Text Fwd: [nousbases-info] Ten Years of the VFA: An Assessment

Text informed by Agatha Haun on May 30, 2009

Ten Years of the Visiting Forces Agreement: An Assessment

by

Roland G. Simbulan

Centennial Professor, University of the Philippines &

Senior Fellow, Center for People’s Empowerment in Governance (CENPEG)

The presence of heavily armed U.S. soldiers even in the remote areas of the Philippine countryside is now becoming a normal part of the local scenery. As we mark the ten years (1999-2009) of the Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA), we see that it has made our countryside a free-fire zone for so-called joint military exercises using live ammunition and artillery that have killed, injured or maimed our people and children. These foreign troops enter our territory without passports or visas, without clearances from our customs or immigration authorities, without quarantine clearances from our health authorities, with neither licenses nor registration for driving their vehicles in our country. They have gotten away with murder, attempted murder, rape, harassment of our women, maltreatment of our countrymen, and destruction of our environment. A document called the “Visiting Forces Agreement” has given them the right to do so.

More than 40,000 U.S. troops have entered our territory in more than 25 provinces this way since the VFA was put in place in 1999. They came in more than 78 U.S. naval vessels and fleets which include nuclear-armed aircraft carriers, cruise ships, submarines, in clear violation of the Philippine constitutional prohibition on the entry of nuclear weapons in any part of Philippine territory.

The VFA is the most anomalous aspect of our foreign relations today, 17 years after the historic dismantling of the U.S. military bases in 1992. It is a shameless document that is one-sided because it is not reciprocal. It denigrates the Philippine constitutional provision about “equal protection of the laws” by the very fact that it grants special rights and privileges to armed foreign troops on Philippine territory. The VFA has been an indignity to our people, a travesty to our people’s rights and rule of law. This is why Filipinos from all walks of life all over the country continue to protest this so-called treaty as long as it is in place. It reminds us that we are still not really sovereign in our own territory as a nation.

The VFA is thus and indeed a bad example for other proposed or pending military agreements with other countries such as the Philippine-Australian Status of Visiting Forces Agreement still pending in the Senate, or similar draft agreements with Singapore and New Zealand. These are ostensibly using the VFA with the United States as a model.

Is the VFA legal and constitutional?

Clearly, the 2000 and 2009 Supreme Court decisions on the VFA only allows for joint military exercises like the Balikatan, and small unit joint training exercises. It does not allow basing rights or facilities to be constructed for transient U.S. forces visiting the Philippines. It also does not allow U.S. forces to be involved in counterinsurgency operations in the country.

Basing rights or privileges

But since 2003, U.S. congressional budgetary documents have referred to the installation of “forward or advance operating bases” being set up in the Philippines. These have meticulously been exposed by Focus on the Global South researcher Herbert Docena in several articles (Docena, 2006). The facilities for the U.S. Joint Special Operations Task Force-Philippines (formerly called the Operation Enduring Freedom-Philippines), now deployed all-year round in the country, have been beefed up with the U.S. Department of Defense contracting the American defense contractor Global Contingency Services LLC with a US$14.4-million (or P650 million pesos) contract for “base development” in Mindanao. These facilities which have been constructed are described by no less than official U.S. documents and in their Pentagon lexicon as “forward operating bases” or “advance operating base,” especially those that have been set up in various parts of Mindanao inside Philippine Army camps. In reality, these are permanent operating, support, intelligence and training bases set up in direct support for Philippine counterinsurgency operations. Are these really allowed by the provisions of the VFA and by the Philippine Supreme Court?

Role in counter-insurgency activities

The Philippines, under the cover of Balikatan exercises, is being used as a laboratory for the latest U.S. counterinsurgency tactics and strategies in the Philippines, which are later to be used in other U.S. military interventions in other countries. This includes the “security-development approach” in counter-insurgency. The traditional role of the U.S. Army in overseas operations include “small unit training of local forces, civic action initiatives, psychological warfare”. But there are “non-traditional” operations which are implemented in conjunction with agencies responsible for development assistance like the USAID and other conduits like the U.S. Institute for Peace, the National Endowment for Democracy, etc.

General T. Galvin of the U.S. Army testified in U.S. Senate congressional hearings that U.S. Special Operations Forces are also used in “direct action”, including “small unit commando activities,” where “speed and surprise…dictate, otherwise they are for security assistance, combat intelligence and communications.” (Galvin, 1987) Or under a special Executive Order 12333 issued by the President of the United States since the 1980s, they can engage in covert surgical “special activities” beyond the training of local government forces as Mobile Training Teams (MTT).

U.S. military presence in the Philippines today relies heavily on covert U.S. military involvement through U.S. Special Operations Forces (SOFs), service intelligence organizations, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and other covert U.S. intelligence agencies like the National Security Agency (NSA) and the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) playing a central role. Other agencies include the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) and Peace Corps, which specialize in the “hearts-and-minds approach” using so-called humanitarian or non-lethal aid. Covert action includes unconventional warfare, intelligence operations and psychological operations (psy-ops) in target areas such as remote communities suspected of being “controlled or influenced by insurgents”. Their activities provide the fundamental elements in supporting local counterinsurgency operations.

Under the Visiting Forces Agreement, “U.S. civilian personnel directed by the U.S. Department of Defense” are also given special rights and privileges like their uniformed U.S. military counterparts. Their range of activities include economic, civic, military, diplomatic and political action, all aimed at achieving the political/psychological (psy-ops) objective to undercut a movement’s support base and destroy its credibility and influence to provide support for U.S. objectives. Humanitarian or civic action missions, in the form of medical/dental (MEDCAP) teams purportedly to meet human needs, are meant to penetrate local political infrastructures and achieve the objectives of psychological operations. This is what U.S. manuals on counterinsurgency say about these “non-lethal tools” for counterinsurgency and about the purposes of these activities (US Army, 1975).

This is also why U.S. intelligence operatives and counterinsurgency specialists under the coverage of the VFA now are seen freely roaming the General Headquarters of the Armed Forces of the Philippines and other AFP camps. They provide critical battlefield intelligence and communications/logistical support for large and small-unit local counterinsurgency operations.

Let us review the real role of the “humanitarian missions” of the U.S. Department of Defense. During the Philippine-American War, General Arthur McArthur (General Douglas McArthur’s father who served in the US Army during its “pacification” of the Philippines) made the following frank statement before the 57^th Congress of the United States:

“One of my purposes was to improve roads for strategic purposes entirely. I got $1 million gold for the purpose. Whatever incidental advantage arose to the community was, of course, in consequence of the military necessity. My view was to make passable roads during all seasons, so that by assembling troops at central points and connecting the outpost by wire, we could rapidly move from the rendezvous to the extremities, and thereby avoid the necessity of scattering into so many posts.”

United States Marines and Special Operations Forces are actually doing battlefield intelligence and psy-ops as they conduct infrastructure, civic action and “humanitarian missions” with USAID personnel in many parts of the country today, using the VFA as a cover. Meanwhile, the Philippine’s VFA Commission, which was ostensibly created to oversee the implementation of VFA provisions, including monitoring violations, has only become the principal apologist for the onerous agreement, while consistently covering up even the most brazen violations of the agreement by U.S. military forces.

Resistance to VFA

The people of Mindanao, especially in the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao, are waging a continuous campaign to stop U.S. military intervention—both covert and overt—in the internal conflict, which has only complicated the situation in the second largest island of the Philippines. Lately, the people of Bicol region have scored a tactical victory in the struggle against the restoration of U.S. military forces by forcing the rollback of 6,000 U.S. troops and forcing them to send instead a so-called 100-member U.S. military “humanitarian mission” in the Balikatan exercises. BAN Balikatan (Bikol Against Balikatan) and the SUMABA KA (Speak Out!) or Sorsogon United Movement for Peace Against Balikatan have successfully forced the retreat of BK ’09 into a defensive position. A people’s caravan that traveled in all of Bicolandia’s provinces highlighted a strong people’s resistance to the VFA which is being used as a camouflage to U.S. involvement in counterinsurgency and the restoration of de facto basing rights in the country.

The Filipino people will muster the will and determination to flush out foreign troops from our territory, as they mustered the will and power to dismantle U.S. military bases in 1991.

References:

Docena, Herbert (2006). Unconventional Warfare. Focus on the Global South. Also see Docena, Herbert, At the Door of the East (The Philippines in United States Military Strategy).

Galvin, T. General (1987). Testimony before th US Senate Committee on Armed Services. Feb. 23, 1987.

United States Army, (1975). Guide for the Planning of Counterinsurgency. Department of the Army, Wash. DC.

Text fwd: Japan's Undermining Of Russian Sovereignty Won't Be Tolerated: President

* Text informed at StopNATO*

http://www.russiatoday.com/Politics/2009-05-29/_Japan_s_undermining_of_Russian_sovereignty_not_tolerated____Medvedev.html
Russia Today, May 29, 2009
“Japan’s undermining of Russian sovereignty not tolerated” – Medvedev

Japan's attempts to undermine the Russian sovereignty of the disputed Kuril Islands will not be tolerated, said President Dmitry Medvedev as he accepted the credentials of newly-appointed ambassadors in Moscow.

Blessed with a unique ecosystem, the Kuril Islands became part of Russia following an agreement reached at the Yalta Conference – the second of the two key WWII international conferences.

Tokyo refused to both recognize the Yalta Conference decision and sign a peace agreement with Moscow ever since.

Throughout the years Kuril Islands shifted from the focal point of Russian-Japanese relations to a background issue and back again, essentially remaining the most popularized Russian territorial dispute.

The year of 2009 has somewhat revived the issue and might well see a new twist in the islands’ fate. In late April a high-ranking Japanese official suggested Russia and Japan divide up the Kurils, infuriating his country’s authorities.

During his visit to Tokyo in May, Prime Minister Vladimir Putin agreed to have the Kuril issue discussed at the upcoming G8 summit in Italy on July 8-10, where Russia will be represented by President Dmitry Medvedev.

Evidently not everyone in Japan was content to wait till July. Speaking at the parliament Japan’s Prime Minister on May 21, Taro Aso referred to the Southern Kurils as “illegally occupied territories”.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry has already reacted to Aso’s statement and now President Medvedev said he hopes Japan will carefully consider its actions.

“We can't leave unnoticed some recent attempts by our Japanese partners questioning the sovereignty of the Russian Federation over the Kuril Islands. Using unilateral means that fall beyond the scope of the legal framework is unacceptable. Of course, such actions don't contribute to holding further negotiations. That's something that needs to be taken into consideration. I hope that Tokyo will adequately evaluate the current situation and draw the correct conclusions from it,” Medvedev said.
===========================
Stop NATO

Text Fwd: Japan Considers a More Aggressive Missile Defense Policy

* Text fwd from Bruce Gagnon

http://www.globalsecuritynewswire.org/gsn/nw_20090526_7949.php
Japan Considers a More Aggressive Missile Defense Policy
Tuesday, May 26, 2009

Following North Korea's suspected missile test in April and its nuclear blast yesterday, Japanese lawmakers could consider first-strike capabilities as a way guarding against attacks from its antagonist, Kyodo News reported (see GSN, May 15).

"Japan should have the ability to strike enemy bases within the scope of its defense-oriented policy, in order not to sit and wait for death," according to a draft proposal from a subcommittee of the defense panel of the ruling Liberal Democratic Party.

The panel also plans to recommend establishing a satellite system to provide early warning of incoming missiles (Kyodo News I/Japan Today, May 24).

Speaking today in support of the first-strike proposal, former Defense Agency head Gen Nakatani warned that North Korea might soon be able to target Japanese cities with its warheads.

"If (the North) succeeds in nuclear miniaturization, its (nuclear-tipped) missiles would be able to hit mainland Japan," Nakatani said. "That would pose a grave and realistic threat to the security of our country. Therefore, we have no choice but to consider switching from the existing passive missile defense to an active missile defense where launch targets on enemy ground can be directly attacked."

However, former ruling-party vice president Taku Tamasaki urged a cautious tack on North Korea, suggesting that Tokyo collaborate with regional powers China and Russia to push a U.N. Security Council resolution.

He remained noncommittal on the question of first-strike, indicating that any decisions should be made during the process of formulating the new National Defense Program Guidelines, which are due by the end of the year (Kyodo News II/Breitbart.com, May 26.)

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

Text fwd: [From India] NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR BLAST

NORTH KOREA’S NUCLEAR BLAST
BY J.NARAYANA RAO
GENERAL SECRETARY ALL INDIA PEACE & SOLIDARITY ORGANISATION
MAHARASHTRA STATE COMMITTEE, NAGPUR

On 25 May 2009 North Korea conducted the Second Nuclear Test after the first which was conducted on October 9, 2006. A howl of condemnation mostly from those countries which are clinging to Nuclear weapons is being trumpeted. President Barack Obama of US says that “North Korea’s Nuclear and Ballistic Missile programmes pose a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action’.

What ever may be the circumstances which forced North Korea to conduct this test including to defend itself , at this juncture the action of North Korea cannot be appreciated. US never reconciled l to the existence of North Korea. But for the support it got from the former USSR and China and the third world countries North Korea must have been obliterated from the face of the earth by US long back. US is the main obstacle for the unification of Korea. People of both the Koreas ardently desire for the unification. US is is still maintaining more than 35,000 soldiers in South Korea after the Armstic Agreement. North Korea ever since it came into existence is living under constant fear of being invaded by US. While South Korea made tremendous economic progress North Korea is diverting all it’s resources for defence.

The Nuclear Nations are united in not only damning North Korea but also bent upon some action against it using the United Nations Security Council. The Nuclear Nations, US, Russia, China, France, UK, India, Pakistan and Israel have no moral authority to condemn North Korea. They are sinners who are keeping Nuclear Weapons against several UN Resolutions including the NPT. Only the Non-Nuclear Nations and the International Peace Movements alone can express anguish against North Korea’s Nuclear Test.

NPT came into existence more than 41 years ago in the year 1968. Article VI of the NPT states that “Each of the Parties to the Treaty under takes to pursue negotiations in good faith on affective measures relating to the cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament ,and a on a treaty on general and complete disarmament under strict and effective international control’.

In every NPT Review Conference the US was the obstacle for any progress in implementation of the NPT. US has not ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty(CTBT). US never spoke against Israel acquiring Nuclear Weapons . If countries like India and Pakistan feel that they the have ground for possessing Nuclear Weapons and the UNO Security Council is not discomforted with these countries possessing Nuclear Weapons why can’t North Korea or any other country cannot have Nuclear Weapons.

US basing on it’s hegemonic behavior, while not doing any thing to abolish Nuclear Weapons and work for an international treaty to disarm the existing countries which are in possession of Nuclear Weapons, it always harps on countries like North Korea, Iran should’t test any Nuclear Weapons. It is interesting to note what the Weapons of Mass Destruction Commission headed by Hans Blix in it’s report submitted to the UN General Secretary in June 2006 states that “some current setbacks in treaty based arms control and disarmament can be traced to a pattern in US policy that is called some ‘selective multilataralism’ an increased sceptism regarding the affectiveness of international institutions and instruments coupled with a drive for freedom of action to maintain an absolute global superiority in weaponary and means of their delivery”.

This statement from such a high power committee is an indictment of the attitude of the US in not agreeing to abolish Nuclear Weapons.

When the issue of the illegality and the threat or use of Nuclear Weapons was before the International Court of Justice for an advisory opinion as sought by the UN General Assembly the Court unanimously expressed that “There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nulclear disarment in all its aspects under strict and effective international control”. At that time Before the International Court of Justice the US justified use of Nuclear Weapons when it stated that “The United States has long taken the position that various principles of International Law of armed conflict would apply to the use of Nuclear Weapons as well as to other means and methods of war fare . This in no way means ,however, that the use of nuclear weapons is precluded by the law of war”.

This justification of US for the use of Nuclear Weapons applies not only for US itself but also for all countries . US is the only country to use Nuclear Weapons, and conducted the highest number of tests. Therefore there is no justification for howling against the Nuclear Test by North Korea.

Notwithstanding to the fact that nothing prevents North Korea conducting a Nuclear Test while other countries doing the same including India and Pakistan, the question is whether to defend and protect 20,000,000 of it’s people does North Korea needs Nuclear Weapons. There are many countries ruled by Communist Parties like Vietnam,Cuba etc are able to survive and achieve economic progress without Nuclear Weapons. Almost the entire continent of Latin America is opting for socialism by electing leaders committed to socialism. Do these countries which always attract US wrath should opt for Nuclear Tests.

Thanks to the p0licy of militarization, the economic development of North Korea is lymping. South Korea and all other countries around North Korea have made significant economic progress, North Korea must realize that it has got a responsibility to provide a comfortable living to its people .It is high time that North Korea should come out of the Nuclear Syndrome.There is no meaning in loosing the support and good will of the supporters and friends including countries like Russia and China.
------------

Text Fwd: North Korea's Bomb Test Message

North Korea's Bomb Test Message
By David Krieger
May 28, 2009, Nuclear Age Peace Foundation

When a country tests a nuclear weapon, it is sending a message. It is not always clear, however, what that message is. In the case of the recent nuclear test by North Korea, some commentators have argued that the North Koreans are sending a “pay attention to me” message to the international community and particularly the United States. Other commentators have argued that the nuclear test was carried out for domestic purposes, to inspire the country with a display of technological prowess. A short statement from North Korea’s Korean Central News Agency suggests that both international and domestic audiences were relevant to the bomb testing message.

The North Korean announcement indicated that the test had several purposes, including to “bolster up its nuclear deterrent for self-defense”; “settle the scientific and technological problems arising in further increasing the power of nuclear weapons”; “inspiring the army and people of the DPRK”; “contribute to defending the sovereignty of the country”; and “ensuring peace and security of the Korean Peninsula and the region around it….” These are worth examining.

First, the rationale for virtually all nuclear tests by all states has been to bolster a country’s nuclear deterrent for the purpose of self-defense. The five permanent members of the UN Security Council, all nuclear powers, have tested nuclear weapons in total more than 2,000 times. The US alone has tested over 1,000 times. That means that North Korea, which has conducted two nuclear tests, has tested one thousandth the number of times as the five recognized nuclear weapons states have tested and one five-hundredth the number of times the US has tested. It is, of course, dead wrong that deterrence provides a country with protection. In fact, it may lead to a country being attacked by nuclear arms.

Second, learning more scientifically about the characteristics of nuclear detonations is another principal reason the nuclear weapons states have used to justify testing their weapons. The North Koreans are unusually blunt in stating that they are looking at problems arising from developing more powerful nuclear weapons. Their first test in 2006 had a force of about one kiloton. Their recent test had a force some four times greater, roughly one-third the power of the Hiroshima bomb.

Third, the North Koreans sought to inspire their army and people with their bomb test. It is unfortunate, but true that nuclear tests seem to inspire and promote nationalism. When the Indians and Pakistanis tested in 1998, their respective populations came into the streets celebrating the “achievement.” The US inspired its people by conducting over 1,000 nuclear tests, including 67 atmospheric tests in the Marshall Islands, then US Trust Territories, the equivalent of one Hiroshima bomb a day for 12 years.

Fourth, the belief that nuclear tests contribute to defending the sovereignty of a country seems wildly wrong. It may send a message regarding deterrence capability, but it is more relevant that it now isolates a country and makes it a pariah state. This wasn’t always the case.

Fifth, it is also far from assured that North Korea’s test and continued pursuit of a nuclear weapons capability will ensure peace on the Korean Peninsula and beyond. There may be an argument that nuclear weapons assured peace between the US and Soviet Union during the Cold War, but this remains unproven and not subject to proof.

So taking the North Koreans at their word, they have done little more than demonstrate their technological prowess for domestic consumption and recaptured the attention of the world in a most negative way. President Obama responded to the latest nuclear and missile tests by saying that they posed “a grave threat to the peace and security of the world and I strongly condemn their reckless action.”

North Korea’s nuclear test is pushing it deeper into isolation from the international community. The tests may play well at home, but not on the world stage. At the same time, North Korea’s justifications for its tests are no better nor worse than those of the other countries that have tested. They are modeling their testing behavior on the nuclear weapons states that went before them.

The United States and other members of the United Nations Security Council, which are so strong in their condemnation of North Korea’s nuclear testing, are not doing enough to resolve important security issues with North Korea by diplomacy, the only sensible solution. Nor are the permanent members of the Security Council setting the right example by adhering to their own obligations under international law for “good faith” negotiations for total nuclear disarmament.

North Korea’s nuclear testing is a manifestation of a deeper problem in the international system, that of continuing to have a small group of countries possess and implicitly threaten the use of nuclear weapons for deterrence or any other reason.
David Krieger is President of the Nuclear Age Peace Foundation (www.wagingpeace.org).

E Mail fwd: From a Radio Reporter in the FSRN

E mail from Dolores M. Bernal (dmb.reports@gmail.com) on May 30, 2009

"... I'm concerned with the op-eds that have been published in some our newspapers condemning North Korea so harshly for what they've done and being pessimistic that any diplomatic efforts will not go anywhere (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/29/opinion/29iht-edmyers.html?ref=global).

I stayed up late last night reading "The Case for a Peace Treaty to End the Korean War" By Korea Policy Institute. It's been very helpful in helping me understand North Korea's willingness to give up its nuclear program and how the US didn't do its part in working with NK on this. Here is the link to the document I read: (http://www.endthekoreanwar.org/documents/kpi_caseforapeacetreaty.pdf).

I would appreciate more information on what people in your country feel about how the US is handling this situation..."

Text Fwd: [Australia] [nousbases] Govt irresponsible on swine flu, say peace campaigners

* Text Fwd from Hannah Middleton and Agatha Haun on May 29, 2009

Media Release

Govt irresponsible on swine flu, say peace campaigners

The Federal Government is being accused of risking Australian lives and health from Swine Flu by allowing thousands of US military personnel into the country to take part in a massive military exercise in Queensland in early July.

Opponents of Operation Talisman Saber have called on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Defence Minister, Joel Fitzgibbon, to cancel the exercise.

The operation, which takes place in Australia every two years, will see 15,000 US troops and 8,000 ADF personnel converging on the Shoalwater Bay Training Area in central Queensland from July 9-13.

"With swine flu now spreading rapidly between human beings, and the United States one of the points of contagion, the Federal and Queensland Governments must not allow US troops to enter Australia for the Talisman Saber military exercises," Denis Doherty, national convenor of the Australian Anti-Bases Campaign, said.

"Health Minister Nicola Roxon has pointed out that this disease is highly infectious," he said.

"She has also said there is concern with the Australian flu season approaching".

"The people of Rockhampton will be at special risk with so many of the US soldiers visiting the town and camped near the airport," Mr Doherty said.

"We oppose the military exercises on economic, environmental and security grounds. However, at this time, our major concerns are for the health of our communities", he added.

"We are calling on the Federal Government to cancel the Talisman Saber 2009 military exercises," Mr Doherty concluded.

Contact Denis Doherty 0418 290 663

Text Fwd: US, Koreas Prepare For Peninsular War

* Informed at StopNATO*

US, Koreas Prepare For Peninsular War
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96247&sectionid=351020405
Press TV, May 28, 2009
South Korean and US troops go on higher alert amid Pyongyang's threats of 'a powerful strike' and growing fears of a full-scale war in the peninsula.

"As of 7:15 am Thursday (2215 GMT Wednesday), the US-South Korea Combined Forces Command upgraded Watch Conditions by a notch to Stage Two," Seoul's Defense Ministry said in a statement released on Thursday.

"Surveillance over the North will be stepped up, with more aircraft and personnel mobilized," AFP quoted spokesman Won Tae-Jae as saying.

The remarks come in response to North Korea's Wednesday announcement, saying it was withdrawing from the armistice that ended the 1950-53 Korean War.

The North also warned that it could launch a military offensive on the South as it faced further pressure over test-firing an atomic bomb for the second time on Monday.

Following the test fire, Seoul said it planned to join the US-led Proliferation Security Initiative (PSI), which is aimed at halting shipments of weapons technology.

The decision enraged the North which said it would respond to "any tiny hostile acts...including the stopping and searching of our peaceful vessels," with a strong military strike.

Responding to the threats, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton warned North Korea against "provocative and belligerent" and highlighted the US firm commitment to the armistice and defending South Korea and Japan....

Nearly 28,500 US troops remain stationed in South Korea in what Washington calls a deterrent force against Pyongyang.

Won said the surveillance step-up - the fourth since 1982 - to stage two would be focused along the borderline Demilitarized Zone, the Joint Security Area at Panmunjom village and the disputed Yellow Sea border of Northern Limit Line.

He added the tight defense measure was aimed at preventing the North's military provocations, vowing "the military will deal sternly with provocative acts."
===========================
Stop NATO

Text Fwd: Russia demands 'patience' on N Korea amid war fears

* Text informed by the StopNATO*

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96320&sectionid=351020602
Press TV, May 28, 2009
Russia demands 'patience' on N Korea amid war fears

-In a veiled reference to the US and Japan, [Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko] said, "We hope that the latest actions by North Korea will not be used by other states as an excuse for the forced build up of their military potential and will not be turned into a new... arms race in the region."

-[R]elations deteriorated again when the US did not deliver on its promised aid and then sponsored a UN Security Council resolution against North Korea when the country launched a rocket carrying a communications satellite in April 2009.

The Kremlin called for 'patience' and 'self-possession' on the issue of North Korea.

The Kremlin, in its latest statement, has opposed the "language of sanctions" against North Korea over its nuclear tests.

"We need to show self-possession and patience and hold consultations on all the questions of concern to the parties dealing with this problem," Russian Foreign Ministry spokesman Andrei Nesterenko said on Thursday.

In a veiled reference to the US and Japan, he said, "We hope that the latest actions by North Korea will not be used by other states as an excuse for the forced build up of their military potential and will not be turned into a new... arms race in the region."

The statement comes after Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called for a 'tough' stance against North Korea in response to its nuclear testing.

The US and its allies at the UN Security Council are pressing for additional sanctions against North Korea.

The issue has sparked fears of a regional war. The US and South Korea are on high alert as a result of an announcement by the North that it had scrapped the treaty that ended the Korean war about 50 years ago.

North Korea shut down its main reactor in Yongbyon in June 2007 and made a declaration of its nuclear assets a year later, in return for better relations with the US and financial aid.

However, relations deteriorated again when the US did not deliver on its promised aid and then sponsored a UN Security Council resolution against North Korea when the country launched a rocket carrying a communications satellite in April 2009.

Following the anti-North Korea resolution, Pyongyang expelled inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Agency and resumed its nuclear activities, culminating in a nuclear explosive test on May 25.

North Korea's nuclear testing earlier this week triggered noisy reactions from the US and its regional allies South Korea and Japan.
===========================
Stop NATO

Text Fwd: West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO

* Text below alos informed by Agneta Noberg
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=viewArticle&code=ROZ20090527&articleId=13759
Stop NATO
May 27, 2009
West Plots To Supplant United Nations With Global NATO
Rick Rozoff

Ten years ago it first became evident to the world that moves were afoot in
major Western capitals to circumvent, subvert and ultimately supplant the United
Nations, as the UN could not always be counted on to act in strict accordance
with the dictates of the United States and its NATO allies.

At that time in 1999 the NATO alliance was waging what would become a 78-day
bombing war against Yugoslavia in flagrant contravention of the United Nations
and of international law in general.

As two of the five permanent members of the UN Security Council - the five
permanent members being the main victorious World War II allies, with the
People's Republic of China having replaced the Republic of China (Taiwan) in
1971 and with Russia as the successor state to the Soviet Union - exactly China
and Russia, not being NATO members states, opposed that war and in several other
instances the use of sanctions and military force against nations targeted for
both by the West.

The first indication that the United Nations was marked for marginalization,
selective application (and exploitation) or even de facto dissolution, however,
occurred three years earlier in 1996 when the United States single-handedly
browbeat the other fourteen then members of the Security Council to depose
Secretary General Boutros Boutros-Ghali and replace him with Kofi Annan, who the preceding year had been appointed UN special envoy to NATO and authorized the NATO bombing in Bosnia behind the back of Boutros-Ghali.

Boutros-Ghali was deprived of the traditional second term for not authorizing
NATO's bombing of Bosnian Serb targets in 1995 and for speaking the truth about
the deadly Israeli bombing of a refugee camp in Qana, Lebanon in the following
year when 106 civilians were killed and 116 injured.

As former Clinton and Bush administrations' National Security Council
counter-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke acknowledged:

"[Madeleine] Albright and I and a handful of others (Michael Sheehan, Jamie
Rubin) had entered into a pact together in 1996 to oust Boutros-Ghali as
Secretary General of the United Nations, a secret plan we had called Operation
Orient Express, reflecting our hope that many nations would join us in doing in
the UN head.

"In the end, the US had to do it alone (with its UN veto) and Sheehan and I had
to prevent the President from giving in to pressure from world leaders and
extending Boutros-Ghali's tenure, often by our racing to the Oval Office when we
were alerted that a head of state was telephoning the President. In the end
Clinton was impressed that we had managed not only to oust Boutros-Ghali but to
have Kofi Annan selected to replace him." [1]

...

In a following section named "UN-NATO-accord: incompatible with UN Charter," he exposed a clandestine accord signed between the secretaries general of NATO and the United Nations, Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and Ban Ki-moon, respectively, on
September 23, 2008, which "took place without any reference to the United
Nations Security Council.

...

Analogous demands have been voiced over the past few years by former Spanish
prime minister Jose Aznar, NATO Secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer and
spokesman James Appathurai and US Republican Party candidates in last year's
presidential election Rudolph Giuliani and John McCain, alternately identified
as an alliance, a concert or a league of democracies. In 2007 the now deceased
US congressman Tom Lantos, at the time chairman of the House of Representatives
Foreign Affairs Committee, said that "NATO should seriously consider expanding
into a global alliance including democratic countries such as Australia, New
Zealand, South Korea and Israel," and posed the rhetorical query "Would it not
make the (NATO) Supreme Allied Commander feel more comfortable about upcoming
global crises if he would have a NATO of a global reach?" To which the commander
identified, Gen. Bantz John Craddock, replied: "From a best military advice
perspective, it would indeed be enormously helpful to have more democratic, peace-loving nations as part of the alliance." [34]

...

The nations targeted for the NATO-led Alliance of Democracies include Australia,
Botswana, Brazil, Colombia, Costa Rica, India, Israel, Japan, New Zealand,
Singapore, South Africa and South Korea inter alia.

...

"Collective defense, enshrined in Article 5's dictum that an attack on one
member is an attack on all, must remain at the core of an expanded alliance as
it has in the past. For the United States, such commitments
elsewhere would not be novel, as it already guarantees, either formally or
informally, the security of countries such as Australia, Israel, Japan, New
Zealand and South Korea.

...

The record of the past thirteen years under the stewardship of Kofi Annan and
Ban Ki-moon has been abysmal. Three major wars have been conducted by the United States and its NATO allies, the first against a founding member of the UN,
Yugoslavia, while the organization made no meaningful efforts to prevent or halt
them once started and has even legitimized them after the fact with assorted
resolutions. Even UN resolutions following unauthorized wars are trampled on, as
with the recognition by most NATO members of the illegal secession of Kosovo
from Serbia last February, flagrantly contradicting UN Resolution 1244 which
commits the UN to "Reaffirming the commitment of all Member States to the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and
the other States of the region, as set out in the Helsinki Final Act...."


Read More

* Related article
A letter to Ban Ki-Moon, Secretary General United Nations by bird of peace in New York(Choi SungHee). 2007/09/25

Text fwd: The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy

* Image Source/ description: As the site below*

1. Bilderberg founding member David Rockefeller, Honourary Chairman of the Council on Foreign Relations, Honourary Chairman and Founder of the Trilateral Commission, Chairman of the Council of the Americas and the Americas Society, former Chairman and CEO of Chase Manhattan.
2. US Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, former President of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York
3. Queen Beatrix of the Netherlands, the largest shareholder in Royal Dutch Shell
4. National Security Adviser General James Jones

* Text informed by Agneta Noberg on May 28, 2009

The Bilderberg Plan for 2009: Remaking the Global Political Economy
by Andrew G. Marshall
May 26, 2009, Global Reserach

From May 14-17, the global elite met in secret in Greece for the yearly Bilderberg conference, amid scattered and limited global media attention. Roughly 130 of the world’s most powerful individuals came together to discuss the pressing issues of today, and to chart a course for the next year. The main topic of discussion at this years meeting was the global financial crisis, which is no surprise, considering the list of conference attendees includes many of the primary architects of the crisis, as well as those poised to “solve” it.

The Agenda: The Restructuring of the Global Political Economy

Before the meeting began, Bilderberg investigative journalist Daniel Estulin reported on the main item of the agenda, which was leaked to him by his sources inside. Though such reports cannot be verified, his sources, along with those of veteran Bilderberg tracker, Jim Tucker, have proven to be shockingly accurate in the past. Apparently, the main topic of discussion at this year's meeting was to address the economic crisis, in terms of undertaking, “Either a prolonged, agonizing depression that dooms the world to decades of stagnation, decline and poverty ... or an intense-but-shorter depression that paves the way for a new sustainable economic world order, with less sovereignty but more efficiency.” Other items on the agenda included a plan to “continue to deceive millions of savers and investors who believe the hype about the supposed up-turn in the economy. They are about to be set up for massive losses and searing financial pain in the months ahead,” and “There will be a final push for the enactment of Lisbon Treaty, pending on Irish voting YES on the treaty in Sept or October,”[1] which would give the European Union massive powers over its member nations, essentially making it a supranational regional government, with each country relegated to more of a provincial status.

Shortly after the meetings began, Bilderberg tracker Jim Tucker reported that his inside sources revealed that the group has on its agenda, “the plan for a global department of health, a global treasury and a shortened depression rather than a longer economic downturn.” Tucker reported that Swedish Foreign Minister and former Prime Minister, Carl Bildt, “Made a speech advocating turning the World Health Organization into a world department of health, advocating turning the IMF into a world department of treasury, both of course under the auspices of the United Nations.” Further, Tucker reported that, “Treasury Secretary Geithner and Carl Bildt touted a shorter recession not a 10-year recession ... partly because a 10 year recession would damage Bilderberg industrialists themselves, as much as they want to have a global department of labor and a global department of treasury, they still like making money and such a long recession would cost them big bucks industrially because nobody is buying their toys.....the tilt is towards keeping it short.”[2]

After the meetings finished, Daniel Estulin reported that, “One of Bilderberg’s primary concerns according to Estulin is the danger that their zeal to reshape the world by engineering chaos in order to implement their long term agenda could cause the situation to spiral out of control and eventually lead to a scenario where Bilderberg and the global elite in general are overwhelmed by events and end up losing their control over the planet.”[3]

On May 21, the Macedonian International News Agency reported that, “A new Kremlin report on the shadowy Bilderberg Group, who this past week held their annual meeting in Greece, states that the West’s financial, political and corporate elite emerged from their conclave after coming to an agreement that in order to continue their drive towards a New World Order dominated by the Western Powers, the US Dollar has to be ‘totally’ destroyed.” Further, the same Kremlin report apparently stated that, “most of the West’s wealthiest elite convened at an unprecedented secret meeting in New York called for and led by” David Rockefeller, “to plot the demise of the US Dollar.”[4]

Read More

Text Fwd: [DPRK Statement] DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Clarifies Its Stand on UNSC’s Increasing Threat

http://tongilkorea.net/?p=1642#more-1642
DPRK Foreign Ministry Spokesman Clarifies Its Stand on UNSC’s Increasing Threat
May 29, 2009

Pyongyang, May 29 (KCNA) — A spokesman for the DPRK Foreign Ministry issued a statement on Friday as regards the UNSC’s threat to put additional sanctions against the DPRK, terming its successful nuclear test a violation of the UNSC Resolution 1718.

Over the past several decades, the DPRK has made every possible effort for the denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula, but the U.S., instead of seeking a substantial removal of nuclear threats, has steadily increased the level of pressure upon the DPRK and it has eventually brought even the six-party talks to collapse in wanton violation of the principles of respect for the sovereignty and sovereign equality, the underlying spirits of the September 19 Joint Statement, over the DPRK’s launch of satellite, the universally recognized right of each state, the statement noted, and said:

At present, some countries were shocked at the news of the DPRK’s second nuclear test. But an exceptional act has its exceptional reason.

The recent nuclear test conducted by the DPRK is the 2054th one on the earth.

The five permanent members of the UNSC have conducted 99.99 percent of all the nuclear tests.

Those countries have posed the biggest nuclear threats to the world. But they took issue with our first nuclear test, which was conducted in October 2006 as a self-defensive measure to cope with increased nuclear threats by the U.S., terming it a “threat to the international peace” and adopted the sanctions resolution against the DPRK. This is exactly the UNSC Resolution 1718.

This resolution fabricated by the hypocrites has immediately invited a total rejection by the DPRK and we still do not recognize such resolution.

The UNSC with such a record produced the “presidential statement” on April 14 putting in question only the satellite launched by the DPRK for the peaceful purpose and put into force the sanctions under its Resolution 1718 on April 24 only to cause an unbearable insult to the dignity of our people and gravely infringe upon the sovereignty of the DPRK.

The DPRK is neither a signatory to the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty nor to the Missile Technology Control Regime or MTCR. Such being the case, it has a right to conduct as many nuclear tests or missile launches as it wants in the event that the supreme interests of the state are infringed upon. Such self-defensive measures do not run counter to any other international law.

The UNSC has committed such unprecedented crime as the wanton infringement upon the right of a sovereign state to explore outer space for peaceful purposes and, instead of repenting of it, it is proactive in its outcry to cover up its crime. Under these circumstances, the DPRK, at this point, would like to draw a clear line of confrontation which will help clearly state who is to blame for the future unpredictable development of the situation.

First, the UNSC is involved in its high-handed act which will never be tolerated and it is the part of the self-defensive measures of the DPRK to respond to this with its own nuclear test which we had already made public to the world. There is a limit to our patience.

It is none other than the U.S. and other forces courting the U.S. favor who should be held entirely responsible for driving the situation to such a pass as they took the DPRK’s peaceful satellite launch to the UN to launch a condemnation campaign.

It is what they said to the DPRK that a satellite launch belongs to an independent right of a sovereign state. But, after our actual satellite launch, they took sides with the U.S. in its move to condemn the DPRK.

Those countries remained silent when the large scale nuclear war exercises such as Key Resolve and Foal Eagle joint military exercises took place in the depth of the Korean peninsula. But, When the DPRK was compelled to conduct a nuclear test as a self-defensive measure, they are united in their voice, condemning it as “a threat to the regional peace and stability”.

It means that they do not like the DPRK to possess what they had already put in place. In the final analysis, they mean small countries should obey big countries. The DPRK, though small in its territory and population, has self-confidence and grit that it is a politically and militarily strong country.

Second, we solemnly demanded that the UNSC make an apology for its crime of having seriously encroached upon the sovereignty of a sovereign state in gross violation of the Space Treaty and that it withdraw all its previously-crafted, unfair resolutions and decisions. Such a demand still remains in force.

As long as the Permanent Five alone invested with veto power and nuclear weapons have the mandate to identify what constitutes a “threat to international peace and security”, the UNSC is not supposed to bring their own acts of intimidation into question indefinitely.

As long as the UNSC fails to respond to the DPRK’s just demand, the DPRK will not recognize any resolution and decision of the UNSC in the future, too.

Third, if the UNSC will make further provocative actions, this will inevitably lead to the DPRK’s approach towards adopting stronger self-defensive counter-measures.

The end of the Cold War worldwide works only between big powers, but a Cold War still persists on the Korean Peninsula.

The UNSC-crafted UN Command itself is a signatory to the Korean Armistice Agreement.

Any hostile act by the UNSC immediately means the abrogation of the Armistice Agreement.

The world will soon find out how the army and people of the DPRK will stand up against the high-handed and get-it-alone approach of the UNSC in defending its dignity and sovereignty.

The U.S. is keen on using a catchphrase “Carrot and stick.”

It would be better for the “Donkey” of the U.S. Democratic Party to lick the carrot.

KCNA
Tongil Korea Net © 2007 - 2009 All Rights Reserved.


* Related Korean article
http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=84573
북 외무성 "유엔 안보리 적대행위는 정전협정 파기"
<추가> 대변인 담화 "핵시험 99.99% 안보리 5개국이 진행" (전문)

Text Fwd:[Peace Network] North Korea’s Stronger Repulsion against the PSI…The West Sea is Dangerous

* Image source/description: a blog specialized for the media critic
'The five islands [ in the squares] in the western sea of the Korean peninsula defined in the Chapter 2, article 13(b) in the Korean War Armistice Agreement, July 27, 1953 [ 1. Baekryung-do, 2. Daechung-do, 3. Sochung-do, 4. Yonpyeong-do and 5. Woo-do] .. The map is the 3rd map among the 22 maps of the Korean War Armistice Agreement'


* Original Korean site
* Below is the Unofficial translation and needs the proofreading.

North Korea’s Stronger Repulsion against the PSI…The West Sea is Dangerous
Cheong, Wooksik, Representative of the Peace Network, May 27, 2009

Expected but very dangerous reaction came from the North Korea. The spokesperson of the North Korea military, the Panmunjeom Representative Agency said the North Korea would response with the “ militaristic strike” against the South Korean government’s full participation of the Proliferation Security Initiative. As we can see, The North Korean nuclear test on May 25 -Lee Myung Bak government’s declaration for the PSI full participation on May 26 -The North Korea’s warning of the ‘militaristic strike’ on May 27, the Korean peninsula is continuing the ‘run without break’.

According to the Yonhap News report, the North Korean viewpoints on May 27 are largely three. First, regarding the South Korea’s full participation on the PSI as “the declaration of war against us [North Korea]”, the North Korea warns that it would “stamp any tiny hostile activity including the activities of control, search on our peaceful ships with the disallowable infringement against our [DPRK’s] sovereignty and response with the prompt and strong militaristic strike”.

Second, it said, “it can guarantee neither the legal status of the five islands( Baekryung-do, Daechung-do, Sochung-do, Yonpyeong-do and Woo-do) in the South Korean territorial waters northwest from our [DPRK’s] sea military demarcation line in the western sea of the Korea nor the safe navigation of the US imperial invasion force, puppet regime’s naval ships and the general shops acting around the sea”. It can be said the [North Korea[ clarified its will to make the water area near-by the conflict area while repeatedly not acknowledging the Northern Limited Line(NLL). It can be said that the possibility of the armed conflicts became higher in such extent.

Third, it is the claim that the South Korean’s declaration of the full participation in the PSI lead by the United States was “violent infringe and clear denial of the Korean War Armistice Agreement which foreclose any blockade ”, therefore “Our troop will not be restrained by the Korean War Armistice Agreement anymore “ and “If the Korean War Armistice Agreement lost the restraint power, it is natural that the Korean peninsula would return to the war state from the legal point of view and our revolutionary force would turn to military activities according to it.” That claim problamatize the provision 15* of the Korean War Armistice Agreement that “… shall not engage in blockade of any kind of Korea [South and North].”

While the three warnings and the threats are all worrisome, it is needed to notice the 2nd issue. There not only have been the west water engagement twice in 1999 and 2000, the situation has changed as the South and North Korea military agencies changed the engagement principals to the aggressive. Also the dangers of the expanded wars are highly likely that by the force increment of the shore artillery guns & surface to fleet/surface to surface / fleet to surface missiles; by the strengthened of the flight activities; by the South Korean’s tightening of the military readiness condition; largely transferring the control rights to the site commanders; by the land-sea-air joint response plans upon the happenings of the symptoms of the engagements. It is understood that the fact that the North Korea declared the ‘ prohibition of the ship navigation’ in the west water near-by the Zeungsan County, South Pyeongang province during the both days of 25, 27, upon counting the short range missile launch tests.

Furthermore, this is the full season for catching the swimming crab. The possibility of the break-up of the arms conflict is becoming high as the North Korean fleets cross over the NLL[Northern Limited Line] for the reasons of the protection of its own fishing ships; of the maintenance of its own declaired naval line; and of the illegal Chinese fishing ships and as the South Korea militaristically response during the process. Those worrisome are supported by the message of Koh, Han-Suk, Vice-commander of the 2nd fleet of the Navy that “ Presently, the Chinese fishing ships are illegally working in 133 ships in Yonpyeong island, 174 ships in Daechung island. There co-exists the possibility of the collisions between the petrol ships from the both North and South Korea”

The fact that the both sides of the North and South Korea strengthening the militaristic watch, surveillance, reconnaissance condition is heighten the danger of collision. On February 26, Cheong. Jae-Bu, the vice commander of the air force operational command said that “ The flying numbers of North Korean combat airplanes toward the southern side of the special surveillance area defined by our military have become increased two or three times.”

It is known that the joint force of the United States and the Korea is in full operation for the watch & surveillance system with the low altitude Unmanned Aircraft Vehicles (UAV), U-2 surveillance airplanes. In the sense that many armed conflicts have been brought-up during the watch & surveillance process, such activities by the joint forces of the United States and the North Korea increase the anxieties of the Korean peninsula.

* provision 15* of the Korean War Armistice Agreement
"This Armistice Agreement shall apply t[o] all opposing naval forces, which naval forces shall respect the water contiguous to the Demilitarized Zone and to the land area of Korea under the military control of the opposing side, and shall not engage in blockade of any kind of Korea."

(Source: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/korea/kwarmagr072753.html
TEXT OF THE KOREAN WAR ARMISTICE AGREEMENT
July 27, 1953)

* Related Korean article
http://www.tongilnews.com/news/articleView.html?idxno=84565
<기고> 다시 보는 정전협정
이명박 정부의 PSI 전면 참여와 북의 대응을 바라보며
May 29, 2009, Friday
[Opinion] Korean War Armistice Agreement Revisited:
Looking at the Lee Myung Bak government’s Full participation in the PSI and North Korea’s Response
By Yoo, Young-Ho, May 29, 2009, Friday

Text Fwd:[Peace Network Statement] on the North Korea Nuclear Weapon Test

* Original Korean site (Peace Network) on May 26, 2009

* Translation in Process

Text Fwd: [PSPD Statement] on the North Korea Nuclear Weapon Test

* People's Solidarity for Participatory Democracy
North Korea’s Nuclear Test Drives the Peace of the Korean Peninsula over the Edge Again
2009/05/27

The Korea Central News Agency formally announced today (May 25) that North Korea successfully conducted the second nuclear test. The Center for Peace and Disarmament of the PSPD(People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy) strongly denounces North Korea’s repeated attempts to acquire nuclear weapons and brinkmanship endangering the peace of the Korean Peninsula.

North Korea insists that possession of nuclear weapons contribute to security and peace of the Korean Peninsula. The PSPD firmly disapproves its argument and assertion since weapons of mass destruction will not bring security and peace to Korea and will never be able to sustain the peace.

The PSPD is strongly against development and production of nuclear weapons regardless of who possesses including the US and North Korea and what is the purpose such as attacking, defending or deterring as well as the behind reason for nuclear test done by North Korea is to bring a bilateral dialogue with the US. It is because nuclear weapons fundamentally connote the threats of mass destruction.

North Korea’s nuclear test violates the Declaration on Denuclearization of the Korean Peninsula. The violation increases uncertainty of its peace and aggravate arms-racing not only in the Korean Peninsula but also in the Northeast Asia. There is no doubt that North Korea is surely aware of the consequences that we, both South and North Korea, are the one who have to bear pain and burden after all.

North Korea’s nuclear test protesting against the US is such an incomprehensible action that neglecting the current situation of the South Korean society whose people are in shock and grief of losing their former president Roh Moohyun.

It is necessary to repeatedly emphasize that resolution of conflict over nuclear issues through dialogues and negotiations and the conversion of the Korean pensinsula towards a peace regime are already agreed by participants of the Six-Party Talks. People are also agreed with this kind of solutions. The Korean government and the US should try harder for peaceful resolution. The North Korean authority must fulfill the correspondent matters as well as the South Korea and the US.

The PSPD urges North Korea to stop extreme confrontation and reckless provocation. It will only make all the efforts for denuclearization and the peace of the Peninsula end in smoke.

2009/05/27 13:29 2009/05/27 13:29

Text Fwd: [SPARK Statement] on the North Korea's Nuclear Weapon Test

* Image source: same as below.

* Solidarity for Peace and Reunification of Korea on May 26, 2009

(Translatation by No Base Sories of Korea and Agatha Haun)

Original Korean site: http://spark946.org/bugsboard/index.php?BBS=s_news3&action=viewForm&uid=1064&page=1

The United States should promptly take steps to abolish its hostile policies toward North Korea and to support the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula!

On May 25, North Korea conducted its second nuclear weapon test. It was anticipated as the reaction to the UN Security Council's denunciation of North Korea's recent launching of a satellite and to the sanctions against North Korea. The tension and the confrontation surrounding the Korean peninsula have intensified since the UN Security Council again proceeded to criticize North Korea's action and to impose sanctions.

We who aspire to the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the abolition of nuclear weapons in the rest of the world urge the international community to use this event as the first stepping stone toward promptly bringing about denuclearization of the Korean peninsula and the whole world. We don’t want to see a deterioration of the relations between the United States and North Korea, which would mean the worst political outcome for the Korean peninsula. The countries involved in the tension on the Korean peninsula must respond in a sober and realistic manner.

Past experience shows that sanctions and pressure against North Korea do nothing to solve the problems, but rather worsen the situation. We also want to point out that the Obama administration’s “benign neglect” is only an irresponsible way to avoid seriously confronting and settling the North Korean nuclear issue. Therefore, the United States and other concerned countries, particularly those involved in the 6-Party talks, China, Japan, the Republic of Korea, and Russia, should not seek to solve the problem by having the UN Security Council impose sanctions against North Korea, but rather by actively engaging in dialogue to deal with the North Korean nuclear issue. It is needless to say that North Korea's real intention, first and last, is to send the message that it wants dialogue with the United States, on the basis of equality and mutual respect.

If both countries, the United States and North Korea, act in good faith to seek an equitable settlement of the North Korean nuclear issue, according to the principle of "action for action", through the process of equal and fair negotiation, it is possible to achieve rapid and positive results. There is a precedent for this approach, which proves that such results can be achieved: in October 2000, the landmark agreement known as the "Joint Communique*" between the United States and Korea was concluded, providing for the establishment of a structure of peace on the Korean peninsula .

If the US renounces its hostile policy against North Korea, a peace agreement is concluded on the basis of the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, and normal relations are established between the United States and North Korea, according to the terms of the Joint Communique, the way for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula will open very quickly and easily. The United States has no need to be afraid of dialogue or reluctant to enter into negotiations. The time for confrontation and conflict is past. This current situation presents the countries concerned with an opportunity to begin a new phase in their relationship.

[ Workers World Editorial] On the North Korea Nuclear Weapon Test

* Workers World
EDITORIAL
Korea’s defense & U.S. belligerence
Published May 27, 2009 1:15 PM

Anyone in the United States who pays attention to the corporate news media must think that the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea just violated the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. Right?

Except that no such treaty exists.

Some 180 countries have signed it, but only 148 have ratified it. According to the Web site of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization, “All 44 States specifically listed in the Treaty—those with nuclear technology capabilities at the time of the final Treaty negotiations in 1996—must sign and ratify before the CTBT can enter into force.” (ctbto.org)

Nine out of those 44 nuclear states have not ratified the treaty, despite having signed it some 13 years ago. Therefore, the treaty is not and has never been in force.

The government that seems to protest the most when a country like the DPRK conducts tests sits in Washington. But guess what? The U.S. Senate has not ratified the treaty. In fact, it is Washington’s refusal that is the main obstacle to the CTBT treaty taking effect.

The U.S. tested the world’s first atomic bombs in 1945 and almost immediately dropped two of them on Japanese cities, killing 220,000 people on the spot and leaving another 200,000 so poisoned by radiation that they died soon after. From that time until it signed the treaty in 1996, the U.S. had tested 1,032 nuclear weapons.

That is more nuke tests than have been carried out by all the rest of the countries in the world combined, right up to the present.

So how can the world have any confidence in a nuclear test ban treaty if the country that has tested such a hugely disproportionate number of weapons won’t ratify it?

The DPRK has successfully conducted two underground tests of nuclear devices, one in 2006 and another on May 25. It has not dropped any bombs on anyone. In fact, its troops have never fought anywhere except in Korea, and then it was to expel foreign invaders.

The DPRK’s determination to devote substantial resources to building a nuclear deterrent reflects Korea’s tragic history. First invaded and annexed by colonial Japan, then occupied by U.S. troops at the end of World War II, Korea suffered enormously from the rise of imperialism in the 20th century.

The U.S. created a puppet military dictatorship in the south, which in 1948 declared itself the Republic of Korea. It was only then that the revolutionary forces, who had liberated the northern part of Korea from Japan’s iron grip, responded by declaring the establishment of the DPRK, not as a permanent state that would ratify the division of Korea, but as a recognition of reality. The goal of the DPRK, and of the Korean people as a whole, has always been to reunite the country. Within two years, however, the DPRK was fighting a new war against imperialist invaders—this time hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops.

Several million Koreans, civilians and soldiers, were killed in the 1950-53 war. Some 53,000 U.S. soldiers died. Though the war ended in a ceasefire with the two sides roughly where they had been at the start, the U.S. occupiers of southern Korea refused to sign a peace treaty with the DPRK. And that’s where things have stood ever since, with between 30,000 and 40,000 U.S. troops occupying the south at any one time.

Many countries—first among them the United States—have declared they had to have nuclear weapons for self-defense. None has a stronger claim to a nuclear deterrent than the DPRK, which for more than half a century has faced the constant threat of new aggression from the world’s most heavily armed imperialist superpower.

If Washington were sincere about wanting to move toward a nuclear-free world, it would start by signing a peace treaty with the DPRK, ratifying the CTBT and removing its occupation troops from Korea.
Articles copyright 1995-2009 Workers World. Verbatim copying and distribution of this entire article is permitted in any medium without royalty provided this notice is preserved.

Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Email: ww@workers.org
Subscribe wwnews-subscribe@workersworld.net
Support independent news http://www.workers.org/orders/donate.php

Text Fwd: WILPF Statement on the North Korea Nuclear Weapon test

* Women's International League for Peace and Freedom
May 26, 2009
WILPF Response to the Nuclear Weapons Test of the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea)

The Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom (WILPF) is deeply concerned by and condemns the nuclear weapon test conducted by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea at GMT 0054 on 25 May 2009. This test shows the urgent need for the rapid entry into force of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty and a powerful shift from security strategies relying on nuclear weapons to those predicated on collective human security.

If the CTBT were in force, an on-site inspection could quickly determine whether the seismic event recorded in the DPRK was indeed a nuclear explosion and if so, its precise characteristics. The Treaty would also give greater legitimacy to international responses. The Executive Secretary of the Preparatory Commission of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty Organization (CTBTO), Tibor Tóth, has deplored the DPRK’s action as “a serious violation of the norm established by the [CTBT] and as such deserves universal condemnation.” If the Treaty were in force, its member states could adopt sanctions against the DPRK for violating international law. Currently, the task of coordinating an international response falls to the UN Security Council, a body not entitled to enforce international norms per se, but an unrepresentative political body dominated by the interests of its five permanent, veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

The UN Security Council has issued a presidential statement and is currently preparing another resolution, following on Resolution 1718, which was issued after the first DPRK test in October 2006. Yet two of the permanent Security Council members, China and the United States, have not yet ratified the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. WILPF calls on all states outside the CTBT- China, Egypt, Indonesia, Iran, Israel, United States, India, Pakistan and the DPRK - to sign and ratify without delay or conditions and to make unilateral declarations of their commitments to a nuclear weapon test moratorium until national level processes for ratification are complete.

All nuclear explosions, in fact all nuclear materials, leave a radioactive legacy for thousands of generations. The exposure of the population, the water, and the land of the Korean Peninsula to this legacy is irresponsible and immoral. The people of Kilju likely had no warning and will suffer from the legacy of this test. Women in particular have suffered from the long-lived mutagenic and tetragenic effects of nuclear weapons tests. The long-term impacts of nuclear testing are so great to all those living near test sites that the French Government has recently acknowledged the harm it caused by testing in the South Pacific and is offering compensation for its nuclear testing victims. WILPF calls on all states possessing nuclear weapons to immediately shut down their nuclear test facilities and to acknowledge and compensate the victims of their testing programmes.

The DPRK first got its nuclear technology while party to the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)- wherein it agreed to never acquire nuclear weapons in exchange for the assistance, materials, and technology to develop nuclear energy. When the government of the DPRK withdrew from the NPT, and did not return the nuclear technology it had acquired from Treaty-related cooperative agreements, it abused the grand bargain of the Treaty and demonstrated the proliferation risks associated with the development of nuclear energy. Every nuclear energy facility is a bomb waiting to happen, whether through an accident like the one at Chernobyl, or by providing the raw materials to make these horrible weapons. WILPF calls on all states to join the International Renewable Energy Agency and develop clean, safe, sustainable energy technology while shifting away from the environmental and proliferation risks of nuclear energy.

The communiqué issued on North Korean Radio, which stated that this test was “part of measures to enhance the Republic’s self-defensive nuclear deterrent in all directions” highlights the urgency for other states- both those who possess nuclear weapons and those who rely on the nuclear umbrella of other states- to reduce the reliance on nuclear weapons in their security strategies and to immediately abandon the failed concept of nuclear deterrence. As the Canberra Commission said in 1996, “So long as any state has even one nuclear weapon, it is inevitable that other states -- or even non-state actors -- will try to get them.” WILPF calls on all states to eliminate the reliance on nuclear weapons from their security strategies and to effectively negotiate the elimination of the weapons themselves.

While the DPRK communiqué stated that this test would “contribute to safeguard the sovereignty of the country,” WILPF recognizes that the only true way to contributing to anyone’s safety and sovereignty is to move from a unilateral and isolationist security paradigm to one of cooperative and collective human security.


WILPF 1, rue de Varembé, Case Postale 28, 1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland Tel: +41 22 919 7080 /Fax: 7081
To contact the website manager, send an email to web@wilpf.ch

Collection of the articles on the NK nuclear & Missile test

* Defense News

* StopNATO

US, Koreas Prepare For Peninsular War
http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96247&sectionid=351020405
Press TV, May 28, 2009

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96320&sectionid=351020602
Press TV, May 28, 2009
Russia demands 'patience' on N Korea amid war fears

Proliferation Security Initiative Could Cause New Korean War
http://www.interfax.com/3/495870/news.aspx
Interfax, May 27, 2009
N. Korea pulls out of 1953 armistice agreement

US Recruits South Korea To Proliferation Security Initiative
http://news-en.trend.az/world/wnews/1476723.html
Trend News Agency, May 27, 2009
U.S. welcomes S.Korea's joining proliferation security initiative

* Sites informed at Information Clearing House

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2009/06/01/2009060100418.html
N.Korea Declares Wide Coastal Area Off Limits:
A train carrying what appears to be an intercontinental ballistic missile is traveling to a rocket launch site in Musudanri, North Hamgyong Province.
June 2, 2009

http://snipurl.com/j8agx
North Korea 'preparing to test most advanced missile':
Media reports say weapon capable of striking west coast of US has been moved to launch site
June 1, 2009

http://snipurl.com/j8ai0
U.S., Japan Say Won't Accept Nuclear-Armed North Korea:
"We absolutely cannot accept that North Korea will have nuclear weapons," Japanese Vice Foreign Minister Mitoji Yabunaka said after meeting U.S. Deputy Secretary of State Jim Steinberg.
June 1, 2009

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22741.htm
"N. Korea Is Not Going To Start Bombing"
By Ron Paul
Most of the world over reacted to N. Korean bomb test

Demonizing N. Korea:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/30/gates-north-korea-a-harbi_n_209391.html
Gates: North Korea "A Harbinger Of A Dark Future":
North Korea's progress on nuclear weapons and long-range missiles is "a harbinger of a dark future" and has created an urgent need for more pressure on the reclusive communist government to change its ways, U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates said.
May 31, 2009

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/nation/ap/46525307.html
Gates says US would respond quickly to threatening moves from North Korea:
"We will not stand idly by as North Korea builds the capability to wreak destruction on any target in the region - or on us," Gates told an annual international meeting of defense and security officials from Asia and the Pacific Rim.
May 30, 2009

http://snipurl.com/j5rhp
North Korea threatens action if UN punishes it:
North Korea will take "self-defense measures" if the United Nations Security Council punishes Pyongyang for its nuclear test this week, a North Korean Foreign Ministry spokesman said on Friday.
May 29, 2009

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article6374870.ece
Kim Jong Il's "provocations" to the West may hide a rational purpose:
Whatever you think of Mr Kim, it is entirely understandable that he should want to protect himself as effectively as possible - and history suggests that nuclear weapons are a potent guarantee of being left alone.

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22734.htm
After Iraq, It's Not Just North Korea that Wants a Bomb
: The nuclear weapons states are the main drivers of proliferation. Only radical disarmament can halt their spread
By Seumas Milne
May 29, 2009 "The Guardian"

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/8073129.stm
Page last updated at 12:53 GMT, Friday, 29 May 2009 13:53 UK
Chinese ships 'quit Korea waters'

http://www.620ktar.com/?nid=6&sid=1171668
Page last updated at 12:53 GMT, Friday, 29 May 2009 13:53 UK
Chinese ships 'quit Korea waters'

http://www.moscowtimes.ru/article/1010/42/377527.htm
Moscow Opposes N. Korea Sanctions
29 May 2009

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090528/ap_on_go_ca_st_pe/us_pentagon_nkorea
Army chief: US able to fight NKorea if necessary
By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer Anne Gearan, Associated Press Writer – Thu May 28, 5:46 pm ET

http://search.japantimes.co.jp/cgi-bin/nn20090528a1.html
Thursday, May 28, 2009
N. Korea threatens retaliation if ships inspected

http://snipurl.com/iw5xn
North Korea Threatens Armed Strike, End to Armistice: May 27, 2009

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1088606.html
Russia fears North Korea conflict could turn nuclear:
May 27, 2009

http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/07/14/1058034939261.html
In Case You Missed It: US war plan to topple Kim Jong-il:
July 15, 2003

http://informationclearinghouse.info/article22709.htm
Israel's Nuclear Hysteria Contrasts with Korean Calm
By Gwynne Dyer on May 26, 2009

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2009/may/25/north-korea-hiroshima-nuclear-test
North Korea tests nuclear weapon 'as powerful as Hiroshima bomb'

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98D52C80&show_article=1
U.S. notified of nuke test by N. Korea in advance: S. Korea+
May 25 03:05 AM US/Eastern

http://english.aljazeera.net//news/asia-pacific/2009/05/2009526593617943.html
N Korea troops 'ready for battle'
North Korea has tied the build-up of its 'nuclear deterrent' to what it calls "hostile" US policies [AFP]

http://www.news.com.au/story/0,27574,25539891-38197,00.html
South Korea joins US anti-nuke club
From correspondents in Seoul, South Korea
Agence France-Presse, May 26, 2009 11:10am

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601101&sid=aVoR7GOucg_k&refer=japan
Japan Should Consider Pre-emptive Strikes, LDP Lawmaker Says
By Sachiko Sakamaki and Takashi Hirokawa, May 26 (Bloomberg)