North Korea: What to do?

Oh, there are lots of tin hat wearing folks out there who could (and probably will) make such assertions.

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Probably worth some economic consideration in a trade deal, don't you think?

Sure, especially on the heels of an attack from the north. Do you think the timing of the agreement after being in a "stalemate" is pure coincidence? I don't.

Neither do I, after all we have an administration in the White House that believes a good crisis should never be wasted.

Of course the NK attack resulted in a reassessment of negotiation strategy as respects the trade deal, but it is just as likely that, having received a reminder of how unpredictible and dangerous their northern cousins can be, the South Koreans decided it beneficial to become more flexible as it is that the US decided it was opportune to become more demanding.

I have no problem with any of this. Both governments are pursuing individual and mutual interests in a manner that is intended to achieve the most favorable result possible for their respective nations.

Quote:

I suppose one could take the position that it is the duty of the US to provide military support to all the free nations on earth, but not many do, and if it isn't our duty to provide them with the support they desire why should we not expect some measure of quid pro quo?

I certainly don't take such a position, but I think we could be a little more forthcoming in our motives.

How so?

Just because we don't defend the Free World as a duty born of God and Western Civilization, doesn't mean we do it for purely mercenary reasons either. Do you really think that our military is for sale, and that the South Koreans just purchased it? If so, our motives aren't our problem, our pricing structure is.

If almost no one believes that US military support is devoid of self-interest, what difference does it make if some do; based on public statements made by government officials?

How has the US been dishonest about its military support of South Korea?

Quote:

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen (yet) assertions that somehow the US intentially instigated the NK attack in order to soften the South Koreans up on this trade deal.

You won't hear them from me, but we aren't above making hay from the unfortunate circumstances of others.

I think you will agree that there is quite a difference between creating dangerous circumstances for our advantage and taking advantage of the opportunities provided by dangerous circumstances.

But again, if you don't believe we should be defending South Korea for purely altruistic reasons, why the displeasure with our acting in a way of which you certainly expect, if not approve?

In any case, the trade deal with South Korea isn't predatory. South Korea will still benefit...just not as much if the deal had been cut before the NK attack. Surely you don't believe this is the best deal we could have cut if it was even hinted that we might otherwise pull our forces out of SK.

doesn't mean we do it for purely mercenary reasons either. Do you really think that our military is for sale,

Smedley Darlington Butler (July 30, 1881 – June 21, 1940), nicknamed "The Fighting Quaker" and "Old Gimlet Eye", was a Major General in the U.S. Marine Corps, and at the time of his death the most decorated Marine in U.S. history.

...

I spent 33 years and four months in active military service and during that period I spent most of my time as a high class thug for Big Business, for Wall Street and the bankers. In short, I was a racketeer, a gangster for capitalism. I helped make Mexico and especially Tampico safe for American oil interests in 1914.

I helped make Haiti and Cuba a decent place for the National City Bank boys to collect revenues in. I helped in the raping of half a dozen Central American republics for the benefit of Wall Street. I helped purify Nicaragua for the International Banking House of Brown Brothers in 1902–1912. I brought light to the Dominican Republic for the American sugar interests in 1916. I helped make Honduras right for the American fruit companies in 1903. In China in 1927 I helped see to it that Standard Oil went on its way unmolested.

Looking back on it, I might have given Al Capone a few hints. The best he could do was to operate his racket in three districts. I operated on three continents.[12]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smedley_Butler

Just because we don't defend the Free World as a duty born of God and Western Civilization, doesn't mean we do it for purely mercenary reasons either. Do you really think that our military is for sale,

Defense or Offense?

It is commonly supposed that our armed forces are entirely defensive in nature, that they have nothing to do with the making of war or the creating of situations that lead to war. The General Staff states publicly, that the military organization "is founded on the principle that we oust be unready for aggressive war, yet fully capable of defending ourselves... To be defensive in motive, as we intend to be, a nation must surrender all thought of initiative."

If this statement was a fact and effectively translated into reality, there would be little cause for concern. But close examination reveals that it is just another publicity release from that military sap factory known as the War Department.

Training Regulations No. 10-5 of the War Department contain the official "Doctrine of War," for the United States. Section II, paragraph 2, says "Decision to go to war having been made, operations will be carried into hostile territory... the primary objective will be the destruction d (the enemy's) armed forces, and this demands that the strategical and tactical offensive be taken and maintained until a decision is reached." Section V, paragraph 6, says "the object to be attained by (military) training is to enable the Army to wage offensive warfare, While training must cover certain phases of defensive doctrine and police doctrine the Army must definitely understand hat these are only means to the definite end -- offensive warfare -- and every individual in the military service must be imbued with the spirit of the offensive."

Our Ideal Never Defensive

Lest this seem to be the bellicose pipedream of some dyspeptic desk soldier, let us remember that the military deal of our country has never been defensive warfare. Since the Revolution, only the United Kingdom has beaten our record for square miles of territory acquired by military conquest. Our exploits against the American Indian, against the Filipinos, the Mexicans, and against Spain are on a par with the campaigns of Genghis Khan, the Japanese in Manchuria and the African attack of Mussolini. No country has ever declared war on us before we first obliged them with that gesture. Our whole history shows we have never fought a defensive war. And at the rate our armed forces are being implemented at present, the odds are against our fighting one in the near future.

The War Plans Section spends all its time creating blue-prints for the "defense" of this country. This means, f course, vast schemes for foreign invasion and offensive war. The personnel of this division are those whose hides will never be scratched should hostilities occur. Consequently they can devise plans of whatever magnitude they fancy, and against any momentary "enemy." Nothing troubles them; and, as we shall soon see, such a detail as how their next war is going to be paid for is not even considered.

Lloyd's odds on the United States being invaded by a foreign power are 500 to 1 against it. Only the most powerful of coalitions could dream of it -- and unless Great Britain were the spearhead of that coalition even the dream would be a waste of time. Without England's navy, merchant marine and her resources of rubber, nickel, coal and oil, a world coalition would make a hell of a showing! Of course they might capture Guam, Wake Island and even perhaps Hawaii and the Panama Canal. But what serious threat from any quarter can be foreseen on even the most distant horizon?

No. Devising plans for the "defense" of our country, maintaining an army to fulfill those plans and preaching a "defensive doctrine" resolves itself into military hogwash. Actually our armed forces have up to date plans for offensive warfare against almost every country on the globe -- all in the sacred name of "national defense." Should some affront be given to our national honor by Japan, say, there is a plan ready to be put in operation against the Japanese. Should the French run all the Americans out of Paris and say "Lafayette, we are here," a different plan would be pulled from its pigeon hole and we could proceed against the French. And the same for almost any nation you might care to name,

See,

The USA - Two Centuries of Aggressive, Rapacious Warfare

http://able2know.org/topic/164913-1

The cost-sharing contribution is the cost South Korea pays to support the costs of stationing USFK in South Korea. This year it amounted to 790.4 billion Won, in 2009 it was 760.0 billion Won, and in 2008 it was 741.5 billion Won.

JPB wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Probably worth some economic consideration in a trade deal, don't you think?

Sure, especially on the heels of an attack from the north. Do you think the timing of the agreement after being in a "stalemate" is pure coincidence? I don't.

Neither do I, after all we have an administration in the White House that believes a good crisis should never be wasted.
How is this different from any other administration?

Of course the NK attack resulted in a reassessment of negotiation strategy as respects the trade deal, but it is just as likely that, having received a reminder of how unpredictible and dangerous their northern cousins can be, the South Koreans decided it beneficial to become more flexible as it is that the US decided it was opportune to become more demanding.
Right.... Sure... <sarcasm>.

I have no problem with any of this. Both governments are pursuing individual and mutual interests in a manner that is intended to achieve the most favorable result possible for their respective nations.
I don't have any problem with it either so long as both nations are putting their cards on the public card table and we ALL get to play the game, if that's all it is.

Quote:

I suppose one could take the position that it is the duty of the US to provide military support to all the free nations on earth, but not many do, and if it isn't our duty to provide them with the support they desire why should we not expect some measure of quid pro quo?

I certainly don't take such a position, but I think we could be a little more forthcoming in our motives.

How so?

Just because we don't defend the Free World as a duty born of God and Western Civilization, doesn't mean we do it for purely mercenary reasons either. Or course. Nothing is black and white. Just look at how many different colors one conversation requires!Do you really think that our military is for sale,yes and that the South Koreans just purchased it? yes If so, our motives aren't our problem, our pricing structure is. No, I think our memories are our problem and we're still trying to pretend we're in a Cold War that requires proxy wars.

If almost no one believes that US military support is devoid of self-interest, what difference does it make if some do; based on public statements made by government officials? You've lost me. Almost no one believes what? and if some do, huh?

How has the US been dishonest about its military support of South Korea?I don't know that it has. I suspect that there's more to these negotiations than I can read on msnbc and I'd rather not have to depend on wikileaks for data.

Quote:

Frankly, I'm surprised we haven't seen (yet) assertions that somehow the US intentially instigated the NK attack in order to soften the South Koreans up on this trade deal.

You won't hear them from me, but we aren't above making hay from the unfortunate circumstances of others.

I think you will agree that there is quite a difference between creating dangerous circumstances for our advantage and taking advantage of the opportunities provided by dangerous circumstances.

But again, if you don't believe we should be defending South Korea for purely altruistic reasons, why the displeasure with our acting in a way of which you certainly expect, if not approve?Pretense. I abhor pretense.

In any case, the trade deal with South Korea isn't predatory. South Korea will still benefit...just not as much if the deal had been cut before the NK attack. Surely you don't believe this is the best deal we could have cut if it was even hinted that we might otherwise pull our forces out of SK.

Sept. 26, 2008 cable from the U.S. Consulate in Shanghai disclosed by WikiLeaks, a North Korea expert in Shanghai announced this in a meeting about the six-party nuclear talks with Christopher Beede, the political and economic chief at the consulate.

S.Korea Paid Astronomical Sums to N.Korea
South Korea gave North Korea an astronomical US$2.98 billion during the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations from 1998-2008, according to a government tally announced Thursday. That is 1.5 times more than the amount of aid China gave to North Korea over the same period, which totaled $1.9 billion.

The government and private businesses gave North Korea $1.84 billion through commercial trade, $544.23 million for package tours to the Mt. Kumgang resort, $450 million for an inter-Korean summit, $41.31 million in land use fees and wages for North Korean workers at the Kaesong Industrial Complex and $30.03 million as part of various social and cultural exchanges, according to internal documents of the Unification Ministry and other government agencies.

◆ Funds to Develop Nuclear Weapons

"North Korea is believed to have spent $500-600 million to develop long-range missiles and $800-900 million to develop nuclear weapons," a South Korean government source said. "And the cash provided by South Korea could have been used to develop them."

Former government officials during the previous administrations deny this. Lee Jae-joung, a former unification minister, said in a lecture in July last year, "It's frustrating to hear claims that North Korea conducted nuclear tests using money that the Kim Dae-jung and Roh Moo-hyun administrations gave. So far the government offered cash to North Korea only once."

He claims that the government was not responsible for paying North Korea $450 million for the first inter-Korean summit in 2000 as that was provided by private businesses together with the cash for the Mt. Kumgang package tours and the Kaesong Industrial Complex.

However, the whereabouts of the cash payment of $400,000 Lee admits to is also uncertain. That was the money North Korea demanded in April 2007 to build a video-link center for the reunions of families separated by the Korean War. North Korea has yet to start construction. "I think they just extorted the money," a South Korean government official said.

◆ Hungry for Cash

"North Korea demanded money for every event," said one Unification Ministry official who was in charge of humanitarian cooperation projects during the Roh administration. "We got the feeling that North Korea was trying to use the reunions of families separated by the Korean War as a means to make money." The North even demanded that South Korea pay $1,000 for each video clip exchanged by families in addition to all of the filming and editing equipment as part of a project back in 2007 that would allow some separated families to stay in touch via video messages, the official said.

A National Assembly audit in 2006 revealed how North Korea made money off South Korean broadcasters. A key example is the W1 billion (US$1=W1,149) that state-run South Korean broadcaster KBS gave North Korea in 2003 to record a TV show about a singing contest in Pyongyang to mark Liberation Day.

In 2005, SBS gave W700 million in cash and W200 million worth of paint and other goods to North Korea for a concert in the North Korean capital by South Korean singer Cho Yong-pil, while in 2002, MBC paid the North W320 million in cash and provided 5,000 TV sets (worth W734 million) for two concerts in Pyongyang by South Korean singers Lee Mi-ja and Yoon Do-hyun.

North Korea also received sizable amounts from South Korean businesses and civic groups through unofficial channels or backroom deals. "Many business owners in the South had problems managing their companies because North Korea habitually made excessive demands for money," said Cho Bong-hyun, a researcher at the Industrial Bank of Korea's economic research center

This suggests that a considerable amount of bribes were paid. One South Korean owner of a garment company that was based in Pyongyang said, "Bribes South Korean businesses paid in the early stages to prevent any problems later became customary. After North Korean officials got a taste of the money, they ended up asking for bribes first."

A Unification Ministry official said, "It's impossible to estimate how much money was given to North Korea through unofficial channels. We can't even trace the use of official government money given to North Korea, such as the $400,000 for building a video-link center for the family reunions, so there is no way of telling what happened to money handed over under the table."
[email protected] / Dec. 03, 2010 13:32 KST

Appeasement on the part of SK didn't work. Li'l Kimmy kept right on workin' on them ol' nukes whilst accepting buttloads of money and humanitarian aid for not doing so.

And this party was responsible for the deaths of 30% of North Korea.

The Vietnamese were in it to the last man.

Division of Korea
Main article: Division of Korea
In August 1945, the Soviet Army established a Soviet Civil Authority to rule the country until a domestic regime, friendly to the USSR, could be established. The country was governed by the Provisional People's Committee for North Korea through 1948. After the Soviet forces' departure in 1948, the main agenda in the following years was unification of Korea from both sides until the consolidation of Syngman Rhee regime in the South with American military support and the suppression of the October 1948 insurrection ended hopes that the country could be reunified by way of Communist revolution in the South. In 1949, a military intervention into South Korea was considered by Kim Il-sung, but failed to receive support from the Soviet Union, which had played a key role in the establishment of the country.[29]

Toward the end of World War II, as per a US-Soviet agreement, the USSR declared war against Japan on 9 August 1945.[41][44] By 10 August, the Red Army occupied the northern part of the Korean peninsula as agreed, and on 26 August halted at the 38th parallel for three weeks to await the arrival of US forces in the south.[38]:25[38]:24

On 10 August 1945, with the 15 August Japanese surrender near, the Americans doubted whether the Soviets would honor their part of the Joint Commission, the US-sponsored Korean occupation agreement. A month earlier, Colonel Dean Rusk and Colonel Charles H. Bonesteel III divided the Korean peninsula at the 38th parallel after hurriedly deciding (in thirty minutes) that the US Korean Zone of Occupation had to have a minimum of two ports.[45][46][47][48][49]

Explaining why the occupation zone demarcation was positioned at the 38th parallel, Rusk observed, "even though it was further north than could be realistically reached by US forces, in the event of Soviet disagreement ... we felt it important to include the capital of Korea in the area of responsibility of American troops", especially when "faced with the scarcity of US forces immediately available, and time and space factors, which would make it difficult to reach very far north, before Soviet troops could enter the area."[43] The Soviets agreed to the US occupation zone demarcation to improve their negotiating position regarding the occupation zones in Eastern Europe, and because each would accept Japanese surrender where they stood.[38]:25

On Saturday, 24 June 1950, US Secretary of State Dean Acheson informed President Truman by telephone, "Mr. President, I have very serious news. The North Koreans have invaded South Korea."[82][83] Truman and Acheson discussed a US invasion response with defense department principals, who agreed that the United States was obligated to repel military aggression, paralleling it with Adolf Hitler's 1930s aggressions, and said that the mistake of appeasement must not be repeated.[84] In his autobiography, President Truman acknowledged that fighting the invasion was essential to the American goal of the global containment of communism as outlined in the National Security Council Report 68 (NSC-68) (declassified in 1975):

"Communism was acting in Korea, just as Hitler, Mussolini and the Japanese had ten, fifteen, and twenty years earlier. I felt certain that if South Korea was allowed to fall Communist leaders would be emboldened to override nations closer to our own shores. If the Communists were permitted to force their way into the Republic of Korea without opposition from the free world, no small nation would have the courage to resist threat and aggression by stronger Communist neighbors."[85]

The withdrawal of most United States forces from the South in June dramatically weakened the Southern regime and encouraged Kim Il-sung to re-think an invasion plan against the South.[29] The idea itself was first rejected by Joseph Stalin but with the development of Soviet nuclear weapons, Mao Zedong's victory in China and the Chinese indication that it would send troops and other support to North Korea, Stalin approved an invasion which led to the Korean War.[30]

N.Korea 'Fattens Up' People for Family Reunions

North Korea "fattened up" people selected for reunions of families separated by the Korean War with regular meals and vitamins, Ser Spiegel reported Wednesday quoting a U.S. diplomatic cable disclosed by WikiLeaks.

The U.S. Embassy in Seoul filed a report on the reunions in August 2009 that said North Koreans are selected for the reunions based on their loyalty to the state and "transported to Pyongyang and then fattened up with regular meals and vitamins to mask the extent of food shortages and chronic malnutrition in the North."

The same report recounts the experience of a South Korean delegation to the North, who were reportedly asked to provide a "gift" and required to pay "US$50 per person" themselves for a banquet arranged for them.

Another cable, filed by the U.S. Consulate General in the northeastern Chinese city of Shenyang in 2009, touched on North Korean leader Kim Jong-il. According to the dispatch, one businesswoman, who is powerful enough not to fear the North Koreans, met Kim Jong-il at his guest villa on Mt. Myohyang, where she found the dictator "in good health and spirits." She said she got the impression that Kim, "detail-oriented, charismatic and with a good memory," was in control of everything.

Kim, thought to be seriously ill, seems not to be following doctors' orders and concerned about his health at all," the cable said. He "lit a cigarette as soon as the formal one-hour meeting ended, drank champagne before dinner, whiskey cocktails during the meal, and continued to chain-smoke throughout the private dinner."

It added the businesswoman recalled Kim's mistress, "Kim Ok, sitting on a separate sofa and taking notes."
[email protected] / Dec. 03, 2010 11:51 KST

Did you know North Vietnam committed war crimes?