This is tangible evidence of US bad faith. It is well known that Kim Hyuk Chol, the DPRK representative at the working level negotiating with Stephen Biegun, was the former Ambassador of North Korea stationed at the Madrid embassy until he was ejected by Spain because of North Korean nuclear tests. Ostensibly, the recent CIA burglary of the embassy building in Spain, in violation of international law, was intended to obtain evidence or dirt of some kind to defame, blackmail or sanction Kim Hyuk Chol. In any case, he has been reported to be out of public sight in North Korea after the sudden failure of the negotiations in Hanoi, and his current status is unknown. More likely, the invasion of the embassy compound was to foreshadow the figurative mugging Kim Jong Un was about to receive in Hanoi and discourage negotiations.
It is ironic that in this situation, Stephen Biegun has the temerity to say, that he cannot trust Kim Hyuk Chol, who refused to respond to demands that North Korea give up all of it's nuclear weapons, resources and facilities, as if this was something that was in the cards or on the agenda for the Hanoi summit. To get Kim to the summit Biegun implied there was wiggle room or flexibility in the US approach to negotiations and that not everything need be achieved at once. Yet once at the summit, US demands included everything, in an all or nothing approach, that exceeded the parameters of the Singapore summit, with no offers of any sanctions relief of any kind for interim measures. For example, the US demanded that all weapons of mass destruction, (a pet phrase of the neo-con proponents of interminable middle east wars) including chemical and biological weapons, as part of the US demands that would require fulfillment in addition to the so called hek list or inventory of all nuclear weapons, enrichment facilities, missile sites, production facilities and so on. It was this all or nothing approach that previously caused the talks to falter last summer after the Singapore summit, when Pompeo made similar demands in Pyongyang and Kim Jong Un refused to meet with him or other US representatives for months.
This fundamental difference which is well understood by long term observers of the negotiations between the US "one bundle" or Libyan approach, and a simultaneously reciprocal step by step, phased trust building approach, favored by North Korea, has been the obstacle to negotiations all along. A retreat was required from the US all or nothing approach after Singapore which Stephen Biegun played out in working level talks, as evidenced by his presentation at Stanford before the Hanoi summit could even occur. Once, the North Koreans committed to meet at Hanoi, the US went back to the old playbook of all or nothing, give up everything in return for vague promises of future benefits and no sanctions relief of any kind in the interim. No one who knows anything about North Korea could have seriously thought this would work. It was a politically cowardly approach for a US administration that cannot stand up to domestic criticism of its North Korean initiatives by the intelligence establishment, the neo-cons, the press, the democratic opposition, and the military industrial complex of think tanks, and Congressional defense industry flunkies. One can be assured of one thing in US East Asian policy in a conflict situation- when there is a bipartisan consensus in the US on what US policy should be, it is invariably based upon grandiose delusions irrespective of realities on the ground. Such policies typically have the disastrous consequences we know so well- the so called loss of China, the "loss" of the first Korean conflict which resulted in war with China and an armistice rather than the expected military victory, the disaster in Vietnam, and finally this, the development of North Korea as a nuclear power.
A corollary of the all or nothing policy with no sanctions relief of any kind, is the US practice of dismissing President Moon Jae In of South Korea as someone who is out of step with US policy, a naive idealist, who doesn't understand the realities in North Korea. So it was reported in a South Korean Foreign Ministry information statement that US politicians had gone as far to say, in an ill considered play on words, that South Korea was "shooting for the Moon" in trying to get sanctions waivers for joint projects with North Korea such as the Kumgangsan tourist area or the Kaseong joint industrial area. This is an interesting framing of the current situation where the US, inspired by neo-cons, John Bolton and Mike Pompeo "shot for the moon" in their no notice, not on the agenda, all or nothing proposal, at Hanoi, which could be viewed as nothing other than a deliberate sabotage of negotiations, which is the trademark tactic of Mr. Bolton.
Bolton is now known in South Korea as the "Indian killing white cavalry general" who came to Hanoi to wreck the negotiations. The pitiful leadership and poor judgment of the Secretary of State and the President of the United States to facilitate this blunder can't be exaggerated. It's been said in the US media that there is an international consensus the right thing was done at Hanoi. This is grossly mistaken. Four of the original six parties in the six party talks don't agree. Japan is the only regional power that agrees. Their poor relationship with both Korean states doesn't inspire confidence.
Update:
Read the Yahoo rebuttal to the Madrid embassy breakin story. It wasn't very persuasive. In fact, until the exact identity of the assailants is disclosed and proves otherwise, I would be very skeptical that the attack wasn't related to a western intelligence agency. If the Asian attackers were in fact Koreans, northern defectors or South Koreans, the intelligence connection with the west is implied. The problem with the denial of CIA involvement is that Spanish investigators said they identified two of the assailants as CIA related and didn't find the denial persuasive. The argument about the US not needing the intelligence information from hardware such as computers and phones merely puts that factor in the plausible deniability category. Do something that looks sloppy, so we can say it is inconsistent with known operating practices. This kind of action is in the same category as "Free Chosun/the Chollima Civil Defense Group" declaring a provisional government of North Korea on February 28. The fake gun allegations remind one of the recent arrests of US armed actors in Haiti and the embarrassment that episode caused. Now there is a report alleging a Free Chosun connection to the February 22 breakin. See: https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-northkorea-dissidents/group-seeking-to-overthrow-kim-behind-north-korea-embassy-raid-in-spain-washington-post-idUKKCN1QW2ZN The idea that this group isn't related to US or allied intelligence is difficult to believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment