announce that he thought the object North Korea is planning to launch is in fact a satellite.

At the Annual Threat Assessment briefing for the U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee on Tuesday, Blair said, “The North Koreans announced that they were going to do a space launch, and I believe that that’s what they intend.” He added, “I could be wrong, but that would be my estimate.”

With the public acknowledgement by Blair, who oversees 16 intelligence organizations in the United States, that North Korea’s launch vehicle is a satellite, some are interpreting this as meaning that the possibilities of an interception by the U.S. have decreased proportionally.

But in the briefing, Blair confirmed once again that he equates a satellite with a missile. With the U.S. administration sticking to the position that the technology is the same for a satellite launch rocket and an intercontinental ballistic missile, the possibility remains that the United States will pursue sanctions even if North Korea launches a satellite, in accordance with United Nations Security Council Resolution 1718 forbidding the launching of a ballistic missile by North Korea.

In response to Blair’s statement, a Cheong Wa Dae official said, “It was not a remark conclusively stating that it is a satellite.” The official added, “Right now, it’s difficult to predict whether it will be a missile or a satellite.”

Another Cheong Wa Dae official noted that Blair used the expression “space-launch vehicle” rather than “satellite” in his response. “It could be a missile or a satellite, depending on whether you load a warhead or a satellite on the space-launch vehicle,” the official noted. This means that a space-launch vehicle does not mean a satellite and is simply an objective expression for a transporter.

Japanese media reported that there is no legal basis for sanctions and no possibility of a successful interception in the event that North Korea launches a long-range missile or satellite. The Yomiuri Shimbun commented Tuesday that the legal basis does not exist if North Korea launches a ballistic missile with range extending far beyond the territorial land and waters of Japan. Asai Motofumi, director of the Hiroshima Peace Institute at Hiroshima City University and a former Japanese foreign ministry official, wrote in the “Comments” section of the Tuesday edition of the Mainichi Daily News that according to the Outer Space Treaty, which states that all nations can explore and use outer space freely and without any discrimination, it is self-evident that North Korea too can exercise these rights.

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

© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Go Away, Stennis, Nuclear Powered Aircraft Carrier!!!!!

* Image Source *
No bases Stories of Korea

On March 11, 2009, The Solidarity for Peace And Reunification of Korea(SPARK) had a press interview against the visit of the Nimitz-class nuclear-powered supercarrier USS John C. Stennis, coming for being part of the Key Resolve/Foal Eagle war exercise and harboring in the city of Busan, a south east tip of the Korean peninsula dring the war rehersal from March 9 to 20, 2009.

Joined by the Busan civil committee for the preparation of the founding of the Busan branch of the SPARK, it brought the many reporters from the press. The Press interview was done at 8:30 am, March 11, in front of the Naval Operation Command of the Republic of the Korea, Busan, South Korea. One could see the supercarrier of which size is the 3 times of the soccer fields along with the Aegis Destroyers of the U. S. & South Korea with one’s eye. Some peace activists had hung the banner of “NO WAR” at the high hill fiercely looking at the war ships.


* Related Korean article*

A Nuclear-Powered Supercarrier Participates the Key Resolve War Exercise of South Korea. There are protests. March 11, 2009

http://www.hani.co.kr/arti/politics/defense/343465.html

http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_entertainment/343723.html
(English)

http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83262

http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83276


Jinhae, South Kyungnam, marine and navy exercise

http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83239


* Related blogs*

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/analysis-whats-behind-norths-opposition.html

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/all-over-korea-stop-war-exercise.html

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/stop-key-resolve-foal-eagle-war.html

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/photos-fwthe-preparation-of-key-resolve.html

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/stop-key-resolve-war-exercise.html


* The USS John C. Stennis (CVN-74) in the Wikipedia *

'2000 - Persian Gulf/Pacific Ocean

7 January 2000 - Left San Diego to enforce the no-fly zone in Iraq and made port visits to South Korea, Hong Kong, Malaysia, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates and Australia 3 July 2000 - Returned to San Diego

[edit] 2001 - Persian Gulf

12 November 2001 - Left San Diego for the Persian Gulf in support of operations in Afghanistan. 28 May 2002 - Returned to San Diego

[edit] 2004 - Pacific Ocean

24 May 2004 - 1 November 2004 Took part in Northern Edge 2004 in the Gulf of Alaska, Rim of the Pacific Exercise off Hawaii, exercises with the Kitty Hawk off Japan and goodwill visits to Japan, Malaysia and Western Australia.

8 January 2005 - Home port moved from San Diego to Bremerton.

19 January 2005 - Began 11 month Docking Planned Incremental Availability (DPIA) at Bremerton, the first time she had been dry-docked since commissioning. Upgrades included a new mast.

December 2005 - November 2006 Sea trials and exercises.

[edit] 2007 - Persian Gulf
USS John C. Stennis arrives in Bremerton on 31 August 2007.

On 20 January 2007 the Stennis set sail for the Persian Gulf as part of an increase in US military presence within the Middle East. The Stennis arrived in the area on 19 February 2007, joining the USS Dwight D. Eisenhower in the United States Fifth Fleet area of operations.[1] This marks the first time since 2003 that there have been two aircraft carrier battle groups in the region.

On 23 May 2007 the Stennis, along with eight other warships including the aircraft carrier Nimitz and amphibious assault ship Bonhomme Richard, passed through the Strait of Hormuz. US Navy officials said it was the largest such move since 2003.[2]

On 31 August 2007 the Stennis returned to Bremerton.

[edit] 2009 - Western Pacific

Late on 2008-09-23, the Stennis departed Bremerton for a two-month training cruise off of Southern California in preparation for a 6-month deployment to the Western Pacific in 2009.[3] The deployment itself started on 2009-01-13.[4]'

Photos Fwd: All over the Korea: Stop War Exercise!

* Image Source*

1. March 11, 2009, one man protest, in front of the gate of KORCOM(Combined Forces Command of the USFK-SK), Sungnam, Kyunggi province

http://www.spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news&action=viewForm&uid=2141&page=1


2. March 11, 2009, in front of the Naval Operation Command of the Republic of Korea, Busan

http://www.spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news&action=viewForm&uid=2138&page=1


3. 4. March 11, 2009, Daegu, a city of the south east of the Korea

http://www.spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news&action=viewForm&uid=2140&page=1


5. March 11, 2009, Rodriguez, Yongpyeong, Pochun

http://www.spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php??dummy=1236733795&BBS=s_news&action=viewForm&uid=2139&page=1

* Related Korean article*

http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83256

6. March 10, 2009, Seoul, No Base Stories of Korea
Related site:
http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=83256


* Related blogs*

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/analysis-whats-behind-norths-opposition.html

http://nobasestorieskorea.blogspot.com/2009/03/stop-key-resolve-foal-eagle-war.html

Test Fwd: [Analysis] What’s behind the North’s opposition to Key Resolve?

* Informed in the website of the Solidarity for Peace And reunification of Korea(SPARK)

* Image caption as in the original article same as below*

'Members of Solidarity for Peace and Reunification Korea demonstrate against in Sungnam, Gyeonggi, as soldiers participating in the South Korea-U.S. Key Resolve training exercise pass by.'


http://english.hani.co.kr/arti/english_edition/e_northkorea/343241.html
[Analysis] What’s behind the North’s opposition to Key Resolve?
N. Korea views the exercise as a threat of invasion, but is not likely to retaliate without provocation from the United States or Japan

With tensions rising on the Korean Peninsula due to the start of an annual training drill, the U.S.-led United Nations Command released a statement defending the drill as a “defensive exercise.” North Korea is again protesting the exercise, which takes place from March 9-20 at locations across South Korea, saying that it is preparation for an invasion of the North. But what is the reason for the North’s response and is it a reasonable one?

In a press release with the title “KR/FE is routine defensive readiness exercise” sent March 9 by the UN Command before its annual Key Resolve and Foal Eagle training exercise with the South Korean military got underway, General Walter Sharp, the head of the U.S. Forces South Korea, said, “KR/FE is a routine training exercise that takes place every year at about the same time. It is not tied in any way to any political or real-world event. The primary goal is to ensure the command is ready to defend the ROK (Republic of Korea) in the event it becomes necessary.”

Seoul and Washington have been conducting joint training exercises since 2008 to prepare for the return of wartime operational control from the USFK to the South Korean military on April 17, 2012, and the name has since gone through several changes. First known as Team Spirit, the drill later became the Reception, Staging, Onward Movement, Integration exercise in 1994. Last year, the joint military exercise became Key Resolve.

Key Resolve is designed to train the South Korean and U.S. forces and assumes a situation in which a full-blown war has broken out on the Korean Peninsula. Troops practice taking in U.S. reinforcements at seaports and airports, ordering them to wait until other troops and resources arrive and realigning troops to send them to the front line.

North Korea views the exercises as a threat because a fleet of U.S. battleships, including a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier, an Aegis battle-cruiser, about 10 destroyers and a nuclear submarine, are stationed around the East Sea for the duration of the exercise.

Although the U.S.-led UN Command says that “Approximately 13,100 off-peninsula personnel are participating this year, which is consistent with previous years’ participation,” the U.S. Navy’s Aegis destroyer was deployed as well, amid fears that North Korea is preparing to test fire what is suspected to be a long-range missile.

At talks with generals from the UN Command on March 6, North Korea said that the United States was using “military pressure” by amassing “forces of agression” in the East Sea.

The North may also feel threatened by Key Resolve’s inclusion of OPLAN (operation plan) 5027, the military plan that it denounces as a plan to bring about the collapse of the North Korean regime.

North Korea has called on South Korea and the U.S. to stop the joint military drills at various meetings, including the six-party negotiations and talks with generals from South Korea. This year in particular, the North seems to be viewing Key Resolve as a touchstone of the U.S. administration of President Barack Obama’s North Korea policy. At recent talks with generals from the UN Command on March 2 and 6, North Korea claimed it would “judge whether the Obama administration will follow the previous hostile policy against the North depending on whether Key Resolve is canceled.”

In a statement on March 9, a spokesperson with the Supreme Command of the North’s Korean People’s Army said the North would retaliate if the United States and Japan shoot down the rocket it says is a satellite but which is presumed to be a long-range Taepodong-2 missile, further increasing tensions on the peninsula. The North does not have a missile capable of hitting U.S. bases in Alaska, its closest target, so if it were to retaliate it is likely it would instead target the U.S. Aegis destroyer stationed in the East Sea for the Key Resolve exercise.

But the North is not likely to do anything without provocation from the United States or Japan. Commenting on the North’s remark about a retaliatory strike, Won Tae-jae, a spokesman for the South’s Ministry of Defense, said, “The remark is close to political rhetoric. So far, there has bee no particular military movement by North Korea.”

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

Posted on : Mar.10,2009 11:34 KST
© 2006 The Hankyoreh Media Company.

Text fwd: Nuclear Sustainment is Top Priority

Fwd from Frank Cordaro, Kev Hall

http://www.metimes.com/Security/2009/03/10/nuclear_sustainment_is_top_priority/5aca/

Nuclear sustainment is top priority
Published: March 10, 2009

ROBINS AIR FORCE BASE, Ga., March 10 (UPI) -- The commander of the
U.S. Air Force Nuclear Weapons Center said robust nuclear sustainment
is critical and a top priority.

Brig. Gen. Everett Thomas, commander of the Air Force Materiel Command
Nuclear Weapons Center in New Mexico, said in order to effectively
support U.S. military objectives, an efficient and sustained nuclear
enterprise must remain in focus, the Materiel Command reported.

Thomas said nuclear sustainment, following the 2007 incident when six
cruise missiles with nuclear warheads were mistakenly transported
without proper safeguards, requires proper attention to provide
"war-winning capabilities to the war fighter," according to a press
release.

"It's Air Force Materiel Command's mission to sustain our nuclear
force," Thomas said in the release.

"It's up to us to keep it a priority and make sure we don't slip back
to the days when we did not pay the proper amount of attention to our
nuclear mission."

© 2009 United Press International. All Rights Reserved.

Text fwd: Orbital Junkyard Just Might Trap Us

Fwd by Tim Rinne

Omaha World-Herald
Monday, February 23, 2009
Midlands Voices: Orbital junkyard just might trap us

BY TIM RINNE
*The writer, of Lincoln, is state coordinator of Nebraskans for Peace.*

Nearly 500 miles above Earth, the calm was suddenly disrupted Feb. 10 when a U.S. satellite collided with a derelict Russian orbiter at 26,000 mph. The impact created two expanding clouds of debris with hundreds of orbital fragments.

Initial reports indicated that the debris clouds posed no immediate threat to the International Space Station. But the space station is hardly the only thing up there that we need to worry about.

Iridium, the U.S. corporation that owned the now-pulverized satellite, operates a constellation of 66 such craft providing global telecommunications services. And Iridium is just one corporation in one industry in one country.

Space is now home to almost a thousand commercial and military satellites with a dozen different sponsors such as Russia, China, the United States, the European Union, Japan, India and — just this past month — Iran.

Space, in fact, has been the handmaid of economic globalization. It has become our economic stock-in-trade. And any physical threat to these fragile (and expensive) space assets is, accordingly, taken very seriously by the world’s spacefaring nations.

Understandably unhappy about this space pileup, Russia blamed NASA for failing to warn Iridium about the collision course its satellite was on. Tracking space objects, however, is not in fact NASA’s job.

That’s the responsibility of the U.S. Strategic Command, through its Space Surveillance Network.

Almost two years ago, at the inaugural Space and Telecom Law Conference sponsored by the University of Nebraska College of Law, then-StratCom commander Gen. James Cartwright publicly discussed the challenges of trying to track the 17,000 space objects it’s assigned to watch.

Already then, he voiced concern about the magnitude of the round-the-clock task of directing satellite traffic and dodging space junk. The satellite collision has only added to StratCom’s worries.

StratCom is not to be blamed for this accident. But this latest crash should send a message to the White House and the Pentagon that it’s high time to change course on U.S. space policy if we are to have any hope of preventing future collisions.

For more than 20 years, the United States has been pretty much the only nation on Earth refusing to support the annual U.N. resolution on the “Prevention of an Arms Race in Outer Space” (PAROS). Virtually every other country — including Russia, China, North Korea, Iran and Pakistan — is on record supporting the PAROS call to negotiate a new treaty to stop the militarization of the heavens and

to preserve space for peace.

Under both Republican and Democratic administrations, the United States has refused to vote for the resolution and commence negotiations because of the military and economic space superiority we enjoyed. Wanting to protect that advantage, the White House and Pentagon have steadfastly opposed any new treaties respecting space.

But the world as we know it is shifting over our heads. Both Russia and China now possess anti-satellite technology. Iran has just launched its first satellite. Beyond the growing military challenges to U.S. space dominance, there’s the omnipresent threat of space accidents — of more unexpected crashes and ever more space debris.

And the debris problem is now becoming uppermost in the minds of many.

If the amount of junk continues to proliferate, we run the risk of eventually imprisoning ourselves on Earth. Unable to launch satellites and probes safely through the barrier of debris — or protect them once they’re up there — we could be forced to permanently retreat back to Earth’s surface. The economic and military shock to the United States’ standing in the world would be almost incalculable.

These are the scary stakes we now face by continuing to oppose the PAROS negotiations for a new treaty on space. With a new administration in Washington, we have a chance to start changing our policy course. But we need to get busy bargaining in earnest. A couple more crackups like the one Feb. 10, and this will be a “prison planet” and “ain’t nobody gonna be goin’ nowhere.”

/This article was originally published in the Omaha World-Herald and is reprinted with permission./

Text fwd: The Work of the TRCK: Uncovering the Hidden Stories of the Korean War

Fwd from Bruce Gagnon

* Image Source*
Original article same as below


http://international.ucla.edu/asia/events/showevent.asp?eventid=7258

The Work of the TRCK: Uncovering the Hidden Stories of the Korean War

UCLA Asia Institute - Los Angeles,CA,USA
The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Republic of Korea is tasked with answering the questions that the bereaved families have asked for a long time. ...

The Work of the TRCK: Uncovering the Hidden Stories of the Korean War
By Dong-choon Kim, Associate Professor, Sung Kong Hoe University/Korea Colloquium Series
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
2:00 PM - 3:30 PM
10383 Bunche Hall
Los Angeles, CA 90095

Very few are aware that an estimate number of 100,000 South Koreans were massacred as the Korean War broke out on June 25, 1950. Some of the victims were left-winged or were sympathizers of the North Korean regime, but the majority of the victims consisted of converted leftists or innocent civilians who were rather ignorant of their standings. The U.S. and South Korean authorities have kept secret this terrible chapter of the War, arguing that revealing thereof would risk national security and South Korea’s legitimacy. As a result, the saddest chapter of Korea’s modern history has remained a public secret, even to elders in their 70s or 80s who experienced the War.

When U.S.-supported Rhee Syungman lost power through the students’ uprising in 1960, the bereaved families poured onto the streets and asked for truth verification of the mass killings during the war. They exhumed the victims’ remains and built a joint cemetery after organizing ”The National Association of the Bereaved Families of the Korean War Victims.” In response to the ever-growing number of petitions from bereaved families, Korea’s National Assembly hurried to set up ”the Special Committee on the Fact-finding of Massacres.” The 5.16 Coup in 1961 however hushed these voices by arresting the leaders of the association. And by prosecuting the leaders of the bereaved family association and demolishing the joint cemetery they built, the military government sent out a clear message: anyone who brings up the issue of truth verification on the deaths during the war would be regarded as communist, and thereby considered a threat to the state. For about 27 years of military regime from 1961 to 1987, any sympathetic discourse on raising awareness on massacres during the Korean War was subject to prosecution. The bereaved families suffered severe discriminations. Systematically estranged from civil society and politics, they were often put under incessant surveillance by the police and the Korean Central Intelligence Agency (KCIA).

South Korea’s political atmosphere from 1953 onward was heavily influenced by the frantic McCarthyism in the US, and this atmosphere has resulted in society’s collective amnesia over Korean War mass killings committed by the Republic of Korea (ROK) and the United States troops. Politicians and major media under the authoritarian regimes were reluctant to cover or even mention the incidents of civilian mass killings by South Korean troops during the war. Authorities and the media have never attempted to investigate the truth or listen to the heartbroken pleas from the victims. Major media instead just copied foreign based news sources whenever the relevant news soared up, e.g., the AP’s report on “Nogunri Incident.” The Ministry of Defense and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade did not officially comment even after the release of the U.S. government’s “Nogunri Report,” which argued that the incident occurred in the midst of a combat situation and tacitly legitimized the mass killings by American forces.

It was widely viewed that the victims of massacres have been killed three times by the South Korean authorities; first, their lives were taken at the actual incident between 1948 and 1953; second, they were killed again when their bereaved families’ requests for the truth verification of the disappearances and/or killings of their beloveds were unanswered; and last but not the least, the victims were killed once more when their bereaved family members were branded as “reds” or “commies,” and became subjects of the guilt-by-association. The systematic alienation of these bereaved families lasted almost until the late 1980s. As painful as the holocaust denial to the holocaust victims and their families, the bereaved families of the massacres during the Korean War also have suffered from outright denial from the state as well as the feudal-typed authoritarian regimes’ political repression of “guilt-by-association.” The “guilt-by-association,” was effectively used to exclude alleged political opponents and remove the very foundation of their subsistence in modern Korean society. In this sense, the uniquely formed governing system utilizing “guilt-by-association” under the authoritarian regimes again deepened the hurt the victimized families had borne in their hearts.

The forced amnesia in such a strong McCarthyism-esque political atmosphere that grew under the military dictatorships hushed the survivors and the victims’ families from revealing their long untold stories. The political and financial hardships the survivors had to endure were often considered even greater than the pain of actually losing their beloved ones. After half a century, these survivors have not yet completely recovered from the trauma and terror of witnessing some of the most brutal acts the mankind could possibly commit upon other human beings. Unspeakably inhumane treatment and atrocious trauma the survivors experienced have been nightmares for many of them, which were deeply etched in their hearts for decades.

The pr_evalent public negligence and silence widely spread throughout the United States and Korea are not just the results of simple passage of time, but the result of collective amnesia forced by the state that were frantic about McCarthyism in both nations. Raising awareness of the untold stories of the Korean War would be the responsibility of scholars and journalists. It is essentially that such stories ought to be investigated and verified by an official institution given with an appropriate authority, to thereby be known to the public. This is precisely what the Commission was mandated with. Reinstating the honor of the victims and carrying out the memorial services for the dead can be followed only after truth verifications are completed by the Commission.

The Truth and Reconciliation Commission, the Republic of Korea is tasked with answering the questions that the bereaved families have asked for a long time. What the bereaved families have repeatedly requested over decades include: 1) the identification of the perpetrators and 2) the perpetrators’ intention to commit the atrocities. The Commission has been also expected to settle the grievances that the bereaved families have suffered, and provide guidelines to write the history in accordance with its truth-findings so as to prevent any future repetition of such atrocities and abuses.

The systematic oppressions of the past authoritarian regimes barred the stories of the massacres during the war from being told and infringed the people’s right to freedom of speech, a human right under Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and in the international human rights law of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR). There is a strong voice among experts that the numerous human rights violation cases would have been prevented if only the atrocities of the war were told before.

The work of the Commission has been focused on the above-mentioned two highly demanded requests from the bereaved families and the civil groups. However, the Commission is still encountering widespread public negligence, i.e., the result of major media being still heavily influenced by the government. The petitioners are now asking for substantial and visible results of the Commission’s mandates, and how to answer those remains our duty.


*Dong-Choon Kim is an associate professor of sociology at Sung Kong Hoe University in Korea. He is currently serving as a standing commissioner of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, Republic of Korea (TRCK).

He got his PhD from Seoul National University (1993). The research areas that he has focused are historical sociology of Korean politics, working class formation and the Korean War. He also has acted as an organizer of progressive academic movements since the 1980s and have participated several civil movements in South Korea. In 2004, The Hankyoreh (Korea's progressive newspaper) nominated him as a member of '100 people who will lead Korean society. He was awarded the 20th DanJe Prize (단재상) in 2005 by his academic achievements and activities.

Since 1999, he wrote articles on Korean War Massacres and has organized concerned intellectuals and victims’ families to settle the problem of massacres committed by South Korean authorities during the Korean War (1948-1953)

He has written several academic articles and books including Social Movement in 1960s of Korea (1991), A Study of Korea's Working Class (1995), Shadow of Modernity (2000), War and Society(2000), Engine of America-Market and War(2004). Among them, War and Society, is translated into Germany, Japanese, and English (English title is The Unending Korean War)

Cost: Free
Special Instructions

Open to the public.

For more information please contact

Sejung Kim
Tel: 310-825-3284
koreanstudies@international.ucla.edu

Sponsor(s): Center for Korean Studies

Dr. Steven Kim
Head of International Cooperation Team
Truth and Reconciliation Commission
3F Maeil Business Media Center 30-1, 1-ga
Pil-dong, Jung-gu, Seoul 100-728, KOREA
Tel: 822 3406 2555 Fax: 822 3406 2543
www.jinsil.go.kr/english