25 million workers and people in N.Korea suffer - Is these sanctions anti- Human rights?

Workers and the ordinary people of North Korea will be seriously affected by the the recent UN, US and other sanctions being imposed on North Korea. Is starving the 25 million over population of the North Korea consistent with Human Rights?

When textile exports ar banned, for example, this will result in loss of jobs and income for people involved in this industry...Sanctions now ban sanctions the export of COAL, SEAFOOD, export of gold, vanadium, titanium, iron, rare earth metals  copper, nickel, zinc, and silver...the number of migrant workers have also been restricted and the amount that they could remit back to their families is also limited.. See earlier post:- North Korea - South Korea > Time to re-assess UN and other nation state responses?

The alleged reasons of this pressure on North Korea is about what?

- North Korea development of rocket/missile technology ..and testing [Well, so many countries in the world are doing this and even carrying out tests...Of late, the US, India and many countries have also carried out tests...

- North Korea development of nuclear technology - well, the present position of the powers that already have and still are developing this technology is that no other country (especially countries that are not 'friendly' or 'allies' or 'under their influence' should not be developing such technology...The agreement which was meant to bring about the destruction of nuclear weapons have failed ...in fact, there have been alleged violations, when 'friends' and 'allies' of these orginal nuclear powers have also got them now...[Recall also that...

Does Trump know anything about the history of the current crisis?  Does he know that North Korea agreed to end its nuclear weapons program in 1994 if the US met its modest demands?  Does he know that the US agreed to those terms but then failed to hold up its end of the bargain?   Does he know that the North honored its commitments under the agreement but eventually got tired of being double-crossed by the US so they resumed their plutonium enrichment program?  Does he know that that’s why the North has nuclear weapons today, because the United States broke its word and scotched the agreement? - see news report below

 DETERENCE - Many nations believe that that is the best Defence...

- Well, there are also other historical reasons for the US/UN war with North Korea never really came to an end - it ended with a 'ceasefire' agreement only...

When the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953, talks had already dragged on for two years,ensnared in testy issues such as the exchange of prisoners of war and the location of a demarcation line....Military commanders from China and North Korea signed the agreement on one side, with the US-led United Nations Command signing on behalf of the international community. South Korea was not a signatory. - see news report below

YES - the Korean War was an embarrassing movement in the UN history - when UN joined US in the war against North Korea, after North Korea almost won ... Interestingly, South Korea was not part of this ceasefire agreement, signed between North Korea and China on one side, and the US and UN on the other side. [So, is this really a North Korea -vs - US war, rather that a war between North Korea and South Korea. Recent media reports see threats thrown between US and North Korea ...South Korea has really been rather silent.

US, of late, have been flexing its muscle...and recent targets have been Iran, North Korea and even Venezuela...previously it was Latin American Countries, Cuba, Iraq, Libya... 

Compared to what was done to Israel - in terms of sanctions, etc by the UN? Violations of rights of the people of Palestine is ongoing ..

Of interest is also the fact what is happening to the nations of the Non-Alligned Movement(NAM), of which Malaysia is also a part of...so is North Korea?

Of interest also is the way Russia, China and many other nations are apparently caving in to pressure exerted by the US in particular - are we seeing the emergent of global community dominated by just one super-power, who not only has nuclear arms but has also shown that it will take action even fire missiles at other countries, without even waiting for UN approval... Is this new development something that nations of the world need to be concerned about...Even PM Najib of Malaysia went out of his way to allegedly show that we also support the US? 

The concern now is the people and the workers of North Korea ...the impact of UN and Malaysia on the livelihood of these about 25 million people...?

ARE WE GETTING THE FULL PICTURE FROM MEDIA AGENCIES - OR IS IT 'FAKE NEWS' - for fake news is also giving just one side of the story, and not the other side...is it not?

US President's recent UN speech really did not help matters ...and for him, it seems the lives of others do not matter, just the lives of America. The fact that compensations were only given to 2 European victims of drone attacks but not others is also disturbing...

“There is a difference in how Western civilians are treated versus non-Western civilians,” Moorehead said. “Of all the civilians who have been killed in these strikes, only the two Westerners who were killed in a 2016 strike have ever received any formal acknowledgement, apology, and compensation from the government.” - Drone/Missile victims - no remedy in US Courts?

 

September 18, 2017

Starve Them to Death: Wall Street Journal’s Solution to North Korea

by Mike Whitney

Photo by Jennifer Feuchter | CC BY 2.0

The editors at the Wall Street Journal have settled on a plan for ending the crisis in North Korea. Starve them to death.

I’m not kidding.  In an article titled “Options for Removing Kim Jong In” the WSJ’s editorial board suggests that the US use “all of its tools to topple the North Korean regime” including, of course,  vital food imports which keep women and children from facing an agonizing death by starvation. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The North is especially vulnerable to pressure this year because a severe drought from April to June reduced the early grain harvest by 30%. If the main harvest is also affected, Pyongyang may need to import more food while sanctions restrict its ability to earn foreign currency….

While the regime survived a severe famine in the 1990s, today the political consequences of a failed harvest would be severe. …. The army was once the most desirable career path; now soldiers are underpaid and underfed. North Koreans will not simply accept starvation as they did two decades ago.

Withholding food aid to bring down a government would normally be unethical, but North Korea is an exceptional case. Past aid proved to be a mistake as it perpetuated one of the most evil regimes in history. The U.N. says some 40% of the population is undernourished, even as the Kims continue to spend huge sums on weapons. Ending the North Korean state as quickly as possible is the most humane course.”
(“Options for Removing Kim Jong In”, Wall Street Journal)

“Humane”?  The WSJ editors think that depriving people of enough food to stay alive is humane?

And look how cheery they sound about the fact that “40% of the population is (already) undernourished”, as if they’re already halfway towards their goal. Hurrah for the US embargo, still inflicting misery on innocent people some 6 decades after the war!

It’s sick!

Who are these people who grow up in our midst, attend our schools and universities, live in the same neighborhoods , and go to the same churches? Where do these monsters come from?

I’m reminded of what Harold Pinter said in his Nobel acceptance speech:

“What has happened to our moral sensibility? Did we ever have any? What do these words mean? Do they refer to a term very rarely employed these days – conscience? A conscience to do not only with our own acts but to do with our shared responsibility in the acts of others? Is all this dead?”

It’s sure as hell is dead at the WSJ, that’s for sure. Dead as a doornail.

And what is starvation supposed to achieve anyway? What’s the ultimate objective?

Why regime change, of course, isn’t that what it’s always about, installing a more compliant stooge to  follow Washington’s diktats?

Of course it is. But how’s it supposed to work, after all, depriving people of food isn’t like giving them guns and training them to topple the regime, is it?

No, it’s not, in fact, there’s not even the remotest chance that the plan will work at all. None. But it will help to punish the Korean people for the behavior of their government. It will do that.  And it will generate more suffering, unhappiness and misery. That much is certain.

Imagine if the shoe was on the other foot and North Korea had the power cut vital food supplies to people in the United States. Sure, it’s far fetched, but just think about it for a minute. How would you react? Would you gather your neighbors and friends together to concoct a plan to overthrow the government?

The idea is ridiculous, isn’t it? The editors at the WSJ know that. These are educated, intelligent men who understand how the world works and who know the impact of particular policies. They know that starvation isn’t going to lead to revolution.  That’s just not going to happen.

Then why support a policy that won’t work?

Good question, but that’s where we have to veer into a very gray area of analysis, that is, trying to understand why some people are so morally malignant that they seem to enjoy inflicting pain on others. Why is that? Why are there so many cruel people in positions of power and authority?

It’s a mystery. - Counterpunch, 18/9/2017

Why Trump Won’t Start a War With North Korea

by Mike Whitney 

Donald Trump isn’t going to start a war with North Korea. That’s just not going to happen.
Not only does the United States not have the ground forces for such a massive operation but, more important, a war with the North would serve no strategic purpose at all. The US already has the arrangement it wants on the Peninsula. The South remains under US military occupation, the economic and banking systems have been successfully integrated into the US-dominated western system, and the strategically-located landmass in northeast Asia provides an essential platform for critical weapons systems that will be used to encircle and control fast-emerging rivals, China and Russia.

So what would a war accomplish?

Nothing. As far as Washington is concerned, the status quo is just dandy.

And, yes, I realize that many people think Trump is calling the shots and that he is an impulsive amateur who might do something erratic that would trigger a nuclear conflagration with the North.

That could happen, but I think the possibility is extremely remote. As you might have noticed, Trump has effectively handed over foreign policy to his generals, and those generals are closely aligned to powerful members of the foreign policy establishment who are using Trump’s reputation as a loose cannon to great effect. For example, by ratchetting up the rhetoric, (“fire and fury”, “locked and loaded”, etc) Trump has managed to stifle some of the public opposition to the deployment of the THAAD missile system which features “powerful AN/TPY-2 radar, that can be used to spy on Chinese territory, and the interceptors are designed to protect US bases and troops in the event of nuclear war with China or Russia.”

THAAD is clearly not aimed at North Korea which is small potatoes as far as Washington is concerned. It’s an essential part of the military buildup the US is stealthily carrying out to implement its “pivot to Asia” strategy.

Trump’s belligerence has also prompted a response from the North which has accelerated it ballistic missile and nuclear weapons testing.  The North’s reaction has stirred up traditional antagonisms which has helped to undermine the conciliatory efforts of  liberal President Moon Jae-in. At the same time, the North’s behavior has strengthened far-right groups that –among other things– want to deploy tactical nuclear weapons in the South. By playing to the right wing and exacerbating hostilities between North and South, Trump has helped to fend off efforts to reunify the country while creating a justification for continued US military occupation. In other words.

The crisis has clearly tightened Washington’s grip on the peninsula while advancing the interests of America’s elite powerbrokers. I seriously doubt that Trump conjured up this plan by himself. This is the work of his deep state handlers who have figured out how to use his mercurial personality to their advantage.

A Word About North Korea’s Nukes

Leaders in North Korea don’t want to blow their money on nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles when their people are on the brink of starvation. But what choice do they have? The primary responsibility of every government is to provide security for their people. That’s hard to do when the nation is still technically at war with a country that has toppled or tried to topple 50 sovereign governments in the last 70 years. The Korean War did not end with a treaty, it ended with an armistice which means the war is ongoing and could flare up at any time. And Washington won’t sign a treaty with the North because it despises their form of government, and is just waiting for the opportunity to force them from power. Trump is no different from most of his predecessors in this regard. He hates the leadership in Pyongyang and makes no bones about it.

Bottom line: The US refuses to provide the North with any written guarantees that it won’t resume hostilities, kill its people and blow their cities to smithereens. So, naturally, the North has taken steps to defend itself. And, yes, Kim Jong-in fully realizes that if he ever used his nukes in an act of aggression, the United States would –as Colin Powell breezily opined– “turn the North into a charcoal briquette.” But Kim is not going to use his nukes because he has no territorial ambitions nor does he have any driving desire to be subsumed into a fiery ball of ash.  His nukes are merely bargaining chits for future negotiations with Washington. The only problem is that Trump doesn’t  want to bargain because US geopolitical interests are better served by transforming a few pathetic missile tests into an Armageddon-type drama. No one knows how to exploit a crisis better than Washington.

Does Trump know anything about the history of the current crisis?  Does he know that North Korea agreed to end its nuclear weapons program in 1994 if the US met its modest demands?  Does he know that the US agreed to those terms but then failed to hold up its end of the bargain?   Does he know that the North honored its commitments under the agreement but eventually got tired of being double-crossed by the US so they resumed their plutonium enrichment program?  Does he know that that’s why the North has nuclear weapons today, because the United States broke its word and scotched the agreement?

That’s not conjecture. That’s history.

Here’s a clip from an article in the Independent that provides a brief outline of the so called  Framework Agreement:

“Under the terms of the 1994 framework, North Korea agreed to freeze and ultimately dismantle its nuclear programme in exchange for “the full normalisation of political and economic relations with the United States”. This meant four things:

By 2003, a US-led consortium would build two light-water nuclear reactors in North Korea to compensate for the loss of nuclear power.

Until then, the US would supply the north with 500,000 tons per year of heavy fuel.
The US would lift sanctions, remove North Korea from its list of state sponsors of terrorism, and – perhaps most importantly – normalise the political relationship, which is still subject to the terms of the 1953 Korean War armistice.

Finally, both sides would provide “formal assurances” against the threat or use of nuclear weapons.” (“Why America’s 1994 deal with North Korea failed – and what Trump can learn from it”, The Independent)

It was a totally straightforward agreement that met the requirements of both parties. The North got a few economic perks along with the security assurances they desperately wanted and, in return, the US got to monitor any and all nuclear sites, thus, preventing the development of weapons of mass destruction.  Everyone got exactly what they wanted, right? There was only one glitch: The US started foot-dragging from Day 1. The lightwater reactors never got beyond the foundation stage and the heavy fuel deliveries got more and more infrequent. In contrast, the North Koreans stuck religiously to the letter of the agreement. They did everything that was expected of them and more. In fact, according to the same article, four years after the agreement went into effect:

 “both the US and the international atomic energy agency were satisfied that there had been ‘no fundamental violation of any aspect of the framework agreement’ by North Korea. But on its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through.” (Independent)

There you have it: The North kept its word, but the US didn’t. It’s that simple.

This is an important point given the fact that the media typically mischaracterizes what actually took place and who should be held responsible. The onus does not fall on Pyongyang, it falls on Washington. Here’s more from the same article:

“On its own pledges, Washington failed to follow through. The light-water reactors were never built. …Heavy fuel shipments were often delayed….North Korea was not removed from the state department’s list of state sponsors of terrorism until 2008, though it had long met the criteria for removal….Most importantly, no action was taken to formally end the Korean War – which was never technically ended – by replacing the 1953 ceasefire with a peace treaty. The “formal assurances” that the US would not attack North Korea were not provided until six years after the framework was signed.”  (Independent)

When Bush was elected in 2000,  things got much worse. The North was included in Bush’s the Axis of Evil speech, it was also listed as  a “rogue regime against which the US should be prepared to use force”, and the Pentagon stepped up its joint-military drills in the South which just added more gas to the fire. Eventually, Bush abandoned the agreement altogether and the North went back to building nukes.

Then came Obama who wasn’t much better than Bush, except for the public relations, of course.  As Tim Shorrock points out in his excellent article at The Nation,  Obama sabotaged the Six-Party Talks, suspended energy assistance to pressure the North to accept harsher “verification plans”,  “abandoned the idea of direct talks” with Pyongyang, and “embarked on a series of military exercises with South Korea that increased in size and tempo over the course of his administration and are now at the heart of the tension with Kim Jong-un.”

So although Obama was able to conceal his cruelty and aggression behind the image of “peacemaker”, relations with the North continued to deteriorate and the situation got progressively worse.

Check out these brief excerpts from Shorrock’s article which help to provide a thumbnail sketch of what really happened and who is responsible:

“The Agreed Framework led North Korea to halt its plutonium-based nuclear-weapons program for over a decade, forgoing enough enrichment to make over 100 nuclear bombs. “What people don’t know is that North Korea made no fissile material whatsoever from 1991 to 2003.”

“…the framework remained in effect well into the Bush administration. In 1998, the State Department’s Rust Deming testified to Congress that  “there is no fundamental violation of any aspect of the framework agreement.”

“…Pyongyang was prepared to shut down its development, testing, and deployment of all medium- and long-range missiles.”

“By 1997…the North Koreans were complaining bitterly that the United States was slow to deliver its promised oil and stalling on its pledge to end its hostile policies…”

“It was against this backdrop—Pyongyang’s growing conviction the US was not living up to its commitments—that the North in 1998 began to explore” other military options.”

“Bush tore up the framework agreement, exacerbating the deterioration in relations he had sparked a year earlier when he named North Korea part of his “axis of evil” in January 2002. In response, the North kicked out the IAEA inspectors and began building what would become its first bomb, in 2006, triggering a second nuclear crisis that continues to this day.”  (“Diplomacy With North Korea Has Worked Before, and Can Work Again”, Tim Shorrock, The Nation)

Now the North has hydrogen bombs and Washington is still playing its stupid games. This whole fake crisis is a big smokescreen designed to conceal Washington’s imperial machinations. Trump is using Kim’s missile tests as a pretext to extend the Pentagon’s military tentacles deeper into Asia so the US can assume a dominant role in the world’s fastest growing region. It’s the same game Washington has been playing for the last hundred years.  Unfortunately, they’re pretty good at it.

 

 

North Korea sanctions: UN security council unanimously agrees new measures

Ban on the country’s textile exports and capping imports of crude oil comes after US watered down initial tougher version to avoid veto by China

Julian Borger in Washington

Monday 11 September 2017 23.48 BST Last modified on Wednesday 13 September 2017 15.44 BST

The UN security council has unanimously ratcheted up sanctions on North Korea, imposing a ban on the country’s textile exports and a ceiling on the country’s imports of crude oil.

The vote for the sanctions, the ninth package of measures imposed by the UN Security Council on Pyongyang since 2006 for its nuclear and missile tests, came as a relief to US diplomats who had feared a Chinese abstention, which would have considerably blunted the impact of the new sanctions.

In late night negotiations on Sunday, the US considerably diluted its initial draft sanctions resolution, which would have imposed a complete oil embargo and a partial naval blockade, in an effort to win support from China and Russia.

North Korea sanctions: US drops oil embargo and naval blockade proposals

The final resolution adopted by the security council on Monday imposed a ban on oil condensates exports to the regime, capped refined petroleum exports at 2m barrels a year – cutting existing export levels by half – and maintaining international exports of crude oil to North Korea at existing levels, about 4m barrels a year. China supplies most of North Korea’s crude.

Western diplomats portrayed the Monday night vote as a win for international unity in the face of North Korean intransigence and provocations, and pointed out that it represented the toughest sanctions regime imposed on the regime to date. 

“We are facing not a regional but a global threat, not a virtual but an immediate threat, not a serious but an existential threat,” Francois Delattre, the French envoy to the UN said after the vote. “This threat is what unites us in the security council and, I hope, what will bring us towards unity when it comes to the vote and hopefully beyond.”

The US mission to the UN put out a statement saying the sanctions were the strongest ever imposed on North Korea.

“This resolution reduces about 30% of oil provided to North Korea by cutting off over 55% of refined petroleum products going to North Korea,” the statement said. “Combined with the previous Security Council resolutions, over 90% of North Korea’s publicly reported 2016 exports of $2.7bn are now banned (coal, textiles, iron, seafood), which does not include revenues from overseas workers.”

However, few diplomats or observers believed the punitive measures alone would force Kim Jong-un’s regime to stop its nuclear and missile tests. It test-fired two intercontinental ballistic missiles in July and carried out its sixth nuclear test, a powerful blast it said was the detonation of thermonuclear device, on 3 September. 

Textiles were North Korea’s second-biggest export after coal and other minerals in 2016, totaling $752m, according to data from the Korea Trade-Investment Promotion Agency. Nearly 80 percent of the textile exports went to China.

Nikki Haley, the US ambassador to the UN, said: “We are done trying to prod North Korea to do the right thing, we are now acting to stop it doing the wrong thing.”

However, she said the US was not looking for war with North Korea and that Pyongyang had not yet passed the point of no return.”

“If it agrees to stop its nuclear program, it can reclaim its future. If it proves it can live in peace, the world will live in peace with it,” she told the UN security council after the council adopted the new sanctions. 

“Today’s resolution would not have happened without the strong relationship that has developed between President Trump and Chinese President Xi,” Haley said.

The much stronger version proposed by the US last week, included the first asset freeze directed at Kim Jong-un, a complete ban on oil sales to his regime, and a mandate for warships from any member state to inspect ships suspected of carrying contraband to or from North Korea, and to enforce inspect using “all necessary measures”.

China’s UN ambassador Liu Jieyi called on North Korea to “take seriously the expectations and will of the international community” to halt its nuclear and ballistic missile development, and called on all parties to remain “cool-headed” and not stoke tensions. 

Liu said relevant parties should resume negotiations “sooner rather than later.” 

To kick-start talks, China and Russia have proposed a dual suspension of North Korea’s nuclear and ballistic missile testing as well as US and South Korean military exercises. 

“We think it’s a big mistake to underestimate this Russia, China initiative. It remains on the table at the Security Council and we will insist on it being considered,” Russian UN ambassador Vassily Nebenzia told the security council. 

The Pyongyang regime threatened retribution against Washington for any new sanctions measure threatening to inflict “the greatest pain and suffering” the US has ever encountered.

The UK ambassador to the UN, Matthew Rycroft, was asked why he thought the new sanctions would change North Korean behaviour considering the eight earlier resolutions had failed.

“First of all, these are significantly tougher sanctions. Secondly, you’re right that sanctions take time to have an impact, but it’s only over the last year or so that the Security Council has been sanctioning sectors of the economy,” Rycroft said. 

“And the textile sector is the final sector of the economy that is not until tonight subject to a ban on exports. So this is a very significant tightening up still further of the constraints on the North Korean regime.” - Guardian, 11//9/2017

 

The Korean War armistice

• 5 March 2015

The 1950-53 Korean War ended in an armistice, with neither side able to claim outright victory.

Decades on, the truce is still all that technically prevents North Korea and the US - along with its ally South Korea - resuming the war, as no peace treaty has ever been signed.

Both sides regularly accuse the other of violating the agreement, but the accusations have become more frequent as tensions rise over North Korea's nuclear programme.

When the armistice was signed on 27 July 1953, talks had already dragged on for two years,ensnared 

in testy issues such as the exchange of prisoners of war and the location of a demarcation line.

Military commanders from China and North Korea signed the agreement on one side, with the US-led United Nations Command signing on behalf of the international community. South Korea was not a signatory.

The armistice was only ever intended as a temporary measure.

The document, signed by US Lt Gen William K Harrison and his counterpart from the North's army, General Nam Il, said it was aimed at a ceasefire "until a final peaceful settlement is achieved".

However that settlement never came, and a conference in Geneva in 1954 which was designed to thrash out a formal peace accord ended without agreement.

Ceasefire

The armistice is still the only safeguard for peace on the Korean peninsula.

The agreement provided for:

• A suspension of open hostilities

• A fixed demarcation line with a 4km (2.4 miles) buffer zone - the so-called demilitarisation zone

• A mechanism for the transfer of prisoners of war

Both sides pledged not to "execute any hostile act within, from, or against the demilitarised zone", or enter areas under control of the other.

The agreement also called for the establishment of the Military Armistice Commission (MAC) and other agencies to ensure the truce held.

The MAC, which comprises members from both sides, still meets regularly in the truce village of Panmunjom.

Despite the relative peace since the war ended, tensions remain high between the two Koreas, and their border remains the most heavily militarised frontier in the world. - BBC, 2/3/2015